Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 June	30 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 speedily deleted by User:Sphilbrick under criterion G12. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kunga Phuntsok[edit]

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

Delete because it fails WP:NMUSIC. The single citation is to Phayul.com, which isn't a reliable source and not one to make a serious claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:49, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former Soviet Republics competitive record[edit]

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

Fails notability, verifiability, looks as an original research, provides information offensive to some people, unrelated categorization. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS, just an essentially indiscriminate collection of results. Fenix down (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a novelly-constructed gathering of statistics. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTSTATS and WP:OR. Giant Snowman 07:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate collection; delete per WP:NOTSTATS FeatherPluma (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy Wilson[edit]

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

Article on a footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY as has never played in a fully-professional league. Also fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage (all the references are mere mentions of her). Number 5 7 21:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although given her age I think she may be notable one day, 16 is young for that league so she'll probably play professionally. KaisaL (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Other AfDs concerning British female footballers provided some indication of an emerging desire to consider female players in non-FPL but still top flight divisions notable to correct perceived bias. Aside from the obvious issues with trying to apply this globally and the inherent bias that such a view would create against the men's game, these cannot be used as precedent here as the player in question has played only in the second tier. Fenix down (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; while I do favor the need to address systemic bias by inclusion of top-flight amateur or semi-pro teams, here, User:Fenix is correct that this individual has not even reached that level. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 09:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Montanabw. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley Systems[edit]

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

Examining this only found a company with a few hundred millions of revenue, several press releases, republished PR and other unsubstantial coverage (their own links are tossed about in the article also), my own searches, including at philly.com, then found the same, only trivial coverage mentions and PR. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding enough coverage to qualify an article per WP:CORPDEPTH. In various searches, sifting through and omitting the press release content, I found the following book sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

BIM Handbook. pp. 58-59.
Managing Customer Relationships. pp. 283–284.

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wangland[edit]

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

Article had one citation and some original research or chest-thumping about who invented it on Facebook chat. Unlike the matters of a second Scottish referndum, London secessionism, a referendum on a United Ireland or anti-EU referendums in other countries, very little has been written about this "rump state". When we consider how many speculative articles have been written on the already said subjects, the coverage of "Wangland" on Google News is limited only to Wales Online mentioning the use of the word by the Washington Post. The other listed articles in the search are older news stories which feature in the search because they link to the article about the Washington Post. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just someone's passing joke which doesn't seem to have become a notable concept. In terms of potential content, this article seems redundant to England and Wales. Robofish (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree: Although E&W is currently a legal concept, if the worst happens and it becomes a rump state that article can be reworked into one on a sovereign country (assuming the entity by the name "United Kingdom" is formally dissolved). The idea of it being called Wangland, a name which satisfies neither country and has sexual connotations in their primary language, is far from likely '''tAD''' (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term is a neologism that has not caught on at all, and the concept of what would be left of the UK following the secession of all of Scotland, Northern Ireland and London has not, I believe, received sufficient coverage to be notable. I checked and could not find further coverage. A wider article such as Secession from the United Kingdom might be suitable, but this stub is not the basis for it. Fences&Windows 12:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary WP:CRYSTAL gazing based on a funny little chat/filler item, which catches the eye with ROI out-GDPing Scotland, but which is otherwise vacuous.FeatherPluma (talk) 22:52, 6 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.

Thunder Demons[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill amateur ice hockey team. Does not meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen them around, they are far from run of the mill. Their philanthropic tendencies must have warranted some media coverage in the past with cancer awareness games and the such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonderrioBnutFunkTower (talk • contribs) 22:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 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 and redirect to Nettle Creek Township, Grundy County, Illinois. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nettle Creek, Illinois[edit]

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

Another blatant hoax by this user. At least this appears to be a real place, but it claims Hoge fled to China in 1835 during the Black Hawk War which ended in 1832. And the idea of drains stopping nettles seems absurd, though I suppose it's possible. No google results for the supposed golf course other than this article and mirrors. There is a Holderman and Hoge Cemetery in Seneca, but not in Nettle Creek. Smartyllama (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The US Geological Survey has separate entries for the township[1] and the "populated place",[2] plus William Hoge was apparently the first white settler in the area.[3] The 2010 population (502) is a bit suspect, however, being almost the same as that of the township (503). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place per WP:GEOLAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The unsourced stuff and probably-fake population data needs to go, but there's enough basis for a verifiable article here. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Nettle Creek Township, Grundy County, Illinois unless actual sources demonstrating separate notability for this specific spot are shown; entry in USGS GNIS is not legal recognition and doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND, and it being "verifiable" just means WP:ITEXISTS, not WP:GNG. The (non-footnote) only substantial source in the article is about Nettle Creek Township, which itself was barely populated at the time, not about a specific spot. It's probably worth mentioning that this is the oldest hoax article by Bnnnperdue I've seen yet: It way apparently created back in October 2015 by copy-paste from Mazon, Illinois, then mostly overhauled by TheCatalyst31 (talk · contribs), but the information here appears to be about the township, not the specific settlement. Note that townships usually had several schools each also: There's a possibility that a school district might pass WP:GNG. (Boilerplate I'm using for all these nominations: This is a series of WP:HOAX articles by Bnnnperdue (talk · contribs), each one using a USGS GNIS entry, then copy-pasted claims from other towns or patently-false claims about being incorporated or otherwise a legally-autonomous entity or having some other significant history, so that it appears to the casual viewer that WP:GEOLAND applies or otherwise gives the façade of meeting WP:GNG, and a mess like this deletion discussion ensues. In each case, the bulk of the article has been fantasy, often provably false, sometimes with alleged locator maps, also invented by Bnnnperdue. USGS GNIS populated place entries only mean that a place with that name was once on a map or reported to exist at some point; lots of USGS GNIS entries have no significant cultural history and don't meet WP:GNG; for example, many were mere train stops or intersections with few buildings or other activity. Given the creator's hoax history over the last few months, there's no reason to presume that a subject is/was notable; go look at User talk:Bnnnperdue and you'll see what's going on here.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know these are content issues, but I want to point out these claims from the article so that people don't use them to decide Nettle Creek is notable:
- The nearest golf course to Nettle Creek is Nettle Creek Country Club, not near this spot: It's 7 miles southeast, about a quarter mile from the creek named Nettle Creek, near the much larger city of Morris in Erienna Township, Grundy County, Illinois.
- Holderman and Hoge Cemetery (410381) is not near this spot; it's 3.5 miles southeast, about 250 feet from the creek named Nettle Creek, in the middle of Nettle Creek Township. I haven't yet found enough photos of this cemetery to determine whether File:HageHoldermanCemetary.jpg is really this cemetery, or a hoax like Bnnnperdue's locator maps and other claims.
- When sources refer to a "town" sometimes they mean a civil township (legal name "Town of Nettle Creek" = "Nettle Creek Township") and sometimes they mean a specific settlement spot. Keep this in mind when referring to histories about "the town", particularly when they say that someone settled in a specific section number. (This article is about a spot that sits of at the corner of sections 5, 6, 7, and 8, by the way. If a history talks about a different section, it's not about this spot.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a hoax, one of several by the now-blocked creator. All we have is a GNIS entry saying it is a "populated place". This populated place (423014) is different from the civil Township of Nettle Creek (429427). The population figure is bogus. The population link is based on the zip code. The Census Bureau does not have a figure for Nettle Creek or Township of Nettle Creek. The claimed history is about the township, not the supposed village. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fork of Nettle Creek Township, Grundy County, Illinois. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the questionability still outweighs any confirmed convincing information to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Jordan Curling Cup[edit]

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

Another non-notable event, like Royal Jordan Curling Championship, no information is able to be found on this, no sources to validate it's notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Obvious hoax and joke. Smartyllama (talk) 20:40, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U-18 Royal Jordan Curling Cup[edit]

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

As with Royal Jordan Curling Championship, the article is completely unsourced. Google searches for this event only refer back to this Wikipedia article. If this isn't a hoax, it's clearly a non-notable event. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:25, 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 Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. In fairness, it should be noted that User:Coolabahapple raises valid points, and the article's contents should be strengthened in order to avoid a second AfD in the near future. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Tolson[edit]

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

Procedural nom for IP. shoy (reactions) 19:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on notability. IP's rationale is as follows: shoy (reactions) 19:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"RJ Tolson is not notable according to WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, most of the content on the page was added by either KickStartWrit or MetaphysicsSoul. These users have both claimed to own the pictures they posted of the article's subject. That suggests that they are either are RJ Tolson himself, his friends, or his publicist. As an unregistered user, I don't have the ability to create a deletion discussion page for the article."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the author seems to have been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources significant coverage to pass WP:BASIC. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree.The article has numerous sources from independent media like abc and telemundo, I did a quick google search and found even more that weren't listed I assume because they weren't needed for the article. WP:BASIC. Simplespeed4ce (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ditto above - WP:SNOW ? Aoziwe (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, curious that a gsearch doesn't bring up book reviews from reliable sources, nor any notable book awards, ones i have found have been vanity awards like National Indie Excellence Awards and Beverly Hills book awards (no wikiarticle and over 160 categories!). also that the article creator and a major contributor has contributed to this subject only - [4], [5].Coolabahapple (talk) 16:54, 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 per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oil in My Lamp[edit]

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

As much as I love this song, it is not notable for Wikipedia. It does not pass WP:GNG. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 03:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does fulfil the notability criteria of WP:NSONG as a song that has been "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." Not to mention the fact that it has been published in numerous hymnals worldwide should also mean it meet the notability criteria. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known internationally, long established, recorded many, many times. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above arguments. St Anselm (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recorded multiple times by notable artists. If anything, the article could probably be expanded with the various less serious/parody verses like "Give me gas for my Ford..." etc. [6]. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is useful in providing some background to a rather banal "chorus". Peterkingiron (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NSONG - criteria 3 "independently released as a recording by several notable artists". -- Taketa (talk) 10:58, 5 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 is a very difficult discussion to close, which is no doubt attested to by it being left almost a week since its reviewing date. However, after looking at all of the arguments in this debate I believe there is a consensus - just - to delete at this time. A number of commenters have pointed to sources that they have argued are press coverage sufficient to establish notability, but there is marginally more consensus here that these are not sufficiently to establish notability nor reliable in many cases. My decision to close this on a slender consensus is also tempered by a number of arguments, including one keep, that point to the potential that she may rise to national prominence in the future. My close is not tempered by suggestions that her working for a supermarket make her less notable. Ultimately, my deletion decision is under the banner of a WP:TOOSOON, and if she does receive additional coverage from here or clearly meets the inclusion criteria at a later time, the creation of an article about her should not be prejudiced. I hope this explains my decision, although I appreciate on contentious debates that it is impossible to please everyone. I am, however, happy that I am acting on a consensus to delete at this time. KaisaL (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harsimrat Kaur (campaigner)[edit]

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

This person is not notable. This is a mere campaigner out of thousands. The subject works in a supermarket; they have never been elected to office. Zigzig20s (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is one of many involved in the Brex debate. Nothing suggests she is notable enough to merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The press coverage alone testifies to her notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have a look at this press coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be notorious at the moment with a lot of press, per Ipigott, I think there is adequate indicia of notability... the supermarket bit may actually be what makes her notable... Montanabw ^(talk) 05:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have a look at this press coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think editors are confusing Harsimrat Kaur (campaigner) with Harsimrat Kaur Badal. The latter has lots of press, the former (who is the subject of this AfD) doesn't have significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has indicated that they think she is the other Kaur as far as I can see and there is a hat note in the article to prevent just that confusion. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about coverage while searching for sources. The subject doesn't seem to have enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Telegraph is interviewing here as a leading spokesperson in the Brexit campaign HERE and that is not the only extant piece counting towards fulfillment of GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite I could not find a single source which says she is the "leading spokesperson" in the Brexit campaign. The Telegraph source you mentioned seems to be one in a series of interviews [7], [8], [9] of non-notable people. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment I agree with Lemongirl942 on this point; in fact, I was leaning toward 'keep' when I immediately found that interview on my own, but then I couldn't find any other significant coverage, so I went with 'delete'. LAroboGuy (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It doesn't matter that she is not an elected politician, she easily meets the GNG. We need more articles about Asian women who work in supermarkets in my view! In fact, if the nominator had bothered to read the sources they would have found that she has a high level job analysing data for her employers using her master's degree in mathematics. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As BLPIE and also the claim that the subject is a "prominent campaigner for Brexit" is not true. She seems to have been interviewed in the context of Brexit alongside others, but nothing proves she is any more important than the others.

Telegraph interview Seems OK until I look at the bottom and find "Readers who want to be interviewed by Charlie Brooks can email him at [email protected]". This is one in a series of similar interviews like [10], [11], [12].
express.co.uk Quoted along side others.
PanjabTimes Not a reliable source, seems to be self published weekly newspaper
BBC Trivial mention, not even a sentence
Asian Voice Trivial mention, not even a sentence
Press and journal Trivial mention.

I'm sorry, but for someone claiming to be a "leading campaigner" there needs to exist better reliable secondary sources. Right now it doesn't even pass GNG. To be honest, the claim of significance that she is a "leading campaigner of Brexit" is not credible. I would be happy if someone can clarify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article said "prominent" not "leading" which is a slightly lower level but I have removed that in order that the discussion doesn't get bogged down over her exact level of prominence. The claim is that she meets the GNG which does not depend on status, only coverage.

To reply to your points:

So what if readers can suggest themselves or others as subjects? The Telegraph don't have to agree and it is in depth in a national newspaper.
Agree on that one.
Foreign language sources indicate breadth of coverage of the subject. Not sure what you mean by "self published". Aren't all newspapers self published? Who else publishes them if not themselves?
The BBC source is an announcement, not a journalistic article. The point is they chose her to be on a panel to represent the Brexit campaign in one of the largest televised debates during the campaign.
Again it is the context that you are missing. She was one of a few women appointed to a group run by a government minister. The source merely confirms this.
This source confirms the previous one. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of that shows she is notable, neither does it fulfil GNG. Whether she is notable at the local level in UK, I don't know and seriously cannot tell from the scarce information available. I'm pinging Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Joseph2302 who are from UK and can better analyse it. I may change my vote depending on their response. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the existing contributors aren't from the UK? Please be careful not to break the rules about canvassing. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what their response will be, but I'm pinging them because they seem to be attending the London Wikipedia meetup. At present, the subject fails GNG easily. We need reliable secondary sources to pass GNG. And this unfortunately doesn't. The telegraph is a primary interview and doesn't elaborate on who the subject is. The local weekly newspaper does a better deal, but still doesn't seem to have a claim of significance. All it says is Harsimrat Kaur 23 years old is a mathematician backing the Vote Leave campaign for the upcoming EU referendum on June 23rd 2016. Speaking at the Cambridge University debate Harsimrat Kaur made her voice heard on issues like immigration and the economy. So the subject took part in a debate. How is that notable? The groups you are talking about, I have no idea how important they are and what role they play. It is possible that they are important in grassroots activities. But I can't verify that. Hence, I'm pinging others who can verify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I did some digging and added some cited information to the article. She appears to be a grassroots organiser in the Conservative Party who is fairly often referred to as a representative of Sikh Conservatives. Perhaps her debut on the BBC debate and the Telegraph interview are the beginnings of her move up to national prominence? MurielMary (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, MurielMary in which case, I would suggest that WP:TOOSOON applies, which, whilst only an essay, is a valuable tool to ensure only subjects of long-term established notability are included in the project. Which this individual also fails. There is no indication of any long-term, or lasting notability; nor does it appear that the current coverage is particularly in deth. Note that the Brexit coverge enabled almost anyone and everyone to be a pundit or commentator if they wished: this individual, whether mathematician or shelf-stacker, seems to have been slightly more high-profile than others at the time- but not since; thus failing WP:PERSISTENCE. Overall, suggest a classic example of WP:BLP1E. On a side note, I would like to thank User:Lemongirl942 for the ping, drawing my attention to this discussion. I would also like to take this opportunity to advise User:Philafrenzy to be more mindful when making suggestions as to WP:CANVASSING. That is a very specific matter, and one which is not illustrated by LG942's actions. Cheers. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors who have not been involved with the article and to which the AFD had not otherwise come to their attention is a classic case of canvassing if you read the policy, running the risk of distorting the consensus. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The request was neutral (could not be more so, being merely a ping) and that is the fundament. Since both myself and Joseph2302 are 'informed, but uninvolved, editors,' policy is clearly adhered to. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested users has always been OK if we don't know how they will vote (and I prefer to ping in front of others, rather than leave a personal talk page message). I have hardly if ever interacted with Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Joseph2302 on UK related AfDs to know how they would react to this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you both re-read the policy. It is precisely because those contacted were not involved that it could be seen as canvassing. The users contacted have not edited the article and were not mentioned in the AFD discussion. It is more appropriate, as the policy suggests, to place brief generic notices at Wiki projects relevant to the topic and similar venues. Directly contacting the uninvolved is not recommended as it may give the impression of canvassing. An observer may ask why those users and not others? And we still haven't had an explanation of why those users are somehow more able to assess the article than those who have already voted. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know the coverage has been done previously, but my view is:

[13] is a local newspaper
[14] is from a British tabloid, which is questionably reliable. Not a great source since before and after elections, newspapers frequently just pick out & interview random people on the streets, so being in an interview doesn't imply notability
[15] is about someone else, with her name mentioned once
[16] is a primary source
[17] shows they had a minor role in the Conservative Party, and is also a primary source
[18] appears also to be primary source
[19] again from Conservative Party, so not independent
[20] press release
[21] & [22] interesting, but notability is not inherited, and only passing mentions of her
[23] interview with a good newspaper, but I'm concerned by the email address at the bottom- seems like anyone could theoretically be interviewed by them

In conclusion, it's probably too soon as she has a bit of Brexit coverage only. If she gets more coverage, then it can be recreated. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an aside, I'm not sure why people from the UK are being considered "better" at judging the sources. They all seem reasonably clear to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kindly read the sources and refer to the subject accurately. She doesn't "work in a supermarket"; she isn't a "shelf-stacker" - she works in the head office of the supermarket chain in marketing. MurielMary (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MurielMary: Thank you for the corroboration. _Muffled ^Pocketed 22:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article still at best only suggests this person is best known for their political activities, still nothing convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Comments:
- Less notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avi Shafran but I thought that one should have stayed.
- (Repeating myself again but:) Note that if this person was playing cricket, see WP:NCRICKET, they would have romped it in for N, which allows inclusion for one major appearance even if that appearance was a complete failure.
- Aoziwe (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the extra sources added, passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which extra sources are these? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not seeing the notability and I agree with Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's analysis. There's coverage, yes, but it's not in-depth and it's all in the context of Brexit. There's apparently nothing else to write about this person. Also, I think the canvassing issue is borderline, at best, but it's reasonable for Philafrenzy to suggest that what happened here isn't best practice. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lemongirl942 and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Sources right now (in article and here) don't indicate that subject is notable. If level of sourcing increases, this can always be recreated. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Patar knight that this could always be recreated if the subject meets long-term and lasting notability requirements. I don't see how the subject meets those now. There is one in-depth interview with her, but even that interview focuses entirely on Brexit and her connection to campaigning for it, not the subject herself. LAroboGuy (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparometer[edit]

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

This is a non-notable software/app/startup. Coverage is limited to a local source, local source again with same author, a non-independent source and trivial mention in a questionable/possibly self published source. This simply doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Delete, as Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in media apart from press releases by the website itself. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - I did a Google and Highbeam search. Highbeam gave 0 related results, only article is about a different Comparometer. Google showed no significant coverage in reliable secundary sources. -- Taketa (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:07, 6 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. This page was created by a globally locked user and the talk page was used exclusively for personal attacks and harassment. Since no discussion was taking place here, I chose to invoke IAR and delete the page. My decision is, of course, open for review. Katie^talk 19:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choir of JCP-fans[edit]

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

This is a minor chorus group that does not have sources to establish independent notability. It is Japanese chorus group, but Those articles was deleted as Non-notable in Japanese wikipedia.　 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E5%89%8A%E9%99%A4%E4%BE%9D%E9%A0%BC/JCP%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%83%B3%E9%9B%91%E5%94%B1%E5%9B%A3 Wefyp612 (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out the fact that the Japanese version was deleted by collective attack of right-wing users, and not only for notability but for many other inconsistent reasons as you can read clearly on the so-called discussion page. They reign supremely all over the Japanese Wiki: deletion from the neutral potit of view? debatable, I think. See: Netto-uyoku.58.95.248.154 (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above IP user has been blocked range in Japanese Wikipedia due to had done block invasions and in Italian Wikipedia due to had done a personal attack. AfD discussion on Japanese Wikipedia had been spoken for throughout 9 days and Japanese Wikipedia community verified that no sources that contain significant mention found. Deletion was done because of lack of notability.--Kkairri (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) this article of itwp was removed. it:https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Coro_di_JCP-fans. --Alexander Poskrebyshev (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment:) Well, then I write on request and always with good faith. I agree to delete this article, just because you can find lots of other informative sources on the object all over the world. For example, you have acquired the minimum information on this minor choir group also through this Wikipedia page in question. And it's not essential to know who is the author of the text nor to ascertain if he is a gentleman or criminal person: the article has undeniably helped to enrich human knowledge a little, and now you can say it has finished its function. Here we find no egoistic opinion, therefore let us delete it. We realized it is too sterile and fruitless to debate only following quotations of the guideline etc. --125.201.4.30 (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment:) I add that in this page of German version, we can find a commentary by one of the authors of the same article, though unfortunately we only have texts in French and Japanese language:

Merci pour les commentaires intéressants, mais je dis: peut-être vous avez réalisé que vous avez légèrement bénéficié du contenu de l'article en question. Et pensez-vous pas peut-être d'autres personnes (sauf vous) dans le besoin d'acquérir des connaissances sur qu'il décrit? Nous savons sans aucun doute que le texte est toujours place à l'amélioration, par ceux qui sont intéressés de savoir, et pour ce sens, comme vous le voyez ci-dessus, j'ai écrit: Enzyklopädie (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία) für Menschen in Not aller menschlichen Erkenntnis.--Akko1948 (Diskussion) 04:43, 28. Jun. 2016 (CEST) Japanese translation of the French text quoted above, by the same author: 面白いコメントを、ありがたく読ませてもらったよ。言わせてもらうが、君は当該記事の内容を見て、自分自身も少しぐらいは得をした、ということには気付かないのか。また、君を除外するとしても、他の複数の閲覧者たちが、書かれている事柄に興味を抱くかもしれないとは、考えてみたことが無いのか。もちろん、文章そのものに改善の余地があることは、誰もが認めて疑わない。そして文章の改善は、知識欲がある人たちの手によって、行われるはずだろう。その意味において、先にこう記したのだ。すなわち、Enzyklopädie (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία) für Menschen in Not aller menschlichen Erkenntnis.--Akko1948 (Diskussion) 05:57, 28. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

--125.201.4.140 (talk) 05:14, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of flora of the LCRV (birdwatching)[edit]

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

This is a very unusual list/article (afaics it's unique in en wp) and its inclusion criteria are unclear. It has no references. WP:NOTHOWTO may apply. DexDor^(talk) 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unclear on the criteria for deletion in this nomination. Unusual isn't a reason for deletion and anyway there are other lists with similar purpose, such as the section List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley#List of bird flora. Unclear inclusion criteria are typically fixed by clearly stating inclusion criteria. Lack of references are a problem, but notability really depends on whether reliable sources exist, not whether they are present in the article. Howto is a stretch here; I don't see anything like and instruction manual or excessive pedagogy here. I'm not trying to hassle you, but I think we should clarify the basis for deletion. My initial opinion (before searching for sources) is that this is a bird flora list that didn't get too far; it might be merged into List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley. --Mark viking (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for pages with similar titles (e.g. by searching for "list flora birdwatching" and "list flora ornithology") and found nothing. I'd be happy with the page being redirected/merged to List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley (although I'm not sure moving unreferenced material from one page to another is a good idea). The page has "birdwatching" in its title, but doesn't mention birdwatching (and hardly mentions birds) so I was guessing it might be meant to be a list of plants at which birdwatchers might find birds - hence NOTHOWTO, but it really isn't clear. Does WP:DYNAMITE apply here? DexDor^(talk) 21:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any other flora+birdwatching lists, but there some other LCRV+birdwatching lists; List of LCRV communities (birdwatching) and List of lakes of the LCRV (birdwatching). Plantdrew (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarifications. With a lack of reliable sources, WP:DYNAMITE may indeed apply. --Mark viking (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A problem here is that there at least two not especially compatible definitions of the Lower Colorado River Valley when it comes to flora. The broader definition of LCRV, and the definition more relevant to plant distributions encompasses the drainage basin of the lower Colorado River (this definition is used here). A narrower definition is the relatively narrow geographic valley through which the lower Colorado River flows. The narrower definition is more relevant to birdwatching, as birds tend to fly fairly close to the river as they migrate down one of the branches of the Pacific Flyway. The towns and side valleys listed in Lower Colorado River Valley are all quite close the river (with the scope of that article defined by the same person who created the list under discussion here). Competing definitions of drainage basin vs. geographic valley aren't unique to LCRV articles; Missouri River Valley says that it drains 1/6 of the US (drainage basin) and is 6-10 miles wide (geographic valley). The LCRV plants relevant to birders are a subset of the LCRV plants relevant to botanists. No sources are cited, and botanical sources won't cover the "(birdwatching)" aspect. Unless there's a source for the flora relevant to birdwatchers, this stinks of Original Research. Delete it. Plantdrew (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Investigating this some more, the main problem is a lack of reliable sources upon which to decide inclusion. Unlike many WP:SAL articles, there isn't a parent article for guidance. I tried looking for such reliable sources, but did not find any. Without such sources, we can't build a believable list, or verify content for a merge. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I did find a suitable merge target: List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley#List of bird flora, I do agree with Mark that we simply lack the good sources for including the list at all. DeVerm (talk) 06:24, 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 Speedy delete. WP:CSD#A11. Obviously made up one day. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UZO KangTei Trophy[edit]

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

Non-notable trophy per WP:GNG, awarded to the winner of a non-notable competition. Referenced solely by YouTube clips and their Facebook page. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. All of the related articles (created by same editor) were speedy deleted A7, and I'm only taking this to AFD because I can't find a WP:CSD criterion that fits this. OnionRing (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Might even be made up. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:02, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont, Illinois[edit]

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

Another hoax article by the same user. Another USGS link to an unrelated place. How did he get away with it for this long? Smartyllama (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The populated place may be real (GNIS 421703) and the coordinates appear to be correct. However everything else about the article follows the creator's pattern of piling hoaxes on top of true foundations. Unverifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove all that isn't verified if it's a real place, this is really a content dispute best resolved by removing all unsourced content rather than deleting the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once the unverified content is removed, all that's left is a GNIS entry for a "populated place." The USGS does not call it a community. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's enough factual questionability here to delete altogether. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing worth saving here, given the creator's history. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very little on the page appears to be true. However, there does seem to be a location called Belmont at the spot identified by GNIS and it's been on maps since at least 1908 as shown on historical maps. A station does not appear at Belmont on this 1898 railway map. The fact that there is a Belmont Road and a Belmont station (Metra) seems to indicate some historical use of the place name. However, it does not appear to be much there worth creating or keeping an article for. I can't find any significant mention in google books. Maybe a Burlington & Quincy R.R. history book would mention it, but I doubt that much of an article could be created. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:18, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Langford[edit]

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

Non-notable artist who fails WP:CREATIVE as they have only exhibited in local art exhibitions. The claim that she was the subject of book (or of a chapter in said book) published by Oxford University Press seems to be a hoax as the given chapter title does not appear in the table of contents for the book, and seems to have been published in 2012 as a review, when the only edition of the book was published in 2006. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article claims an exhibition at the Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit which is not local, but does not give a reference for it. Regarding the book, according to worldcat there was a 2010 edition here but this also does not have the chapter, so I agree that it does seem misleading. Reserving judgement in case it can be explained. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham-Kent is only an hour's drive away from Detroit, so that is local. A Google search for the Detroit exhibition gives nothing except self-published sources, which in this day and age probably means it was not important. Page 32 of this arts magazine mentions the Grand Rapids (still only two hours away from Chatham-Kent) joint exhibition but only in passing, the only other non-self published work on that is a local art student's blog. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've spent some time in Chatham. Small town! (Any central Canadian knows that the most important points about Chatham are a) the corn price on CBC and b) do not drive too close when following a truck full of tomatoes.) Re:notability, I'll bet just about anyone who can move a brush reasonably well could get a show at the Chatham-Kent Cultural centre, or whatever it's called. Detroit is indeed local. As to sources, there's apparently one good ref in a "Buj" essay. However Google images returns nothing of her work (my informal test for notability). News, Book and web sources come back with basically nothing. I think any notability here is the result of a promotional effort. I trimmed of a gigantic section of unsourced material on her upbringing. Article clearly fails to meet WP:ARTIST.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Having started working on this article since July 3 of this year I say the article should be retained due to the sources in the article which include a couple books and a magazine, among others. The number of references is currently seven for whatever that is worth. The article subject passes WP:GNG and has crossed the threshold of notability. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 03:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Banned sock. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reference count is actually four, one of which seems to a local art review falsely presented as a chapter in a book by the Oxford Universty Press, another is just a local arts review that can only be found on pages maintained by the artist in question, one is a book that has a paragraph on a great-great grandfather of the artist, and then a self-published source by the artist. Hardly the stuff to pass WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references to Buj contributions in Grime's book can't be verified, and likely do not exists. The MacDonald reference is irrelevant, the Barbed ref is a contribution by Langford. Fails WP:ARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not at all sure if the Buj article is in the Oxford publication, but it does seem to have been initially published as a gallery essay. This doesn't change the non-notability fo the artist, but it's interesting. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The "local" argument doesn't cut it with me, as if there is coverage across the border in Michigan, that is more than simply "regional" no matter how close in geographic proximity -- and the crack about the price of corn smacks of a bias against anything that isn't a major metro area, which demolishes the credibility of the !vote and argument to me. The accomplishments of this artist are on the line, but given that there is room to improve referencing and content, I say give the editors working on it a chance to improve the quality. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject meets neither GNG nor CREATIVE. The Barbed article (the one published in Detroit) shows some of her art along with an artist's statement, which does not establish notability. The art exhibitions are small and local. Note that Detroit is local to Chatham; Detroit and Windsor are across the border from each other (like San Diego and Tijuana) and Chatham is close to Windsor. The Buj essay is interesting but Buj is a professor of English literature, not art, and so the essay cannot be used to establish notability under CREATIVE. There's just a dearth of significant, independent coverage of her. Ca2james (talk) 00:34, 11 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 (NAC). Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Suissa[edit]

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

I cannot find substantial coverage of this singer, only mentions (of which I've added three). The talk page contains an argument between two editors who both say they know her well, as to whether she's English or American. When I came upon the page, she was presented as English and a birth year category was included, but the only source—the only reference in the article—was a non-functioning search. Her Facebook page appears not to have been updated since 2011. It thus seems to be impossible either to write a useful article or to establish notability. The article was previously PRODded. So unless someone else can find adequate sources, I think it should be deleted. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment we shouldn't have NN BLPs with such sourcing issues. User:Garion96 why remove the PROD and COI? Luckily someone has brought this here to finally fix. Widefox; talk 00:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article did not have have "significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality" That there was maybe undisclosed editing does not warrant the COI tag. Garion96 (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, seems you did a good job keeping my rough work across several articles in check (see my comment below). These were all badly sourced but we may be close to verifying them now. (sorry to put you on the spot) Widefox; talk 10:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is one of several promo articles centered around Anjunabeats Above & Beyond (band) that I presume are COI, undisclosed editing (that was my PROD cleanup), worth checking WP:COIN etc to cleanup more NN articles / WP:SPA promo only. e.g. OceanLab ~~may be borderline NMUSIC~~, AfD was no consensus, but leaning towards merge. Widefox; talk 00:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:MUSICBIO, Not only has Justine been at #6 on the Billboard Charts.[24][25], she also has featured in ensembles and with notable musicians like Chicane and Armin van Buuren,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32] apart from being placed in rotation nationally by major radio stations and music channels like BBC[33][34], Radio RU,[35] and Billboard's Hot Dance Airplay multiple times.[36][37] In fact, as a featured artist, she has featured in BBC Radio 1's Essential Mix compilation,[38][39][40] and has been featured as a newsmaker in the Billboard Dance Music Summit.[41] All these points, as per WP:MUSICBIO, point to her notability. I've provided various references from BBC, Billboard, MTV, confirming her chart top 10 song, collaborations, and her being placed in rotation nationally in radio/music channels; for anyone who might wish to include the same in the article. Lourdes 03:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If #6 on the Billboard Charts is correct, then this would satisfy WP:MUSICBIO 2. The claim isn't in the article, and the single is listed as Armin van Buuren "featuring Justine Suissa", so wouldn't that refer to the notability of Armin van Buuren, or maybe better as the single itself? Isn't this a bit like Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases.. So if you're right then I may change my !vote but notability is not inherited from those notable artists per WP:INHERITED. On the other hand, being mentioned/featured with different artists would make a separate article logical. Widefox; talk 10:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox, you have much more experience on this than I. I'll go by your discretion; whatever you think is appropriate. Lourdes 14:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my opinion below "too soon", but with the caveat I haven't checked your sources (good job by the way). Regards Widefox; talk 15:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Widefox. WP:MUSICBIO mentions, "Musicians or ensembles...may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Because of the usage of the term "ensembles", I believe the subject notability guideline includes cases where a performer is featured along with another main performer. In such a case, this performer would qualify on MUSICBIO 2 AND MUSICBIO 12 comfortably. Having said that, let me reiterate that I'll leave the judgement to you and change my !vote (or keep it the same) depending on what you think of the article after seeing the sources. Lourdes 15:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {ping|Xender Lourdes}} Thank you for finding those sources. My hunt totally failed to find any of them. It's entirely possible that Google wouldn't show me any of them because I hadn't previously searched for info on trance music. Could you please add some to the article? All it has right now by way of references is the woeful scraps I was able to find. And can you possibly find sources on any aspect of her biography? This is a BLP, and I'm really concerned by that argument on the talk page and the possibility that is raised there that there may be two different people. Also, a point of clarification: there are many different charts—is cracking the top ten on any Billboard chart good enough for the music notability criterion, or are some of them a bit niche? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yngvadottir. In general, Billboard charts and sub-charts are national charts and are played quite often across radio channels. So I'll consider the niche charts as acceptable in the notability criterion. I will add the references to the article this coming week. I'll try to find out other sources too. Thanks for your effort too. Lourdes 10:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Justine has been featured in various songs by various artists. Van Buuren is not her only collab, not to mention she's been in the music business since the turn of the millennium. If one does a musical search for JUstine Suissa, they'll come accross her featured with artists like Robbie Rivera, Armin Van Buuren, Above and Beyond, Etc. Similar to how Kirsty Hawkshaw who has been singing since 1989-1990 has been featured with a plethora of artists. Regardless of whether our 40 year old friend is American or English, she has a plethora of chart topping hits in electronic dance music history with many artists, so therefore she should get her own article here. If not, then why not delete this one too? Eric Ramus 199.101.62.73 (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Namedropping is a sure sign the topic isn't notable per WP:INHERITED. It's an argument to avoid, as is delete another artist per WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's likely this topic is too soon but it's not my opinion that matters, but finding say reliable sources to demonstrate notability per these guidelines WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. NARTIST has many criteria, I encourage anyone here to find one it matches and prove it. Widefox; talk 15:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple collaborations, and over 50 incoming links, (many from other articles) this looks like it needs to be more than a redlink. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree it's WP:USEFUL, My concern is a BLP RS are needed, so seems borderline or TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 12:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Ok, there's a lot to get through here. Firstly, @Widefox: A couple of things on your comments. OceanLab clearly meet WP:NMUSIC through their ~~#38 UK hit~~ actually #19 - see additional comment "Satellite" in 2014, I knew about that one off the top of my head and there's a reliable source here. Secondly, I noticed Justine's name in the index and I really do believe she meets our criteria. The evidence provided by Lourdes is a lot of this. In the UK, she doesn't quite qualify by way of singles hits, with a #48 in 2002 (here) and a #45 in 2004 here - both Wikia sources but the official site will verify it). (If you don't know, it's the Top 40 in the UK.) But they're both close enough, and most importantly, the latter track was a major dance hit. The airplay Lourdes mentions is relevant too because that's a criteria on WP:NMUSIC. Yes, she is the featured artist, but in dance music there's quite a lot of famous featured vocalists that work with lots of artists (I won't list names as I'll be accused of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), and crucially she's featured and credited. It's a collaboration, and whether it says "featured" or "and" (or "presenting" or "with") is not relevant. Finally, again for @Widefox: I am missing the rationale for WP:TOOSOON entirely. Justine's work goes back to the early 2000s, she's not a new artist, nothing is about to come out to change the situation. Her dance music hits at the height of the popularity of trance are enough to justify inclusion, this isn't a fringe local vocalist we're talking about. Absolutely finally, as an artist in a notable band (OceanLab) who has then released music with other notable artists, it's very common for them to have their own article. I'm particularly vocal because I was around music in the mid-2000s enough to know her name, hence I picked up on this AFD. I hope this all helps. KaisaL (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment I'm mistaken - "Satellite" was actually a UK #19 hit (here). This strengthens the argument that as the vocalist of a notable band who has collaborated on singles with other notable artists like Armin van Buuren, Justine absolutely warrants an article. The top twenty of the singles chart is a big deal - no wonder I'd heard of her. My keep is now strong. KaisaL (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KaisaL: you need only ping me once, you know this isn't my nom and my opinion is as good as the next. "vocal" is one word for it. I repeat - if there's sources it's OK with me as a BLP.. From TOOSOON unverifiable content. If sources do not exist,. . If they exist (above, or elsewhere) OK. It's not clear-cut why we need all these articles which I noticed are/were a COI/promo cluster, that's all. It's not clear to me which criteria of NMUSICIAN you think this satisfies? Maybe the BBC sources? WP:LIKE is something to consider with NOTINHERITED ("Satellite" notability is for OceanLab). Widefox; talk 11:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the double ping; As you had commented on some other subjects, I felt it appropriate to address one of those as well. Regarding WP:NMUSICIAN, she meets number six due to being part of a notable group that has collaborated with other notable artists in a solo capacity, and number eleven because those tracks certainly had major national radio rotation (certainly the one with Armin van Buuren), and Lourdes has eloquently mentioned the airplay chart position that contributes to that. If there's WP:COI issues, that's best handled in this instance by templates and editing to remove such a tone, but I don't think it can be the basis for the deletion of content with a clear claim to inclusion, even if you may not agree with that claim yourself. I assume any COI may be attached to Anjunabeats and the Above and Beyond family, which is a major area of this genre of music, but that has no impact on Justine's ultimate notability. As for WP:LIKE, that's not the case (I'm quite indifferent to trance music in truth), and I don't meet the profile of such a person if you look at my contributions. KaisaL (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Not sure if the content has any COI issue anymore, but the talk details the self described and suspected COI editors. Agree with you COI is irrlevant for WP:N. The flipping of nationality was caused by two editors which both claimed inside knowledge. It should be fine without that info as we don't seem to have a source. (struck thru comment about borderline WP:N for OceanLab). Changed "Delete!" vote to a comment, as I really haven't checked the sources. Widefox; talk 13:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I think that overall this is a good example of the AFD process working properly - a proper discussion with detailed input leading to outcomes that improve the content. KaisaL (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6 looks OK (I think). Widefox; talk 13:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: I've improved the article with some sources, including a useful interview with a member of Above & Beyond that reveals a little on her origins as a singer. There's more stuff that would indicate notability that, sadly, I cannot find reliable sources for; Most notably, she appears to have toured the world and played Glastonbury with Chicane at the height of his chart-topping popularity in 2000, but I can't evidence this beyond a Discogs write-up unfortunately. I've also noticed the collaboration with Armin van Buuren charted highly on verifiable singles charts after all in a couple of European countries. I still think there's enough now either way. KaisaL (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Lourdes. With the depth of references posted above this article subject passes WP:GNG and should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 10:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You probably meant "depth". I thought I read "dearth..." :) Happens with me too all the time (in fact, once when I was arguing with Sinebot not too long ago, not realising it wasn't a real editor). Lourdes 14:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dearth or depth lol! I love it though, arguing with Sinebot? That is funny! I guess as long as I got keep right! Thanks Lourdes! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 15:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for notability as a singer who is part of a popular band and also has recorded other music sep. from the band (i.e. with other collaborators) MurielMary (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG and WP:BASIC clearly met. Hmlarson (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massively fails GNG. The sources provided here mention the subject but do not go into any detail. In searching for sources using Google, etc. no other sources to support GNG can be found. Contrary to Widefox's claim, she has not charted on Billboard. She has appeared as a guest artist (or feature artist) for other musicians who have charted and there is no category for that in WPMUSICBIO. In short, nothing to support independent notability. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're absolutely wrong in dismissing any guest or featured spots, because for the purposes of WP:MUSICBIO a credit is a credit. My earlier comment sums this up eloquently: "It's a collaboration, and whether it says "featured" or "and" (or "presenting" or "with") is not relevant." To dismiss this well-established point within WP:MUSICBIO would be to dismiss a highly-established policy surrounding music. The specific Billboard chart was an airplay one, however charting so highly on it also goes a long way to supporting the point about major radio rotation as well. (The same charted in a number of European countries anyway, fulfilling the chart criteria.) KaisaL (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you think I'm "absolutely wrong". Please show me where in MUSICBIO it indicates what you state.

I can say unequivocally that you're wrong that it's a policy as it's a guideline. You're also wrong in the way you indented your reply here, but that's a different issue.

If the collaborations she's a part of meet GNG, let there be articles about them, not the collaborator. Each band member must show independent notability, which this musician does not. The fact that you can search the Finish charts to find her name does not mean that she is independently notable. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the guideline does state, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". That hasn't happened with Ms. Suissa. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody is arguing that she warrants her own article for being a member of OceanLab alone. What has been argued, with sources, is that she has had a verifiable singles hit in multiple national charts in a solo collaboration with Armin van Buuren. This is the very definition of "individual notability for activity independent of the band". She has also, on the balance of probabilities per the airplay chart position, had major national radio airplay. The fact that the page at WP:MUSICBIO does not spell out anything on the relevance of point two with regard to collaborations does not mean that these are not accepted. As for the nitpicking about phrasing and the way I indent my comments, I'll make no comment there. Given that this AFD is nearly at its conclusion and only you have argued to delete with a wealth of contributors arguing to keep, I am going to leave this dialogue there because I think the case has been eloquently made already. KaisaL (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that argument does not hold water in terms of MUSICBIO. It specifically spells out that they have to demonstrate individual notability and the linked sources here mention her, but they don't confer notability on her. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just read over a comment from editor SusunW on another talk page and find that her statement is quite pertinent to this discussion, " It is NOT required that someone meet individual notability requirements if they meet GNG. If one has 10 articles in RS over time documenting that the person has been noted as a person of interest, it doesn't matter if they have done anything to satisfy the requirements of a specific field. Many people are not single-faceted and trying to box them into a specific field is like ignoring their other notable contributions. " from here: [42] Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And GNG is defined as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Are you saying the subject has had significant coverage? As I stated above, I don't see it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I stated above, "this article subject passes WP:GNG" just scroll up. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I stated above, "Massively fails GNG" just scroll up. You have not supported the fact that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Lacking that, your statement is false. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The information provided by KaisaL shows that this person meets NMUSIC, and the references provided by Xender Lourdes (as well as the references I was able to find as well) clearly show that any secondary reliable sources exist for this person and enough sources exist to assert significant coverage, a required criterion when determining WP:GNG. Hence, I believe that GNG is met, and the article should be kept. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment Read the post above by Lourdes. Scroll up. I have supported the fact that there is significant coverage in reliable sources according to the sources (17) posted above by Lourdes. My statement is not false. I agree with Lourdes and her post. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 02:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a bare pass of WP:GNG. Note that being the featured artist on a charted song/album does not count as notability. SST flyer 03:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Above & Beyond as I could've settled with a keep, but it's still currently questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated as my anon self (208.81.212.224) not a single source supports notability. Here is my analysis of the provided sources.

1 mention- about Ferry Corsten. No biographic information.

2 mention - about Avicii. No biographic information.

3 mentions - one is a caption, the other is passing. No biographic information.

4 mention - as having previously collaborated "is on the opening track". No biographic information.

5 mentions - as featured artist. No biographic information.

6 mentions - as featured artist. No biographic information.

7 Mention "and Justine Suissa". No biographic information.

8 mention - appearance by…. No biographic information.

9 mention - "featuring Justine Suissa " No biographic information.

10 mention - not even a RS for anything, ever. Just a track listing. No biographic information.

11 mention - not even a RS for anything, ever. Just a track listing. No biographic information.

12 My Russian is bad but I don't see the subject's name, and if it is mentioned, because the page is short I take it that it's just a track listing. No biographic information.

13 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.

14 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.

15 track listing No biographic information.

16 track listing No biographic information.

17 track listing No biographic information.

18 Same as ref 3

19 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.

20 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.

21 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.

22 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.

23 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.

Sorry. Those of you who think that brief mentions constitute significant coverage. They do not. This massively fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I would like to comment to the closing admin, the subject fails GNG based on the analysis above. Those who claim it meets GNG are only looking at number, not the content of the posts. Most are track listings or entries of a single song in a track listing. None of them discuss the subject and so there's no way to actually provide any reasonable biographic information on the subject from RSes. As a result, there's no way to create an article that complies with WP:V let alone GNG. Cheers. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The presumption of WP:N favors notability. Here that presumption has not been rebutted. it is important to look at the total picture here and not simply a nitpick about track listings. A performer who has worked with multiple groups and has multiple recordings that charted is notable. This meets GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:34, 7 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 by TomStar81 (Talk). TomStar81 (Talk) 11:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hip Abduction[edit]

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

Fails wp:NMG and wp:GNG I see nothing to indicate notability. A google search only reveals user generated content in the first 3 pages (as far as I can tell but I have been wrong before) --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOO SOON. The accounts in the references suggest they may be on track in another year or two to achieve wikipedia notability. As for now, references and searches indicate trivial/small time coverage, with the articles having a promotional bent rather than being reportage of any sort of notable accomplishments. The Chattanoogan.com reference in particular seems to be amateur journalism. Also, not that it maters regarding notability, but I'm curious how Paul Simon is a related act? Nothing in any of the provided references suggest as much, so why is the article author making the claim? ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:18, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanyalee Davis[edit]

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

Is this comedian sufficiently notable? Alligators1974 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC) -[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - seems sufficient consensus - article needs a tidy up, but she is clearly famous enough to survive.Alligators1974 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so, given her appearance on UK national TV and the number of sources listed in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is there in principle, as reliable source coverage of her comedy career does exist — that said, this article is terribly written and abysmally sourced in its existing state. For instance, many of the "references", which were contextlessly linkfarmed rather than properly footnoting any content, were primary sources rather than reliable ones. As noted, however, RS coverage of her does exist to clean this up with — I've already reviewed the linkfarm to sort out the valid references (which are now listed on the talk page) from the primary ones. Keep, but flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. Sensible option. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 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 speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Jordan Curling Championship[edit]

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

Unsourced article for apparently non-notable event, largely comprising empty table of results of 1975 tournament. Not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 14:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As a hoax/made up event. Google searches for this event turn up 0 hits, whether it's news, newspaper, web, you name it. The only hit for this term is this article itself. Also, Royal Jordan Curling Cup might need to go up for deletion as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clear hoax. Smartyllama (talk) 20:16, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait (M83 song)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Secondary Sources mention song in passing as part of the artist's collection. PGWG (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. PGWG (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable music recording. Also completely unsourced. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 19:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete: certainly both the band and the album this song comes from are notable, but as this track barely charted anywhere it probably fails WP:NSONGS, and unless someone adds some text about the video (which concludes the story from the videos for the previous singles off the album), I can't really make a good case for keeping the article. Richard3120 (talk) 20:34, 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 deleted G5, this user is globally banned, not just here, and "Any attempt to circumvent an active global ban constitutes a violation of the Terms of Use, regardless of accounts used."[43] Edits that violate the terms of use should not be tolerated or encouraged. Any editor in good standing can create an article on Jan Pfeffer (though perhaps Johann Pfeffer would be a better title)

Jan Pfeffer[edit]

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

The Article was previously created by a sockuppet of the globally banned user Messina and has been subsequently deleted. Most articles of Messina contain inaccurate or outright false statements. Without thorough checking of every statement they cannot be considered reliable. That was one of the reasons for his global ban. Schulhofpassage (talk) 13:15, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US National Cycling Center[edit]

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

Not yet notable. Facility is under construction, and may someday be notable but right now it is WP:TOOSOON. National projects are often presumed notable, but the reasons for calling this center "national" are unclear, and all sources are local. Please see Talk:US National Cycling Center for some additional discussion. ubiquity (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was previously speedied twice as promotional. This time the speedy was declined with the explanation "promotion can be removed," but IMO when you remove all the promotional material, there's not much left. ubiquity (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated by nominator. As indicated, this was speedied as promotional already and is little changed from that version. The page creator was asked by this organization to write the page, which further indicates it is promotional. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG - No significant coverage in reliable secundary sources. Google news search for "US National Cycling Center" gave 1 result (and 400 unrelated articles in the same journal, due to internal journal links). -- Taketa (talk) 11:11, 5 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 Early keep per WP:SNOWBALL. No need for this to stay running as strong consensus to keep and a very clear notability ground is apparent. KaisaL (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hai-Lung Dai[edit]

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

Reason Hedybaker (talk) 12:15, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator is also the article's creator and seems to have included the rationale in the edit summary instead in the text of the nomination, it was "I would like to delete this entry as the provost is no longer in this role". This is, however, an invalid reason. The article has major issues regarding neutrality, but this is also not relevant. What is, is the fact that it may be failing WP:PROF. I'll ping User:Randykitty for his opinion on that; and I will to ping Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry - maybe someone there can review the awards and say if any actually matter. If anyone comments here, please do WP:ECHO me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oppose deletion – suggest moving back to draft space. The subject is clearly notable by our standards, meeting criterion 5 of WP:ACADEMIC: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." However, there's an evident but apparently undeclared WP:COI or WP:PAID problem, and the principal author is the originator of this discussion. Moving it back to draft space seems the best compromise. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (in response to Piotrus' ping). Article probably needs some pruning and cleanup (and checking of the references), but as Justlettersandnumbers, says, having a named chair meets WP:PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no valid deletion rationale supplied. This could plausibly be a WP:CSD#G7 speedy deletion, as the nominator is the only significant contributor to the article, but I think that would be a bad idea. If the article creator previously had a conflict of interest causing them to create this article for promotional reasons, it could very well be the case that the subject's fall from grace with the university administration has put the article creator on the other side of the issue, with a continuing conflict of interest against the subject. We should judge the case on our own neutral grounds, not internal campus politics. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with an h-index of 30 in chemistry. However, article is too long and tendentious, and needs substantial pruning. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep with some cleanup. Notability is not temporary, and he satisfies WP:GNG/WP:PROG has having held major positions at several major universities. Beyond the usual notability within the world of academia, his departure from Temple landed in the lay press the past few days as something beyond the usual ebb and flow of leadership [44]. The COI of User:Hedybaker is obvious. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I saw a notice at the chem wikiproject asking for input. The article needs rewriting but he does meet notability under WP:PROF as the holder of a named chair and accepting the statement above of an h-index of 30. EdChem (talk) 07:22, 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 no consensus. This AFD debate has received very high levels of participation, including some very detailed and well researched arguments. I cannot, however, established a clear consensus to delete nor to keep. Given the substantial input that there has already been, and given a previous AFD debate that went to a keep in 2015 (albeit one with very minimal participation and nowhere near this level of analysis), I am not convinced that relisting at this time would yield any more of an actionable outcome. As such, I am closing this as a no consensus. (Finally, I note that the issue of paid editing is not in and of itself an issue for AFD, and this taking place on any article does make it any more or less eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. As such, I have discounted these concerns.) KaisaL (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saarah Hameed Ahmed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. FOUR selectors (religion, gender, nationality and occupation) to establish her qualification as a "first person" is not notability at all. for (;;) (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I pointed out in the first AfD on this subject, she already passes GNG. She is significantly covered by several major news sources. That's all that has to happen in order to pass GNG. This 2nd AfD feels like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Megalibrarygirl, I didn't see the previous nomination 'til after I'd posted, so not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I did reconsider once I saw it, but the maths of 500+ religions * 2 genders * 200+ nationalities suggests that there would be over 200000 notable airline pilots. That's not notability. for (;;) (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For (;;), it is notable if she's been covered by several reliable sources, making her pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unquestioned coverage in third party sources, more than adequate indicia of notability, significant ground-breaking role. Snow keep, this is a WP:POINTy nom and should not have been made. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, if there's any "POINT" it's that the contributions of sockpuppets merit reconsideration in the full context of the author's behaviour. The article may escape G5 by virtue of timing, but that doesn't mean it should get a free pass. Happy editing, for (;;) (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor can have their account blocked for bad behavior, but the article should stand on its own merits. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be an undisclosed paid editing case. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has merits, sourcing. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BLP1E, fails WP:V (see below for disputed claims of being the "first") and undisclosed paid editing. I deliberated over this for a while but I do not see a claim of notability nor that this is something "groundbreaking".

I can understand if the subject was the first woman commercial pilot in India, but she is not (there were 600 of them before her in India). It should be noted that compared to other countries, India already has a higher proportion of female pilots at 11.6% In contrast, the US has less then 6% female pilots and the global average is 3%. Just because she is a Muslim doesn't give her a claim of notability. Had she done something more, like establishing a foundation or scholarship or fought for some rights, I might have considered. This is essentially BLP1E territory. If you take away the fact that she is Muslim, the person just wouldn't have a claim of significance. I do not see any other claims of significance either.
Disputed claim. I'm not sure if she is actually the first. There is another claim which states "Capt. Syeda Salva Fatima, the only Muslim woman in India to hold the commercial pilot’s licence" (See also [45]). There are other news sites which state Saarah Hameed Ahmed is the only Muslim women pilot from Karnataka, a state in India.
I have to agree with User:For (;;)'s statement that FOUR selectors (religion, gender, nationality and occupation) to establish her qualification as a "first person" is not notability at all. Had it been "race/ethnicity" instead of religion, I may have been more sympathetic as race is something a person cannot choose. But religion is an ideology and person's choice; so I don't see why a person should be notable simply because of their affiliation with a religion. Even in cases of religion, I may have been sympathetic if there was some evidence of institutional discrimination against people of a certain religion from taking up a particular occupation or if it was a persecuted religious minority. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
This is an undisclosed paid editing article and I am not sympathetic to it, particularly when notability is shaky.

Overall, this is a delete for me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I read this article to say she is the first muslim woman pilot, which, in mostly-Hindu India seems like a big deal as there is both a gender and and an ethnic barrier. But anyway, what proof do we have that this is a paid editing article? Let's not throw out these accusations without proof. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree to that. There is no evidence of an institutional "religious barrier" and "gender" barrier. 600 other woman plots were already serving before her. And while India is a Hindu majority, there is no evidence that it denies Muslims from becoming commercial pilots. Should there be evidence, I might change my mind. But till now I have not found any. I would also be cautious at looking at the Islamophobic angle - it is incorrect to assume that just because the West suffers from it, the whole of the world suffers as well. The situation is much more nuanced. As an example, over here in Singapore, Muslims are 15% of the population, but we live together in harmony and Muslim women are not barred from any occupation. Our neighbouring countries are Malaysia and Indonesia which are significant Muslim majorities, so we don't really see our local Muslims as "disadvantaged" or "oppressed" as some people in the West think all Muslims are. Which is why, unless it can be shown that the subject suffered from some kind of institutional barrier, I am not very sympathetic to this single claim.
This is without doubt a paid editing work. You can have a look at the contributions of the author to verify. In addition, the article itself gives away that it is a paid editing work; certain details present in the article are not there in any citations I could find. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the editor blocked? If so, please link to block log. If the article has citation issues, that's different, but I see no reason not to try and improve the article. And seriously, discrimination against women exists EVERYWHERE, and a person has to have to have their head in the sand to think that any dominant culture does not discriminate against a minority culture. Singapore is not India. If a person thinks that institutional barriers are all that exist to prove discrimination, anywhere in the world, that is nonsense. Extremely oppressive governments can have a superficial "equality" policy while simultaneously never managing to hire anyone from a lower-prestige group. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block log. for (;;) (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per above arguments. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep The article subject passes WP:GNG because of all the sources mentioned above. Whoever created the article, whether a disclosed paid editor or not, does not keep the subject from being notable or from passing GNG. I agree with the Drover's Wife. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and I'll note that something being the product of paid editing does not in and of itself make an article worthy of deletion. Keilana (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – based on the arguments of Lemongirl942 findings and for (;;) for the four reasons of religion, gender, nationality and occupation. It's easily a BLP1E. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. This has nothing to do with paid editing. This level of cross-categorization does not establish notability. What's next, the first transgender Mormon plumber in Choa Chu Kang? SST flyer 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reason given in previous AfD. The sources (karnatakamuslim.com, australianmuslimtimes.com, islamicvoice.com, iinanews.org, mvslim.com) which seemingly make her appear pass GNG are not "independent" because they promote a specific religion and their coverage of the subject for being associated with this religion should not be considered as independent. The currentaffairsonline.in is not even WP:RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please add "professional pilot" as the fifth selector. A certain Hijab Imtiaz Ali is noted to be the first Indian Muslim woman pilot dating to 1936. Women's studies in India: contours of change, Volume 2001, page 53 Of course, that was undivided India then and she was flying privately and not in commercial airlines; which probably were none in India then. The so called first+indian+muslim+woman+pilot propaganda spread by pro-muslim sources I listed above should be gauged well in light of this information. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woah Dharmadhyaksha, thanks for digging that up! I just found more references [46],[47] that Hijab Imtiaz Ali was actually notable and that she may have been the first woman pilot (irrespective of religion) in South Asia. I'm probably going to write an article about her. I'm glad the claims were examined. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Sarla Thakral who also flew mail flights and missed getting her commercial license because of World War II. —SpacemanSpiff 10:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First Muslim woman maybe, see User talk:TripWire#Translation. Rabia Futehally is another prominent example. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the translation. So Hijab Imtiaz Ali was the first Muslim woman pilot in the Indian subcontinent and Rabia Futehally was also another one. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably needs an edit to say that it newspapers have claimed her to be the first, but that other persons were the actual first. The articles on her provide the notability required - and frankly, if this was a case where a Christian newspaper was making a religious based claim about someone, this wouldn't be here. However, it has resulted in further information being brought to light that will be able to balance the article. Miyagawa (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miyagawa, this WOULD be here because it was created by a sockpuppeteer who had created several unrelated puff pieces for people of dubious notability. If you want to ignore WP:AGF and accuse me of religious bigotry please take it straight to WP:ANI. for (;;) (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accuse you of nothing. I have no idea who you are, and have never interacted with you before. Nor were you the person whose comments I was referring to. That being said, I wasn't attempt to claim anyone was a religious bigot here either, just possibly some subconscious bias. I take umbrage at the suggestion that an Australian Muslim news source is not worthy as a reliable source because it is either a) Australian or b) Muslim (there would be obviously other valid reasons for a source to be unreliable, but that wasn't what was said). I was trying to state that if something had been published in the The Christian Post about an American Christian then we wouldn't question the authority of the source. Much like if something was published in any other specialist newspaper (whether religious or otherwise) that deals with a defined topic. For example, a Japanese magazine on plumbing would still be a reliable source when talking about Japanese plumbing. Concerns about the magazine promoting plumbing generally as employment, perhaps to the detriment of other forms of employment, would be irrelevant if we were discussing an AFD on Japanese toilet manufacturing. Miyagawa (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miyagawa, the problem here is that the only claim to notability has been debunked here. What do you have to say to that? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim to notability is no longer that she is the first. Now the notability is based in that the sources claimed she was the first, with the information that she wasn't presented as a counterpoint within the article. I worked on the Delaval Astley article a while ago, who you probably haven't heard of but he has been held up by several reliable sources as being the only person in the history of the Olympic Games to have won medals for two different countries. Complete rubbish as it turns out, and was a mistake due to a misunderstanding of how something was written in a report by the British Curling Association - he never even played at the Olympics. But he too remains notable for the claim that he won two medals, not because he won two medals. Miyagawa (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa:. The problem here is that NO reliable source ever said she was the "first Muslim (even commercial) pilot from India" - only certain unreliable sources said so. Hence, there is no claim of notability here. This article fails WP:V and much of the content is being supported by unreliable sources. The Australian Muslim source that you are talking about - I tried opening the website and Google chrome says the site has malware. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The australianmuslimtimes.com has been removed as stated above by Lemongirl1942. If Miyagawa thinks other mentioned sources are WP:RS, they will have to prove that individually. These sources are hardly being used on EnWiki as of now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for being notable enough to have own article. There are multiple in-depth coverage about her in mainstream media such as [48], [49], [50] etc and her struggle against odds have also been documented[51]. If we can have article on Prem Mathur, Nivedita Bhasin etc. then we can definitely have this article. Jiahimedluke (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no enduring and persistent claim of notability and this is a BLP1E. She is NOT the first Muslim-woman-pilot in India. The claim got debunked. Just being the "only known Muslim among the 600-odd women pilots employed in the Indian aviation sector" at present is no claim of notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced with Dharmadhyaksha's claim of so called first+indian+muslim+woman+pilot propaganda spread by pro-muslim sources unless he can establish this with reliable sources. I don't think the claim of first Muslim-woman-pilot in India got debunked because according to that source, Hijab Imtiaz Ali was first female muslim pilot during 1936 when India was not an independent nation and Pakistan and Bangladesh were not formed. Hijab Imtiaz Ali wasn't even a commercial pilot. Jiahimedluke (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I spy WP:OTHERSTUFF... (Not to mention some other stuff being mentioned through out the AFD) Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 07:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claims and descriptors

First Indian woman pilot in pre-independence India - Sarla Thakral
First Indian Muslim woman pilot in pre-independence India - Hijab Imtiaz Ali
First Indian woman commercial pilot in post-independence India (employed in the aviation sector) - Prem Mathur
First Indian woman commercial pilot in post-independence India to command a plane (employed in the aviation sector)- Durba Banerjee
First Indian (Muslim) woman pilot in post-independence Indiato receive private pilot license - Rabia Futehally [52],[53]
First Indian Muslim woman pilot in post-independence India to receive commercial pilot license - Syeda Salva Fatima
(Possible) First Indian Muslim woman pilot in post-independence India to receive commercial pilot licence and also be employed in the aviation sector - Saarah Hameed Ahmed

Sorry, but this is stretching the notability a bit too far for something which is a BLP1E. In addition, NO reliable source confirms that the subject was "first Indian muslim woman pilot employed in the aviation industry". I would like to see if someone can show me such a reliable source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the first Indian film was made in pre-Independent India, we do not hail any film as first+indian+post-independence+film. We don't do such for first dam, first electricity plant, first female doctor, first female teacher, first railway line, etc. Such crappy senseless added adjectives of first post-independence are need for people who lack notability but still need publicity and internet coverage. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not fail WP:GNG. Article could use clean up and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is WP:BLP1E not GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BIO1E is not applicable here, that is the standard for people famous for a single incident (and that "rule" is inconsistently applied, else why does Lawnchair Larry still exist?). Montanabw ^(talk) 06:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawnchair Larry exists because sources have demonstrated a lasting significance. This is also the same reason why Sarla Thakral exists but Derek Ramsey (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) (2nd nomination)) doesn't exist. Saarah Hameed Ahmed is BLP1E and the single claim to perhaps lasting notability got debunked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not make the argument any better than Lemongirl942 did above. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still enough questionability about the depth and overall substance for this article, it's best deleted because, while the claim is convincing enough, the questionability still stays noticed. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:SwisterTwister, you fail to notice that WP:N presents a presumption of notability, not the other way around. Lack of notability is what needs to be established, and even though the "first Muslim woman pilot in India" has been debunked, we still need to look at general GNG... she has independent, third-party coverage that meets GNG. She doesn't have to leap tall buildings in a single bound! Montanabw ^(talk) 06:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of firsts in India. We cannot have articles for non-notable and trivial issues like this. In June, I marked page Veerath Bharathi for CSD who was "Bengaluru's first woman cab driver". What next, India's first ~~female~~ Bengali female plumber or India's first Hindu female break-dancer???? Where does this end. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Various sources, and those were far better and notable newspaper sources than the pro-muslim agenda sources I listed above, were mentioning a certain Raj Narayan Dube as notable. Post Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Narayan Dube, the article was proved to be a hoax and deleted for his notability was questioned and no actual reliable sources of his era were found to establish his notability. In similar case here, we should not allow a Wikipedia space for someone with whom some newspapers have been generous enough to not fact check but simple sprang to grab interviews based on her sole notability which has been refuted. Such hoaxes should not be promoted even though many sources provide GNG passage of the topic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of above, but keep some content as per all of above. Replace with an article along the lines of History of Indian female aviation with all of the firsts listed by Lemongirl942 under claims and descriptors with a few paragraphs each. I think such would be an interesting encyclopedic article, easily with sufficient multiple RSS per paragraph. (Repeating myself again:) but if people put as much effort into arguing for and against and article into the article itself it might be well on the way to being a GA. There is a lot of good research above if someone would just pull it altogether into a fact consistent article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I do like the idea of a list or history article, a better title that avoids "female" in favor of "women" would by History of women's aviation in India. Also avoids the confusion of Native American "Indians" with Asian "Indians." I also agree that the bandwidth spent here should go to improving articles; sadly, when one is confronting a herd of deletion advocates, the priority has to be to stop the bleeding with a few rough stitches before prettifying the article. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea but I'm very firm on deleting this article. Considering the fact that Wikipedia is a widely used source and WP:V is essential, I shudder to think the number of readers who have read and got the wrong info from this article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Duncan (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

I'm not finding substantial coverage in independent sources, the cited sources included, so I don't think he meets the notability requirement. The awards went to the company, not to him personally. Largoplazo (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage of the subject outside CV-like mentions, PR-stuff and a YouTube video. Fails notability by a long shot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That's too bad. I am very familiar with the company and would think he would have more coverage out there. However, it is what it is and I was unable to find anything in-depth from reliable sources to come anywhere close to showing notability. Fails WP:GNG quite easily. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self promotional and unreliable references used. No evidence at all for supposed MMA career. Nothing to warrant a notable tag other then another entrepreneur with a superiority complex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Wendowski (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 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 deletion G11. (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IndustryARC ™[edit]

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

WP:PROMO for a company that fails WP:GNG. —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Presumably created with the TM postscript this time, because IndustryARC is protected after multiple previous speedy deletions. AllyD (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and WP:SALT. NN company, and this is a promo puff piece for it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:37, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Link-Validator[edit]

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

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

Promotional, but not G11 worthy. I checked for sources and I found nothing but the GitHub page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No valid sourcing found for our notability guideline. DeVerm (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - advertising. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding sources. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Barry-Wehmiller. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barry-Wehmiller International[edit]

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

subsidiary of Barry-Wehmiller group - no indication of separate notability. noq (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not separately notable, but should be merged is part--a list of subsidiaries is always appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Barry-Wehmiller, a few mentions there certainly are appropriate. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Muses of Kos, Greece[edit]

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

this article has no sources cited Celestinesucess (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the username of the article creator and lack of any real world information on these muses, I think this is a candidate for deletion under WP:A11. clpo13_(talk) 23:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be a hoax. It's definitely not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant hoax. Constantine ✍ 11:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- At best it is original research. This creation was by a single purpose account. I would also question the credibility of the information (looking at a Greek dictionary and Smith, Smaller Classical Dictionary, 1877): Cleopatra was a Macedonian princess (d.337 BC). Katerina - can't find a context: the nearest I can get is katharos (whence Catherine) clean or pure. Sophia is the Greek for wisdom (not knowledge - they are different). Helen was the queen whose abduction led to the Trojan War. She was a daughter of Zeus, but not a goddess. Zoe is the Greek for life (not childbirth or manners). Form this I conclude that the story is not credible. If the creator will provide reliable sources, I am happy to reconsider. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:55, 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 Keep per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletions beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Echizen ware[edit]

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

this article has no sources Celestinesucess (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has no source is not a valid reason to delete the page. Though I agree that I can't find enough independent sources to make this article notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coderzombie (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added. And let's not go overboard with this deletion policy. Gryffindor (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gryffindor, Overboard or not, AfD tags shouldn't be removed until the debate is over. Coderzombie (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coderzombie, removing content that is supporting the article is disruptive behaviour. You can readd the tags, but do not remove any content. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, I have added a handful of English language {{Cite book}}s to sources. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, and doing a modicum of mandatory searching prior to nomination saves time. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Thank you Sam Sailor. Gryffindor (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sam Sailor has shown that the sources certainly exist to satify [WP:GNG]]. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; GNG is met with Sam Sailor's sources. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has plenty of reliable independent sources. Article passes WP:GNG. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 08:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Christian Life Centre[edit]

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

Borderline A7. It doesn't have Google hits except for its own websites and standard company listings. Don't believe this is a notable organisation. BethNaught (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it fails WP:ORG. I've run a news search with the article title in quotation marks and that draws a blank. To that end, I would have put this up for A7. Schwede 66 05:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- My guess is that this is a rather typical local church, but probably catering for the Indian community. If kept, it should become Indian Christian Life Centre, Auckland. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:08, 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 keep. Newer duplicate article speedy deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bellfield[edit]

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

This is a duplicate to article Dennis Belfield. His last name is spelled as Belfield, not Bellfield. LongLiveMusic (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A10 - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is the older article that needs to be renamed whereas the newer article will be speedydeleted so can the nom please withdraw the nomination. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:57, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Gwendolyn Davis[edit]

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

I would have thought if she was genuinely notable, there would be some WP:RS sources. A few recent print-only mentions in local niche publications doesn't satisfy our notability criteria, and her achievements again seem of only local significance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:: I have to agree there seems to be nothing more to satisfy notability.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:59, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NAV Back-office Solutions Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

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

Subsidiary with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Even if parent is notable, notability of subsidiaries is not inheirited. Speedy removed by IP editor that has only edited articles relating to this company. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The earlier CSD A7/G11 was appropriate, but was removed by a company IP. An unreferenced article, with no claim of notability. Searches turn up nothing to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence of notability provided or easily located by search. EdChem (talk) 07:27, 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Penetralia[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria for recordings; see WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage and this album has not made the charts. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Almafeta (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; print sources available. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:34, 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 no consensus. Closing with NPASR (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourth Dimension (Hypocrisy album)[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria for recordings; see WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage and this album has not made the charts. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:33, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IDirect[edit]

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

I cannot see where notability is supposed to reside here. It isn't helped by poorly formed in-line references and a great number of external links. The in-line refs show that it exists and that is all. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News sources are weak, and of the "prnewswire" variety mostly.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Object to Deletion Better sources have been added and cleaned up, outdated/broken and self-interest links have been removed Photoguy11579 (talk 19:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, when this article was named VT iDirect, it was apparently deleted four times, one of which was via AfD. There is also mention of COI by Photoguy11579 in this old COIN discussion. It seems to say the user is connected to the company but I did not see a definitive declaration of that. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a fan of and part of the satellite industry, but not connected to the company.Photoguy11579 (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources available are announcements - these are not consistent with independent reporting per WP:ORGDEPTH; wp:rs and wp:n. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the aforementioned AfD [54]]. This page as "IDirect" has been deleted twice on 28 July 2008 and 23 May 2009 [55]. This is in addition to the aforementioned having been deleted several times under a slightly different name. Here is the log for that [56]. As a result the page was ultimately userfied without a mainspace redirect [57]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:58, 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, the "top professional league" indicates indeed NHL or KHL--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Moon[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nom mentions, fails WP:NHOCKEY. While he was a fourth-round draft pick in the NHL, he was never signed and has bounced around the ECHL since. Hasn't been the recipient of any notable honors or awards, and fails WP:GNG otherwise. ERK^talk 13:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Forgive the newbie question, but one of the guidelines I see on WP:NHOCKEY is "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league". This player has played in quite a few AHL and ECHL games. Doesn't that satisfy this criteria? Or does the fact that the guidelines says 'top professional league' indicate that it has to be a league like the NHL or KHL? Also, for what it's worth, this person did win the Central Hockey League championship back in the 2010-11 season (source from Elite Prospects). --My Pants Metal (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing on a successful minor league team does not show notability. Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG since coverage is not significant and independent.Mdtemp (talk) 17:56, 5 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. WP:NSPORTS for judo says automatic notability is only when he competes at the Olympics, and otherwise he should have got a non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, which, as most of the participants of this discussion agree, has not been demonstrated--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Andrianov[edit]

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

Subject hardly receives passing mentions in references. Little coverage overall. Accomplishments are also unnotable of an article. ALongStay (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he passes the essay WP:MANOTE 2 time Bronze Medalist at the US National Championships. National Champion in Bulgaria. Gold Medalist in National Collegiate Judo Championships. he accomplishments are there but the coverage is weak. They seem superior to the requirements of other sports listed at WP:NSPORT 173.52.99.208 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Strange how this IP user just so "happens" to start editing specifically on Afds created by the same user. Wouldn't anyone else agree?ALongStay (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be that the IP is a non-logged in user who has an interest in American judoka. What percentage of your AfDs have they edited on? I see nothing strange and one could ask why your most recent AfDs both target articles created by the same user. Could be a coincidence and I am willing to assume that also.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok PRehse maybe you are right about that IP, big emphasis on maybe, but what about this other IP vote? Another interested non-user?ALongStay (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am sure you are right ALongStay I just don't think it matters to the discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ALthough the use of puppets (sock or meat) is not allowed.Mdtemp (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Success at the collegiate judo championships is not competing at the highest level. If we was a national champion in Bulgaria, and there doesn't appear to be independent evidence of this, it was as a junior since he and his family left there when he was 15 or 16. As far as his accomplishments being superior to those of other sports, that's not true. For example, if he was a boxer he wouldn't meet WP:NBOX as he never fought in a national championship bout. He arguably does meet WP:MANOTE, but not strongly, and there's a lack of significant coverage to show he meets WP:GNG.Papaursa (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This link specifically states that earned Bronze in the US National Championship TWICE. [58] He is also the subject of an article in the New York Daily News [59] 173.52.99.208 (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting to become a U.S. citizen does not make him notable. Papaursa (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being covered by the 4th largest newspaper in the United States shows significant primary coverage and thus helps in his passing GNG. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No indication of success at the highest levels. National champion or third place does not speak to notability for Judo - and it is doubtful (even if it did) that he was senior national champion of Bulgaria.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earning a medal in two nations and a collegiate medal is pretty significant. [60]. He is also the subject of an article in the New York Daily News [61] 173.52.99.208 (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Competed at the highest level. Notable individual. Passes MANOTE. 98.7.109.20 (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 98.7.109.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The point is that he never did compete at the highest levels.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would have passed WP:NTRACK, WP:NBOX, WP:NCURL, WP:NCYCLING, WP:NSKATE, WP:NGOLF, and WP:NGYMNAST. Most of which have world championships and participate in the Olympics. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judo also has world championships and is in the Olympics. What is your point? He never qualified for the Olympics, and third place finishers in judo don't get Olympic spots. If he was a boxer, the closest sport of the ones you mention, he wouldn't meet WP:NBOX. I am reminded of CrazyAces489 who once claimed the U.S. military judo championships were at a higher level than the world championships and who kept repeating the same arguments over and over at AfD discussions. Papaursa (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:NBOX? You were the one to bring up WP:NBOX where it specifically states "Has fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an International Boxing Association/Association Internationale de Boxe Amateur (AIBA) affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship medal winning country" - Boxing has Amateur, Olympic and Professional Leagues. Andrianov won the national championship for Bulgaria and earned 2 Bronze Medals in the United States at the National Championship. If this were figure skating it would qualify as well WP:NSKATE. Figure skating has Olympic and World Championships. It states "Won their country's senior national championships, with the exception of those countries that do not regularly send multiple skaters to the Olympic Games (consult this Olympic athlete tally to check whether the country qualifies)." If this were curling, he would qualify as well WP:NCURL. It states "Has participated in the Brier, the Tournament of Hearts or received a podium finish for another country's national championship, provided that the country has qualified a team into either the preceding or succeeding Olympics." If you look at WP:SPORTCRIT it states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published NY Daily News, and Black Belt Magazine [2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." 173.52.99.208 (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He wouldn't meet NBOX (if that was even applicable) because he never fought in the finals. At best he made the semi-finals.Mdtemp (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this were curling he would pass "Has participated in the Brier, the Tournament of Hearts or received a podium finish for another country's national championship, provided that the country has qualified a team into either the preceding or succeeding Olympics." WP:NCURL. He would pass MANOTE "Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)" 173.52.99.208 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not enough in-depth coverage on the individual. The person also never succeeded at a high professional level so none of his accomplishments are deserving of an article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you read the NY Daily News Article on the individual? That was pretty in depth. Are you aware that there is no professional level in this sport? Everything is amateur. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't...90% of it is about his struggle to receive papers to get into the US. Nothing relevant about that in relation to notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't read the article because he was already in the United States. 19:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I did read it and it still makes absolutely no difference. The article will be deleted because the individual is not notable. Period. You know you remind me of someone who keeps repeating irrelevant arguments at Afds. Hopefully you aren't him because he should return to his account if he wants to argue at Afds.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence he ever had any success competing at the highest level. A college title and perhaps a junior Bulgarian title (if he even won that) do not show he's notable. Some results and a local article saying he's trying to become a U.S. citizen (WP:NOTNEWS) do not meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Junior title? Where do you base this from? Is this based on fact or an assumption? Two time bronze medalist? The Daily News isn't local, its the 4th largest newspaper in the United States. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made this comment initially. Do the math. The Daily News article at the end of 1998 says he is 22 (which means he was born in 1976) and says his family left Bulgaria in 1992. That means he was 15 or 16, depending on the exact dates of his birthday and their leaving Bulgaria. He would have been at the age to compete for cadet titles. If you claim he was the senior national champion you'll need to prove it. So far no one has provided multiple independent reliable sources showing significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:A7 NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laksara Radio[edit]

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

Non-notable internet radio station broadcasting station. Two references are primary, one is a link to download an app from google play. The other two refs refer to a book by Hoeg that discusses internet radio station broadcasting techniques and protocols in general. Article subject has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and does not pass WP:GNG. No notability here at all. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 03:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As indicated by the nom, there is no evidence of notability. Subject doesn't comply with WP:BCAST or WP:CORP requirements. Dan arndt (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 (it's already been speedied as A7/G11 six times, here and at Laksara) - it's web content that fails to make "any credible claim of significance or importance". --McGeddon (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the basis McGeddon's feedback I would suggest Delete and SALT. Dan arndt (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per above. Definitely qualifies for deletion under section A7/G11Class455fan1 (talk) 14:34, 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.