Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 June	5 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 speedy delete. Closing this as speedy delete per CSD G7: author requests deletion, as it's the author who has nominated this soft redirect for deletion (I'm not quite sure what's going on with cyberbot!!). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

സെന്‍റ് മേരീസ് ‘സൂനോറോ’ തീര്‍ത്ഥാടന കേന്ദ്രം മീനങ്ങാടി[edit]

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

Reason Stalin Sunny^Talk2Me 14:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Pages in other language is moved to actual page location.[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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}14:37, 1 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:01, 2 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:40, 3 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(After-close note: reduced redundant Cyberbot logging notations as mentioned above for logging purposes; about 20 in all. Nate • (chatter) 07:36, 5 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Van Annan[edit]

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

No notability-- just PR. Ad no reason to expect any--minor roles in every respect DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at all for notability, this has existed for several years and there has still been nothing for anything imaginably better, nothing to suggest her career will be notable anytime soon. There's certainly also nothing for any inherited notability , thus analysis concludes with simply nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low level actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG by a mile. According to this, the subject seems to have produced a web series. But that's it. There is hardly anything else available which will convince me that the subject is notable. I even looked at her IMDb profile where she is credited for writing/directing/hosting a TV series called "Celebville360", but this series seems to be not notable as hardly any information is available. Doesn't pass WP:ENT either, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Model with adequate third party incida of notability. There are sufficient sources here, plus a list of press credits noted on her website here that appear to check out as independent third party sources. Again, a lot of third world coverage, not to be discounted. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 12:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CHF Partners in Rural Development[edit]

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

No external references. May no longer exist Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:54, 10 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 Speedily deleted as a redirect to a deleted page. Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shu habibz[edit]

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

Redirecting to a user page. NJR4 (talk) 21:37, 4 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. Block evasion by prolific sockpuppeteer Alex9777777; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex9777777 Super Mario Man–Talk 22:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Печкуроў - Pechkurov[edit]

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

Generally unremarkable performer. No quality references. One line of text. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article describes the subject as a blogger, not a performer. But I can't find where he has done significant amounts of blogging, much less been the subject of coverage in independent reliable sources for that. If this article is kept, it will need to be moved to a title in the Roman alphabet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:56, 4 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. Sandstein 12:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

King Tiger (Vevo Artist)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the requirements for a Musician article as specified in WP:NMUSIC. Article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Tiger (rapper). G4 speedy declined due to events described following the AfD. Depending on how exactly the text does or doesn't match any of the many prior versions, author may be a sock of Whiskyrum1852. Prior versions for those who wish to check: King Tiger (rapper), King Tiger (entertainer), King Tiger Official, King Tiger (Musician), King Tiger (Recording Artist).

Current references include MTV, which is just a paste of one of the previous versions of King Tiger (rapper), a blurb from hiphopondeck.com which is a paste of one of the subject's own press-releases [1], and his own vevo page. I find no independent material to satisfy notability guidelines. Crow^Caw 21:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear title block evasion (so the subject doesn't want any radio airplay or album purchases any longer and will offer their services exclusively to Vevo? Not a viable plan in the least). MTV is quickly dismissed thanks to their "Such content is not representative of Viacom Media Networks" disclaimer. No known singles or albums; pretty much open-and-shut. Nate • (chatter) 23:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:52, 10 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. Sandstein 12:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normanton Telecom Ltd[edit]

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

Non-notable company that was founded just five months ago where the company does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. The sources of this article are all primary sources, excluding two sources (one for eBay, one for Amazon). I've done my research and can't find any sources that cover this article, even just passing mentions. There may be a conflict of interest with the original author because I simply can't find any evidence to back up anything on this article. st170e^talk 20:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because the subject is the head of the company in question and is not notable:

The original page author has also expanded and written another article on the subject, which I am now also nominating for deletion because of a lack of notability:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 20:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 20:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 20:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normanton Telecoms are a notable business - they are gaining publicity however they have not been reported online yet. They are working to gain wider publicity. Davemallins (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TOOSOON. st170e^talk 21:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about Normanton Telecom Ltd and James Klaassen White. The two subjects fail Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just corporate advertising. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Unable to find anything to establish notability on all three of these subjects. The main article on the company only has directory sources that I can find. I am curious why all three are directed into one AfD instead of separate ones. Is there a benefit in doing so? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, they're all related pages created by the same author, whose sole aim was, in my opinion, to advertise/gain publicity for the company. See the above comment from the author. st170e^talk 01:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in the assessment that they are likely here to promote the subject of all three topics. Here is a more specific question. Let's "assume" (more likely than not) these articles are deleted. Given that promotional content is sometimes reposted, will it show the prior AfD for the two articles that are combined with this one? I guess I just want to make sure that if something is reposted and again nominated for deletion, it will show up with a prior AfD and not be considered the 1st. Hope that clarifies the question. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and it is a fair one. It's my judgement that the other articles would not be able to survive if the main article (Normanton Telecom Ltd) didn't exist, because it is the main reason why the other two articles are on Wikipedia. st170e^talk 01:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both by all means as there coverage is not all convincing and there would not be anything else better considering the company only started within the past 7 months, he's certainly not suggestive of his own notable article either and inherited notability because of the company is not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 7 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. Sandstein 12:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star Shuttle[edit]

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

This bus company does not meet WP:NCORP. It's great that their fleet of buses has adequate luggage space, but there aren't any reliable third party references with non-tirival coverage about this small company. Mikeblas (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches have found nothing noticeably better and there's nothing to suggest anything else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria do Céu Monteiro[edit]

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

Subject might be notable, but I cannot find any source to support the claim made, because the source is dead, and it's a one-line article. This source might be a claim to GNG, but I don't know if this is a major appointment or not, and the article also says nothing about any of her other roles, so I think someone made an error in what she was the President of. Nevertheless, the lack of sources meeting GNG still inclines towards deletion based on an inability to find significant coverage. MSJapan (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The standard GNews and GBooks searches both provide several references (for instance, this one in Portuguese from 2008) to the subject as the President of the Supreme Court of Guinea-Bissau from 2005 or before until at least some time in the last two years (and possibly still). And the source that the nominator found establishes her appointment in 2014 as President of the Community Court of Justice, which seems to be the main court of the Economic Community of West African States. Someone whose career has contained these two post certainly should be notable (her apparent equivalents in Europe or North America fairly certainly would be) - which makes it rather annoying that while both GNews and GBooks searches provide quite a few references (though still far short of what one might hope for) to the subject in one or other of these positions, almost all seem to be brief mentions. We seem to have some difficulty in identifying reliable West African sources, and it may well be that we are missing some - but at the moment, I don't quite feel able to take any definite view about keeping this article. PWilkinson (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holds an important position in a country requiring more coverage. Needs expansion.--Ipigott (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How? Pwilkinson has already pointed out a dearth of sources. How do you cover that which has no coverage? MSJapan (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure exactly the nature of the President of the Supreme Court in Guinea Bissau, however if the court itself is anything even vaguely analogous to the US Supreme Court, than all its members ever are notable. She is clearly notable, the fact that we lack adequate sources from Guinea Bissau should not cause us to delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be remembered that sources do not have to be online to be used. I would assume that there are newspapers in Guinea Bissau that have said something substantial about Ms. Monteiro, or at least a newspaper. It may not be accesable at all on line, or may just be not findable in quick searches, but we should keep the article since she is clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's not amply detailed but it certainly has convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Position worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a source in English. She is the president of the Supreme Court in Guinea-Bissau. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:38, 10 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. Sandstein 07:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Political Positions of Ben Cardin[edit]

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

Looks like created for political reasons. There is nothing here to redirect, and any of this could have been put in the main article. If nothing else, it is an unneeded split. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 20:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless fork. If there is anything to be merged, merge it. Carrite (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 07:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pliny's World[edit]

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

Unsourced television (?) series, possible hoax ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. This appears to be an independently produced tv series that is yet to be aired. God knows when that will be. Seasider91 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hank the Cowdog#Adaptations. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hank the cowdog (tv series)[edit]

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

TV show article whose only reference is non-independent. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hank the Cowdog until this series can be confirmed as being broadcast or otherwise scheduled to be shown to the public. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90's comment. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:04, 5 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. A clear consensus among experienced editors that this does not meet notability guidelines. I did not place much weight on the arguments of the obviously conflicted editors. Any editor may add a redirect as part of the normal editing process.Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Center Western Days[edit]

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

Festival does not seem to meet WP:EVENT. Minimal coverage, most of it from the community itself (WP:ROUTINE). Does not seem to meet criteria for inclusion. Majora (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I note that there is coverage already in Valley Center, California, and that seems sufficient. I'm not sure a redirect is beneficial. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Page. Event is an historical event over 66 years and listed within local museum ^[1]and only newspaper^[2] and City of San Diego Events Guide^[3]

http://www.valleycenter.com/westerndays

https://www.vchistory.org/valley-center-western-days/

—Justin760 (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Valley Center Historical Society
^ Valley Roadrunner
^ San Diego Insider

Note. A parallel event, Valley Center Days, just had an article created. I have tagged it for speedy deletion; if necessary, I will start a separate AfD for it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a sanctioned event by the official event organizers and there are other news sources in Valley Center recognizing Valley Center Days as the official event name ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]. Valley Center Western Days is affiliated with Roadrunner Publications, who is trying to trademark the name under Roadrunner Publications, inc. and being legally contested by the official event organizers ^[4]. All sources (Valley Center History Museum website, valleycenter.com and Valley Roadrunner) attributed to Valley Center Western Days are owned by Roadrunner Publications, and Justin760 is the owner and publisher of the Roadrunner newspaper, therefore page is obsolete due to name change. Vchero (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ About Men Behaving Badly
^ Valley Center Chamber Supports Valley Center Days
^ Veterans Sought for Parade
^ Request for Extension of Time to Protest Trademark

Note. Links provided by Vchero to ValleyCenterHappenings are to a blog, not a real legally adjudicated newspaper. The agenda is apparent of this user trying to vandalize pages that have been active since 2009. —Justin760 (talk)
Note. Links provided by Justin760 are self-published. He owns and manages both websites, valleycenter.com and vchistory.org, and Valley Center Happenings is to a verified e-news source that he refuses to recognize due to his ownership of Roadrunner Publications. If it is a blog, please cite the source that you found that. It is clear that Valley Center Western Days is self-promotion of a privately owned business and has been since it's posting. Valley Center Western Days is not affiliated with any event or community organization, only the newspaper, Valley Roadrunner. There was no Valley Center Western Days parade, rodeo, or festival this year as the name's use is discontinued. Vchero (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note. I have recently discovered that other pages created and managed by him, Roadrunner Publications and Valley Center History Museum, have been marked for deletion due to blatant advertising. He deleted the notices and the pages are still up. Vchero (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete As the original creator of this article, I was notified of the flag. This article is for an event that has been running for 66 years as of last week. After reviewing the history log, this new account vchero was just created and according to their contribution log has been making a lot of unnessesary changes, accusations, and now a new page that appears to be slanderous. All actions by this user seem to be focused directly towards an individual. The Western Days event can be found throughout the Internet, confirmed by many news sources. This vchero account refers to Roadrunner numerous times, but there's no mention of that company on the Western Days article. In addition, with the last note made, now it appears they are trying to have our local museum page removed. I agree with the comment made earlier that there's an apparent agenda present and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The article has been active since its creation in 2009 with no issues. Since it appears the malicious changes have been rolled back, I would suggest protecting the page as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcwd (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to everyone: Alright just so we are all aware of how deletion discussion work here. It is not a place for clearly conflicted editors to fight it out. Deletion discussions are also not a vote but a decision based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you all can't come up with something that proves that the event meets what is outlined at WP:NEVENT, nothing you say is going to change the fact that the article does not meet our criteria for inclusion and will be deleted. So please, either find something or accept it for what it is. --Majora (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A small-town festival is not likely to have independent notability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to carry on your dispute. We literally could not care less about who "owns" what trademark. --Majora (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note: First of all, many affiliates of Roadrunner Publications are cited, such as Valley Center History Museum. Also, the only organization that recognizes Valley Center Western Days is Roadrunner Publications (Times Advocate, Valley Roadrunner, etc). Here is proof that he is the owner of the Valley Roadrunner and Roadrunner publications on another one of his self-promoting wiki articles^[1], here is proof that he is attempting to trademark the name "Valley Center Western Days" and is being legally contested ^[2], here is proof that he purchased ficticious business names for events, organizations, and businesses he does not own ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6], here are editorials on another news source condemning his actions ^[7] ^[8], here is other news sources and community organizations recognizing the event as "Valley Center Days" ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] ^[13] ^[14], here is an article asking for Valley Center Days parade entries using the correct website ^[15], here is the announcement for the name change on another news source in town^[16], here is where he 'donates' the trademark "Valley Center Western Days", which he DOES NOT OWN, to the Valley Center History Museum (whose website he owns and manages) ^[17], although he still filed the trademark under Roadrunner Publications, Inc. ^[18], this is his OWN PUBLICATION claiming that Valley Center Days is the new name for the event and that he owns and manages westerndays.org, which is not the offical website ^[19], and here is the official Valley Center Days website, owned and maintained by the cordinators of the true event ^[20]. If this is still not enough for you, then I have no idea what could convince you that Justin760 is posting articles on wikipedia for his own financial gain. He even acknowledges the change in his own newspaper ^[21]. I urge you to delete all wikipedia articles he has started that reroute to his newspaper with his self published sources, including Valley Center Western Days, Valley Center History Museum, and Valley Roadrunner, as they are blatant advertising and meant to deceive the community. I would not mind any of my created articles being deleted as long as these falsified ones are as well. Vchero (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Valley Roadrunner
^ Request for Extension of Time to Contest Trademark
^ Ficticious Business Names Under Roadrunner Publications, Inc.
^ Ficticious Business Names Under Valley Roadrunner, Inc.
^ Ficticious Business Names Under The Valley Roadrunner, Inc.
^ Ficticious Business Names Under Salter, Justin
^ About Men Behaving Badly
^ VC Magazine Flouts Journalitic Integrity
^ Veterans Sought for Parade
^ Valley Center Days Event Listed on Church Calender
^ Invitation to Valley Center Days
^ Valley Center Chamber Recognizing Valley Center Days in May, with Official Website Cited
^ Shuttle Bus Available for Valley Center Days
^ Valley Center Chamber of Commerce Supports Valley Center Days Parade and Program
^ Valley Center Days Parade Applications Due by May 7th
^ Valley Center Parade Co-chair Participants Re-brand Community Event
^ Roadrunner Donates Western Days Trademark to Museum
^ Request for Extension of Time to Contest Trademark
^ Western Days is Out, Valley Center Days is in: Bill Trok Announces New Name for Festival
^ Valley Center Days Official Website
^ Western Days is Out, Valley Center Days is in: Bill Trok Announces New Name for Festival

Delete and redirect to Valley Center, California. The fork Valley Center Days has been nominated for speedy deletion per A10 and rightly so. It duplicated everything in the original version of this article with the exception of the "Name change" section. See [2]] → [3]. Until that "new"article is deleted or redirected I have rewritten that section. This was entirely unacceptable to state in Wikipedia's voice. It also used original research and primary sources. I have also rewritten the "History" section of both this article and the fork as they were copyvio, copied verbatim from here. The business about one of the recent editors of this article using it to publicise his newspaper The Valley Roadrunner or websites is spurious. It has never been added to this article by name or as a reference. Note also, that in this article the name "Western Days", and use of westerndays.org as the official website long predates [4], [5] the acquisition of the newspaper by Justin Salter, who only acquired it in late 2015 [6]. The rival publication Valley Center Happenings is an e-publication, but not a blog. However, when it comes to self-publicising note these additions to Valley Center, California by the now-blocked User:VCHappenings. The link to Valley Center Happenings has since been re-added by IPs and at least one other participant in this discussion [7]. I suggest you all cut it out, or a sockpuppet investigation will. As to the notability of this event, which is the only issue of relevance to this discussion, the event receives annual coverage in the Valley Center edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune and has done since at least 2001 [8]. But don't think that's enough to qualify for a stand-alone article. This is a local festival in a very small town, with press coverage only at county level. The relevant key information belongs as a sub-section in Valley Center, California with redirects from both names. Voceditenore (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Unless, of course, we want every parade held in every small town in the northern hemisphere to have ts own article space. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean he never added his newspaper by name? All the articles he has created cite "valleycenter.com" (which is the Valley Roadrunner site, which he owns) or "vchistory.org" (which is the Valley Center History Museum site, which he also runs and owns.) He did own westerndays.org before he purchased the Roadrunner, and he only purchased the newspaper so he could publish things against the entire festival. He owns many small businesses' websites in town because he pretends to be really nice and run the site for you, but it you ever want to contribute as well, he will suddenly claim all rights and continue to publish false information. As I have stated, westerndays.org used to be the official website, but when he began publishing incorrect vender and contestant appplications, the organizers found it necessary to change. Redirecting "Valley Center Days" to an outdated event name with information linking back to the Roadrunner completely defeats the purpose of the name change and only gives more power to Justin, especially considering my page has correct information. The event organizers do not want to be associated with Western Days at all, which means that Valley Center Days is not, and never will be, Valley Center Western Days. So please, to save everyone time, Just delete "Valley Center Western Days" and "Valley Roadrunner", and put the correct information in "Valley Center, California" so it is not misleading and claiming that it is still Western Days. westerndays.org is no longer the official website, it used to be, but because of the Roadrunner, they were forced to open another website. All of his websites and articles will appear long standing because it only changed to Valley Center Days (for the ENTIRE event, not just the parade) this year. "Valley Roadrunner" isn't notable, neither is Valley Center Days (or the past rendition of it, Valley Center Western Days), so all should be removed. Vchero (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vchero, I said that the Valley Roadrunner was not added either as a link or a reference to this article, which is the one under discussion. Roadrunner Publications has already been deleted via this AfD. If you feel that Valley Roadrunner or Valley Center History Museum do not meet the notability guidelines, then nominate them for deletion. Once again, we are not interested in the details of your personal feud with the proprietor of that newspaper. We are discussing whether this article (Valley Center Western Days) is of sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. That is the sole criteria that will be used. In the highly unlikely event that it is kept, the appropriate place to discuss the article's future content and name is at Talk:Valley Center Western Days, not here. The appropriate place to discuss the content of Valley Center, California is at Talk:Valley Center, California, not here. Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore Okay, I apologize for bringing up the other articles. He did not cite Valley Roadrunner because the other two websites, westerndays.org and vchistory.org, are owned and managed by him as well, and they bring you back to Valley Roadrunner eventually. Westerndays.org publishes false information regarding the event, and the cordinators are trying their best to separate Valley Center Days and Valley Center Western Days. The main difference is, Valley Center Days is the festival, parade, and rodeo spanning 2016 and beyond (or it might change again, who knows- the event's name has changed many times in the past and subject to again). Valley Center Western Days was the name of the event from 1968-2015 and is no longer affiliated with any producers of the event. They are the same event, but Valley Center Days is the most current rendition of it. The information listed on this article is outdated and the event isn't notable enough on a global scale, anyway. Valley Center Days is just a tiny, non-profit event put on by our local Optimist Club and Church and the proceeds go straight back to various youth programs in Valley Center. There isn't any reason why something like that would even be on Wikipedia. Vchero (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and redirect to Valley Center, California - this fails GNG by a mile. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - Not notable, point it to the town's article. BMK (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - local event that fails WP:EVENT Gab4gab (talk) 17:09, 11 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 speedily deleted based on article creator's request. See WP:G7. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ratul keno xunaed[edit]

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

This is not original Mrakhaw (talk) 17:07, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Author of newly created article created this AfD rather than WP:G7.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:38, 4 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. J04n(talk page) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McKeon[edit]

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

It seems he was best known for his involvement with both politician's careers and my searches show this, this and this and it seems he's still questionable for his own actual notable article, since he can't have inherited notability from simply working with those two politicians. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:GNG in his own right AusLondonder (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Highly probable keep Not sure yet, except I am certain that this one needs more than a cursory dismissal. It would, at the very least, be important to read the articles in Sister Twister 's searches and in searches in the NYTimes [9], WSJ [10], WaPo [11], CNN [12], Politico [13] and other papers. We wouldn't, after all, delete an artidle on Leo McGarry on the grounds that "he can't have inherited notability from simply working with" a politician or two.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails WP:GNG. The one reference cited in the article gives him a couple of sentences: he used to work for X, now he is working for Y. All the searches cited above by Swister Twister and E.M.Gregory lead to articles where he is mentioned in passing, almost always in a sentence like "such-and-such, said Michael McKeon, a spokesman for so-and-so." That is not significant coverage; it is not even coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. He seems only notable for having worked with notable politicians. The only source listed in the article is a very short, passing mention. Omni Flames (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Getting a bunch of short references as a press person and giving out various statements isn't what you can build a good article on. He's been associated with multiple notable organizations and individuals, sure, but it doesn't seem that he passes the bar himself. I'd get rid of the article as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:09, 13 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) 15:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azie Faison[edit]

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

My searches have simply found nothing better at all aside from this and this (clicking the 2nd page also links both a NYDailyNews and NYTimes article). SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seemingly notable and the subject of multiple books, films, and songs, sources can be found in time. JesseRafe (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 16:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG guidelines. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG guidelines. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 9 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. After two relistings with no additional comment, I don't think there is going to be any more input here to resolve the issue. MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnie All Stars[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Article was dePRODded after I put it up for PROD, with the editor adding two citations to demonstrate notability. However, I still feel the band fails notability: of the two citations provided, terra.com.co is an RS (part of Terra Networks), but I am unsure about the reliability of the Rockombia website. Even if you allow the latter source, all the two citations provide us with is the information that the band formed in 1997 and that they have released four albums, which isn't enough. The line-up changes and recording dates are all unverified, the albums were released on a local independent label, and the text is full of POV statements: the last line before the discography is a direct translation of the last line of the Rockombia biography, so it fails COPYVIO as well. All mentions of the band on the web appear to be from blogs and other non-RS sources. Richard3120 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks for telling me about this listing, I think the Rockombia cite is ok, at least it does not seem to be user or band generated. Sources are hard to find but in view of their performances at major music festivals and youtube and other nonRs coverage there may well be off-line sources which perhaps some Columbian editors could provide. Agree that the article is not neutral but it can be rewritten leaving out any copyvio. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I checked the article's creator and found it was "Camilogomez", which just happens to be the name of the band's bass player, so that would probably explain the lack of neutrality. I'm a bit worried about not finding any off-line sources: Colombia's main newspaper, El Tiempo, normally archives articles on their website that date back to the early 1990s, but I can't find any mention of them on there. The YouTube videos that are available appear to be just their songs (no interviews or anything that gives details about the band), and the biggest music festival I can find that they've played at is Bogota's "Rock al Parque", which they appear to have played twice, in 1998 and 2012, but I can't find any reliable sources to confirm this, apart from this mention – Shock is Colombia's premier music magazine... but I can't tell whether this is user-generated content or not. Richard3120 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now instead as my searches have shown nothing noticeably better and the article is still overall questionable, Draft if needed until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 16:46, 4 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) 15:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Idolmaster characters[edit]

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

Original merge discussion went unchallenged, reverter wants full discussion. These series characters, as a set, are not independently notable from the main series, as shown through their lack of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) A merge or redirect to the parent article's character section should suffice. czar 16:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because noone notices a merger does not neccessarily make it unchallenged. A character article is very much notable for this series, particularly with one as many games and media, and with it many characters, as Idolmaster. If sources are an issue, then the article can use references linking to the character pages of official websites (I've already done this for the 756 and 346 idols). Wonchop (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar 16:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 16:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, there is no "parent article" for this to be merged to, as the article is a compilation of all characters in the Idolmaster series - yet each game in the series has its own, different set of characters. Secondly, Idolmaster is a franchise made in Japan exclusively for the Japanese market - so there's the usual trouble if one searches for RS coverage only in English (which I suspect the nominator has done), as most sources will be in Japanese. After picking some characters randomly, a Google News search for "天海春香" (one of the characters) nets plenty of sources. Similarly, so does "島村卯月", another randomly chosen character. A case for WP:NEXIST can easily be made here. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - similar to Satellizer's stance, I believe the game series is pretty huge in Japan, and the entire game concept is pretty closely tied to the characters themselves. I doubt there's enough to warrant individual articles, but they collectively likely receive enough independent coverage. Sources like this show that the Japanese-focused English websites cover it some, and that Japanese print magazines dedicate coverage to them, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim to only major characters, ones mentioned in the games and anime under cast/staff. Large franchise with large number of characters. This should cover the most recurring ones. The characters that are unique to a particular branch of the games or are game-specific should stay out of the list and offloaded to the individual games. Get rid of laundry list of 346 idols. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here we go again. Yes the article needs some work, but merging it to the already-big article The Idolmaster is not going to be very practical. AS Satellizer has said, @Czar:, next time, when searching for sources for foreign topics, please try searching for sources in their native language too. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, let's see the sources. I see lots of junk sources and passing mentions in the above Google News search. For all the "keep" votes above, where are the sources that discuss the characters as independently notable from the series? It isn't enough to postulate that they exist somewhere in the ether—if they're so easy to find, find them. Otherwise this is a lot of hot air. czar 08:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Here's a mention by Famitsu, a well-respected Japanese video game magazine. I'm aware that the article itself isn't exactly independent given that it seems to be slightly promotional, but it's far from a junk source. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article is about a cross-brand promotion... what do you think it says about Idolmaster characters that you think warrants a separate article? We look for significant coverage in keeping articles—you should be able to pull at least several articles with some depth on the subject before !voting to "keep". WP:42 czar 15:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Is there a guideline somewhere that says that if a franchise is notable, important or successful a list of characters from that franchise should have its own list of characters? If WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, how come it is so hard to find them? @Satellizer: and @Narutolovehinata5:, the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine includes non-English websites, including Gematsu, Siliconera and 4Gamer.net. Is there any information which helps with WP:VGSCOPE No. 6: "Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information"? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your first question, no. Separate character lists souldn't always be made just because the primary topic is notable; they tend to be split off due to article size problems and not (just) because of notability. As for your second question, AfD isn't cleanup and the article can always be rewritten. There's tons of coverage on Idolmaster (sadly mostly in Japanese) which are usable if you know where to look. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my !vote showed that both Siliconera and Famitsu dedicated coverage to the characters. If I found that in a 30 second search, and it's a huge franchise, it's reasonable to think that there's at least a handful of other sources spanning existence. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Sergecross. Additionally, I'd like to add that since it only lists six Japanese sources yet hundreds of English sources, the WP:VG/RS custom search is itself a victim of WP:BIAS and useless for searching for foreign coverage. I cannot read Japanese asking me to go through the hundreds of hits that pop up on Google after searching for just one character to verify if they are SIGCOV or not would be an exercise in time-wasting frustration. Nevertheless, due to the sheer number of hits there are, the fact that plenty of reliable sources do pop up, and the popularity of the series in Japan, it isn't really much of a stretch to infer that sources do exist thus meeting WP:NEXIST. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one contests that the VG custom Google search favors English-language sources (so does the English Wikipedia...) but that isn't an excuse to not look for other sources. I looked and didn't find anything. We don't keep articles based on vague hunches that sources should exist, because that guarantees the article will stay in its current unsourced state for the next decade. Either sources exist that discuss this set of characters in enough depth to warrant a breakout (summary style) article, or they don't. No one has showed sources that do this. Serge pointed to Siliconera, which doesn't go into the characters in any depth separate from the media itself, and Naruto accurately said that Famitsu "mentions" the game as part of a promotion... Where are the sources used to prove that the set of characters needs to be covered separately from the series article? (And if the characters are mostly not continuous between entries in the series, what is the defense for needing to collect them in one place?) czar 13:38, 9 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. Sandstein 13:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Representative of the Philippines to Miss Intercontinental[edit]

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

List of candidates to a not notable pageant. The representatives aren't notable either ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Miss Intercontinental article was itself deleted at AfD as non-notable, so a list of one country's representatives to that pageant should be even less notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Transformers:_Animated_characters#Team_Chaar. Sandstein 13:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spittor[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. The previous AfD attracted surprisingly little attention, closing as no consensus. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List_of_Transformers:_Animated_characters#Team_Chaar, as this is a cartoon character from this series. Mathewignash (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The character's been in more than one series, so the merge suggested above doesn't seem appropriate. Aside from that, there's very little worth merging to any list of whatever. It's unlikely anyone searching for this character won't locate the main articles about the various shows and comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:04, 7 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. Sandstein 13:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Six (album)[edit]

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

The album fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. It has not gained any significant coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. Of the four references cited in the article, three of them are unreliable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This album is not out yet, additional citation will be added when its out on the 6th of june — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kofipedia (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing significant about the subject was found. @Kofipedia: you should have waited. This article falls in WP:TOOSOON. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources Gab4gab (talk) 17:23, 11 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardhead (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence that the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, no reliable third-party sources cited. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Google Books results are novels and price guides. Google web search results are fan sites and wikis. The Monsters & Critics source (archived version) does not mention Hardhead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a minor character with no independent notability. Redirecting is not an option since the name has been used for both an autobot and a predacon. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe Gliedman[edit]

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

This is clearly a vanity page created by a relative, not an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:GNG anong others. Can't find any reliable sources that support notability. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 14:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An accomplished individual who simply doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion in here, as stated by the nominator. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I looked up several refs cited in the article. Some do not pass WP:RS (several refs to ancestry.com), several others do not mention the subject at all (e.g. Ref no. 8 [14]). Googling returns essentially nothing useable in terms of WP:V. The subject certainly has an fascinating personal history, but the page needs to be maintained by a family member externally, not as a Wikipedia article. No indication of passing any of the relevant notability guidelines here, such as WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last couple of comments summarise things well. Doesn't appear to be notable, when judged against WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls short of any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's certainly enough consensus here, quite detailed but still nothing noticeably convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 9 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 standard practice for taking account of military awards has very firm consensus. A number of articles of similar figures were given as evidence that this should be kept all, but it is rather evidence that those other articles need to be looked at. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayant Thapar[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. The award Vir Chakra is not India's highest gallantry award. It falls third in the order of precedence and the person is not awarded the award multiple times. So it fails all the criteria mentioned under the notability guidelines of military people. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: WP:SOLDIER is a incomplete essay not a policy. Read WP:MILNG (advice page) again! The individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. This easily passes WP:GNG. The officer was posthumously awarded Vir Chakra, India's third highest military gallantry award, for their acts of bravery during the Kargil War [15]. The Individual has received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Documentary on YouTube by IBN [25]. Google books [26], [27]. The events of Battle of Tololing was adapted as one of the prominent battle scenes in the Hindi, war film LOC Kargil in which actor Amar Upadhyay portrayed the role of Capt. Vijayant Thapar. Also, note that Wikipedia has similar articles on his fellow soldiers (awarded with Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra respectively) from the same or related battles during the Kargil War such as Ramakrishnan Vishwanathan, Neikezhakuo Kenguruse, Padmapani Acharya, etc. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Junior officer awarded a single third-level decoration. Clearly fails WP:SOLDIER, which is an accepted standard for military biographers on Wikipedia, even if only an essay. In the modern world almost all medal recipients are covered in the media; that doesn't mean they're all notable. We have deleted many others with just as much coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No a incomplete essay cannot be applied everywhere especially to Indian related articles since in India, there are three wartime gallantry awards (Param Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra, Vir Chakra) first highest, second & third respectively. These gallantry awards are always awarded to soldiers for their acts of bravery in warzone. Not a single soldier (AFAIK) in India have ever awarded a wartime gallantry award more then once."Captain ranked officer awarded with a wartime gallantry award, vast coverage in media, and RS" easily passes [[Wikipedia:Notability]Vir Chakra is a (third highest) Wartime gallantry award and we have wiki articles on Thapar's fellow soldier (awarded with Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra respectively). --ArghyaIndian (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ArghyaIndian: There are several soldiers who have been awarded the wartime gallantry awards multiple times. Examples- Colonel Chewang Rinchen, General Arun Shridhar Vaidya, Colonel Neelakantan Jayachandran Nair, Major Rajiv Kumar Joon KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 01:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KC Velaga FYKI, Sena medal is not a wartime gallantry award. Only PVC, MVC, VC are wartime gallantry awards and no soldier of the Indian Armed force have been awarded a wartime gallantry award more then once to date. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ArghyaIndian:, I know very well that PVC, MVC, VC are the three and only wartime gallantry awards of India. There are many instances in the history that an award (one of PVC, MVC, VC) have been awarded multiple times or two different awards awarded. Please see the examples I have mentioned in the previous comment. Colonel Chewang Rinchen: His awards are MVC(Bar) and SM - Bar means that he has been awarded MVC twice once in 1948 and the next one in 1971. General Arun Shridhar Vaidya: His awards are MVC(Bar) and AVSM - Fist MVC in 1965 and the next in 1971. Wing Commander Jag Mohan Nath: One in 1962 and the next one in 1965. Please see Maha_Vir_Chakra#History for several other examples of multiple time recipients of the gallantry awards. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 08:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article appears to contain significant amounts of original research, as flagged by the reliance on image references, which indicates to me that WP:SIGCOV isn't met. No disrespect to the subject, who was no doubt a fine example of a subaltern, but ultimately I'm not seeing how this subject meets our notability guidelines. While very admirable from a professional point of view, it is not notable in a Wikipedia sense. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respond: AustralianRupert the article surely contains original research and is not written in an enclycopedic tone. However, deleting such useful articles won't benefit to the enclycopedia. The best thing is to improve it and editors like me are willing to improve these articles. Given that we have large amount of sources, some of them I have presented in my first comment. Taking them into consideration, this easily passes GNG. The subject is indeed notable because of the fact that he was awarded a "wartime gallantry award" and has received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 15:53, 12 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. Sandstein 13:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baleyada Muthanna Cariappa[edit]

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

Fails WP:Soldier. The awards Vir Chakra and Sena Medal are not the highest or the second highest gallantry awards of India. And he is not awarded them multiple times. Not many references/ sources found in the search. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer awarded a single third-level decoration and a lesser medal. Clearly fails WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear to meet the requirements for WP:SIGCOV as most of what I could find appeared to be either Wikipedia mirrors, or user generated content. Potentially this information could be covered in an article about the battle itself. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 12 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. My goodness, that was a mess. Sandstein 07:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic foraging in photography[edit]

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

Unreferenced original research written in pretentious language. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, gsearch brings up nothing useable, just a few user-generated posts on blog sites. Looks suspiciously like a case of WP:PROMOTION, as a substantial contributor is Bcraw44, and the article subject "was developed by William C. Crawford ..". Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fortunately for the continued existence of many WP articles, pretentious language is not a reason for deletion. Lack of multiple in-depth reliable sources upon which to build an article is a problem, however. I was unable to find any RS through searches at Google or the Find sources alternatives. The topic fails notability thresholds per WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. What Mark viking says (though I'd be tempted to change his "Fortunately" to "Unfortunately"). Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mark viking. Opencooper (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mark viking. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is more of a manifesto than an encyclopedic article about a notable subject. As a photographic technique or genre, the subject is not notable. I was unable to find any independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic Foraging utilizes techniques by widely accepted photographers and painters. Please see Stephen Shore, Robert Frank, Walker Evans, and Jeffery Smart. This new genre of photography is just emerging but now it is fairly widely published with much more publication coming in the next 90 days. None of the comments here appear to come from professional photographers or painters. It is extremely premature to judge the value and relevance of this posting for at least another year. The genre is picking up momentum and becoming more relevant. And it is built on widely acknowledged techniques. DO NOT REMOVE! Review again on 12-31-16. Bcraw44 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bcraw44, in that case it is a case of WP:TOOSOON, and the article can be recreated then. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Stephen Shore, Robert Frank, Walker Evans, and Jeffery Smart. I have seen the first three. I haven't heard of the fourth. Whether I am a professional photographer or painter is none of your concern (and whether you are is none of mine). You're merely a conduit for work on "forensic foraging" published in reliable sources. So what are the reliable sources? If more publication [is] coming in the next 90 days, then inform us, here, of what this publication is (or what they are). -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more. We read:

The photographic DNA of Walker Evans, Robert Frank, and Saul Leiter permeates the pedigree of Forensic Foraging. However, Stephen Shore's early volumes, American Surfaces and Uncommon Places serve as the primary influences on their present work. Shore demonstrated that the mundane delivered in color could attract a wide audience. [...] A sample of these carefully crafted images is then presented to provide pictorial highlights from the forage. Australian ex-patriot (Italy) painter, Jeffery Smart, also suggested some of the primary tenets of Forensic Foraging. His paintings of urban scenes exude the same heavy, layered, color saturation which is employed in this new approach.

The photographers Walker Evans, Robert Frank and Saul Leiter are indeed well known. The painter "Jeffery Smart" is surely Jeffrey Smart. Any "new approach" is likely to derive from older approaches. The older approaches don't make the newer one noteworthy. That aside, I don't notice the citation of any reliable source relating "forensic foraging" to Evans, Frank, Leitner and/or Smart.

The first draft (22 January) is digestibly concise. Here are some highlights:

Forensic foraging is a new (2014) photographic technique and genre emphasizing the trite, trivial, and mundane. The approach was created by William C. Crawford(Crawdaddy) of Winston-Salem, NC and Sydney lensman, Jim Provencher. [...] Crawford's first public showing of Forensic Foraging will be in the March issue of the Umbrella Factory Literary Magazine available online.

The latter is surely issue 23 of UFM, aka Umbrella Factory Magazine, a PDF of which is here. This aside, there doesn't seem to be much about Crawford's work on the web. He is written up here: "His first book is due out May 2016. The working title is Just Like Sunday On The Farm: Crawdaddy Remembers The Nam After 50 Years." (The latter book doesn't seem likely to be a work of photography; but either way, I can't find it.) Provencher is more obscure: I can't find anything about him or his work. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 11 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DANNYBOY[edit]

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

Not notable and probably here for promotional purposes. No independent sources. regentspark (comment) 11:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article with not a single independent reliable source giving substantial coverage of the subject, or any coverage at all for that matter, meaning that it fails everything. He has also started to spam links to his own website on other articles, such as this "deadlink spam", clearly showing that he's here for the promotion only. Thomas.W ^talk 12:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, balantly promotional. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 14:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC; finding no coverage in reliable sources about the subject after performing several searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable illustrator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 5 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Kumar Jain[edit]

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

Delete, person not notable. One of the two references quoted (bollywoodtrade.com), does not even mention his name and the other one just has one line mention. IMDb is not a reliable source. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update Please have a look on updates and feel to ask if you have any confusion, you mark the page in middle when we were writing, Please look all the stuff again.

Update I didn't heard from anyone so far and provide useful link and source from internet, from top websites like IMDB, Business Standard, Financial Express, Times of India, Mid Day, India Infoline, There are few other will be updated soon. meanwhile removing deleting banner as its not required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllHeartWeb (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. utterly promotional article on relatively minor film producer. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I waited for others to comment or else I would've commented especially since we're close to a week again, these subjects often of course get only expected coverage specially with this media but there's still nothing confidently suggesting the solidity of solid independent notability. Apparent updates are still not convincing. Delete therefore at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 12 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. Sandstein 13:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ball and Chain (restaurant)[edit]

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

only local sources for local insittutiton DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I found some other news sources but there's simply nothing outstandingly better to suggest a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: For non-local coverage, there's some passing mention in old Billboards, etc, this para about Count Basie's suit (and probably associated newspaper articles), and a paragraph in the NYT, but not enough to satisfactorily pass WP:AUD. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here's the thing — this place was established in 1935, it is a local landmark. I'm a little astonished at the Nominator's rationale, frankly... It does not matter a whit if all coverage is local, there is nothing in our General Notability Guideline that says "national good, local bad" — what we seek are multiple, published sources dealing substantially with the subject and of presumed reliability. This article passes GNG based on sources already showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH, and this in part an WP:IAR keep !vote per the historical relevance and significance of the topic as a Depression era establishment that was located in "one of the only locales that would allow African-American jazz and blues musicians,” in the city of Miami" and the manner in which "black performers were snuck into the club through a passage from the neighboring hotel despite segregationist laws."

This keep !vote is also somewhat IAR relative to WP:AUD, which states "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." It is arguable that the Miami Herald qualifies as a statewide or even national source because it's the second-largest newspaper in South Florida, and is circulated "throughout Latin America and the Caribbean". Outside of the Miami Herald, the topic has received national and statewide coverage (see below), but the depth of coverage is not significant. The CNN article could be argued to be borderline significant coverage, but the content about the restaurant is quite short, with five one sentence paragraphs.

Ultimately, retention of the article benefits the encyclopedia in a greater manner compared to the merits of its deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National and statewide coverage

CNN
Men's Journal
The New York Times
Jet
The Arizona Republic

Keep - One of the key venues in Miami's jazz development. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 07:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Charles, Laurie (2014-08-07). "Little Havana's Ball & Chain Club Brings a Colorful History as It Plans to Reopen". Miami New Times. Archived from the original on 2016-06-04. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
  The article notes:
  
  The year was 1935. The Great Depression was tailing off, Miami hosted the inaugural Orange Bowl, and Little Havana's Ball & Chain opened its doors. For the next two decades, the club became among the Magic City's most popular venues, a place where legends Billie Holiday and Chet Baker crooned the night away and jam sessions ran until 5 a.m.
2. Balzano, Cata (2015-03-04). "Little Havana bar offers Saturday night "La Pachanga" musical event". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-06-04. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Ball & Chain reopened on September 2014, 57 years after it closed due to a lawsuit by musician Count Basie. On weekends, the musician did day-time performances at the bar, called “jam sessions.” During the show, audience members would join Basie on stage and play along. Basie’s contract had arranged for a payment total of $13,000 for his “jam sessions.” On January 1957, Ball & Chain paid the musician only $5,100. Basie sued for the money the bar owed him and won the dispute, obligating it to pay him the remaining amount, plus an additional $5,000.
  Later that year, former Ball & Chain owners, Henry Schechtman and business partner Ray Miller, went out of business and closed. In 1958 and for the following 57 years, the Eight Street establishment underwent various incarnations, including “Copa Lounge Tavern,” a furniture store and “Kamazoo Nightclub.”
  Current owners and Miami natives Bill Fuller, his best friend Zack Bush and brother Ben Bush, reopened “Ball & Chain” with the idea of building something affordable, accessible and authentic, while remaining true to the history of the bar and the Cuban neighborhood.
3. Chen, Adeline (2015-06-10). "CNNGo in Miami: From Italian gardens to Little Havana". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-06-04. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Ball & Chain has been serving up mojitos and local music for the last eight decades.
  Ball & Chain has been serving up mojitos and local music for the last eight decades.
  Ball & Chain is a watering hole whose roots go back to the Depression-era 1930s.
  While most hit South Beach for their evening entertainment, the nightclub has been a go-to for decades amongst musicians and locals alike.
  On any given night, the venue is hosting live performances on two stages, one trending towards salsa and the other towards jazz.
  If you're a fan of discovering local artists -- and great mojito -- while traveling, Ball & Chain offers some of the best music the city has to offer.
4. Bordsen, John (2015-06-22). "Miami's Calle Ocho hints at Havana that was, that isn't, and which might come to pass". Orlando Sentinel. The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-06-04. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Two iconic buildings in the 1500 block predate Little Havana the Tower Theater, an art-house cinema, and the Ball & Chain, a nightclub that's packed most nights. Try the Ball & Chain in late afternoon. It looks like something from an old Warner Bros. flick, with a high ceiling and quartet of belt-driven fans hung from dark wooden beams. It has the vibe to match: old Latin jazz on the sound system; framed posters of the long-ago appearances there by jazz greats Chet Baker and Count Basie. Jazz combos often start to play near the front door around 5. Out the breezeway in back, a parking lot has been retooled into an outdoor Latin music room. Desi Arnaz would be comfortable crooning "Babalu" to young lovers seated in the reserved banquette area.
  Latin music is a highlight of nights at the Ball & Chain backroom, but the music ranges far afield. The Friday evening I was here, a Latin-flavored rock band was playing on stage.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ball and Chain to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
The subject passes WP:AUD.
The Miami Herald is a major regional newspaper that is also circulated outside the United States. From the Wikipedia article: "Founded in 1903, it is the second largest newspaper in South Florida, serving Miami-Dade, Broward County, and Monroe County. It also circulates throughout Latin America and the Caribbean."
CNN is a national source.
The Orlando Sentinel is a major newspaper that is the "primary newspaper of Orlando, Florida and the Central Florida region".
Cunard (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion vote struck for evidence of Orlando Sentinel, plus Miami Herald being Caribbean regional. The particular CNN article should be considered questionable given that the B&C was not a bar for almost 6 of those 8 decades. Not that matters at this stage, but I'd vote Keep if there were some evidence of coverage of the historical nature of the place (Miami source or otherwise) before the bar got a marketing manager and (re)opened. What's giving it "notability" is the frame/story it inherits and is putting out. If the current bar were named something different, or it were inspired by the original but was in another building, I wonder whether either old or new versions would actually meet notability requirements as bars. Maybe with a focus on the original building as a landmark as with Tower Theater (Miami, Florida)? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1) Coverage in a regional newspaper from the same region is not enough. There has to be coverage from outside the region--see below about that. Otherwise every restaurant in Manhattan above the coffee shop level for example, would be notable, because the NYT reviews them all. It's part of their local coverage, which even major national newspapers provide.

2)There seems to be be some information that shows the 1935-1957 nightclub of this name on the site might be notable. An article about it might well be justified, but including information about the present restaurant is just advertising for the present establishment. No one outside the immediate area would care about the details of the current menu. I note the mention in the NYT & CNN stories, both about the general area of the city and including this restaurant among many, stress the historical aspect. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in a regional newspaper from the same region is not enough. There has to be coverage from outside the region – I don't agree with this view; however, the Orlando Sentinel is a regional newspaper outside the Miami restaurant's region. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 11 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Shang[edit]

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

Not notable and advert-like. The corresponding Chinese article has been deleted because it is User:Shujenchang's self-promotion. Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Delete. Could probably be worked into User:Shujenchang's page, or we could just delete it.--Omega625 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's loads of contents and sources, but still nothing actually apparent for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the number of sources, a review by a Chinese-speaking editor might be helpful. Sandstein 11:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A perfect case of WP:CITEKILL in order to "establish" notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the sources provided are cherry-picked and do not have a neutral stance. The role played by Zhang has not been significant at all, i.e., just showing a banner and making some noises would not make him notable. STSC (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a native speaker of Chinese myself, I'll have a look at these sources one by one:
1. A video from New Tang Dynasty Television. POV source, and it is just about a single event. Besides, Zhang Shang himself works at another Falun Gong based media Epoch Times as a volunteer (COI).
2. A source from Central Tibetan Administration. POV too.
3. WP:BLP1E.
4. Lots of people meet Dalai Lama every year. Do you mean that they are all notable?
5. A webpage from his high school website stating that he once got full mark in a Math quiz. Seriously?
6. Did not mention his name at all, and this has nothing to do with notability.
7. Wikinews. And has nothing to do with notability.
8. Blog, not RS.
9. Same as #8.
10. As #1.
11. As #1. And it is just the same content as #10 bar different source.
12. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
13. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
14. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
15. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
16. WP:BLP1E. This source did not even mention Zhang Shang at all.
17. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
18. WP:BLP1E. Dubious reliability.
19. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
20. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
21. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
22. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
23. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
24. First hand source and WP:BLP1E.
25. As #24.
26. As #24.
27. As #4.
28. As #2 and #4.
29. As #2 and #4.

Therefore, these sources are great in numbers but do nothing in proving the subject's notability.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The review of the above sources convinced me he is not notable. When you have to say that someone is notable because they met the Dalai Lama, or the Pope, or the President of the US, or other such figures, they are probably not notable at all. If they really are notable it would not be put in the lead to show they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 7 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) 15:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Institute of Technology (CIT)[edit]

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

Non-notable institution. Fails WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an accredited degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above as an accredited degree-awarding institute AusLondonder (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus on degree granting institutions. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Accredited or not, sources are still needed for verifiability and notability, and I see none here. Sandstein 07:30, 12 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zabih Etemadi[edit]

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

Procedural nomination; proposed for deletion by GiantSnowman, but deletion challenged by Abhinabha. As I speak neither Dutch nor Farsi, and know virtually nothing about Dutch football, I don't consider myself competent to judge the validity of sources and whether there's enough coverage to constitute notability. Procedural AFD nom, so I abstain. ‑ Iridescent 09:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODder - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability now confirmed; article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTY. The editor who challenged the proposed deletion said at Talk:Zabih Etemadi that they "included a link to a well-known soccer website where Etemadi's profile can be seen". And so they did: at Voetbal.com, the Dutch-language edition of Worldfootball.net, which shows ten appearances in the Eerste Divisie for Cambuur. The Eerste Divisie is listed as a fully professional league within the meaning of WP:NFOOTY, and 10 appearances in it isn't a bare scrape in an obscure league. The 2003 Friesch Dagblad piece about subject and his then 16-year-old brother, which was in the article at the time it was prodded, opens with "Zabih is de meest bekende van de twee voetballende broertjes; hij stond dit seizoen al enkele malen in de basiself van Cambuur Leeuwarden", which means "Zabih is the better known of the two footballing brothers; this season he's been in Cambuur's starting eleven several times". And even from just the sources in the article, we can see that media attention is ongoing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:21, 11 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. Timtempleton put forward some potential sources to show notability, DGG showed book results were minimal to refute it, but there was no particular agreement or disagreement with these views. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bussgang[edit]

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

Vanity piece by a likely COI editor, and part of a walled garden/directory related to Flybridge Capital Partners. Person appears not to be notable by our standards; being a blogger and having published one single book (no decent reviews are listed) does not make for notability. Internet hits in reliable sources do not discuss him outside of his job. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am new to adding notes but don't you have to start somewhere? I am not sure I am adding this in the right place but Jeff Bussgang is one of the most well-known investors in Boston. Why does Mark Suster and Fred Wilson (financier) have accounts? They are all on the same level, widely recognized venture capitalists that are highly searched. I am unsure of why you would take this down when those investors of the same caliber and validity are shared. I am not a COI editor, I am not getting paid. This is not part of a walled garden or directory there is no need to promote Jeff Bussgang everybody interested already knows who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyArtichoke (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sure, but it's best to start with reliable secondary sources that indicate the person's notability. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyArtichoke: - just as a reminder, Nick, we can Google you. I think some truthfulness about your connections to this company and to "DavidLorentz" might be in order. Blythwood (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The articles on Bussgang's partners, both very similar to this one, were both speedily deleted (WP:G7) today, and I have PROD'd Flybridge Capital Partners, though it might make more sense to add it to this AfD. It is possible for an organization or individual to be successful and even well-known without being notable. The article looks like a resume, and includes links to Bussgang's LinkedIn profile, various directory entries and blogs, and so on. But there is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and that's what's needed. ubiquity (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have made many mistakes in this process. I am very new to Wikipedia. Is there something I can do to fix this? Take down all profile pages, all links that may be considered "promotional." If a bunch of other people come in and edit it, does it stay live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyArtichoke (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the Content Manager at Flybridge Capital Partners. This is a pretty heavy conflict of interest, and, along with the fact that yours is a Single-purpose account, creates a strong presumption that your main interest is to promote your employer, rather than build an encyclopedia. The article can be saved if someone can demonstrate that Bussgang is truly notable, by showing that he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Having "a bunch of other people" edit the article doesn't make much of a difference, unless they can do this. If the "bunch of other people" turns out to be different accounts opened by you and other employees of Flybridge, it may make things worse.

Re your conflict of interest: please read WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and follow the rules. You say on the talk page that "I am a student at Northeastern University interested in investing/startups". Even if true, this is disingenuous if you work for Flybridge. ubiquity (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just doesn't seem convincing. Of the sources, many don't even mention him, just the company he works for with no description of his involvement. C14 doesn't mention either. Many assertions in the article are unsourced. I just feel that if Mr. Bussgang wants a webpage about himself the place for it is his personal website or that of his employer. Blythwood (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hunted down good sources that clearly demonstrate notability - they just need to be integrated. This Boston Magazine article lists Bussgang as one of Boston's 50 most powerful people [28]. Here are Boston Globe[29], CNN Money[30] and Boston Business Journal[31] articles discussing Bussgang and Massachusetts' Global Entrepreneurs in Residence program, which was his brainchild. Here's an interview in MIT's Entrepreneurship Review on Bussgang and his book [32]. Here's more coverage of Bussgang in the Boston Globe's beta Boston web site.[33] Here is an interview from the Tech in Boston podcast [34]. Plenty of good material to flush out his article there. Here's a Boston Biotech Watch review of the book [35], and Wall Street Journal blog coverage of the book.[36]. This page[37] has good info on his role at the Harvard Business School, and at the bottom lists some of the notable Harvard Business School case studies of his roles at previous companies uPromise and Open Market. Seems pretty notable to me. Isn't one of the COI guidelines for good Wiki citizenship that whoever flags the article as such needs to post their specific edit concerns on the talk page? I only see comments there from the original author. This deletion discussion should be separate from the COI discussion. These guidelines properly get people to focus on the edits, and not the editor and his/her motivation, or else our well-intentioned efforts here might accidentally block good info for the wrong reasons.Timtempleton (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the co-founder of the GEIR program, Jeff Bussgang has played and continues to play a key national role in immigration reform for entrepreneurs and recently debriefed the Obama administration on this topic. His model for helping foreign entrepreneurs successfully grow their business in the United States through university sponsorship, is now being scaled across the country. As a venture capitalist, some of Mr. Bussgang's investments have revolutionized their respective industries - such as Brontes and MongoDB. These successes along with his blog and his book, Mastering the VC Game - a staple read for many entrepreneurs, have propelled Bussgang as a thought leader in the VC community. Finally, as a lecturer at Harvard Business School, Mr. Bussgang has written a number of cases that highlight female protagonists in order to help correct the gender imbalance in the HBS case method. He is therefore regarded as one of the most forward thinking VC's in terms of supporting female entrepreneurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HTolani (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeff Bussgang is one of the most respected venture investors in the Boston area (with over 38K twitter followers https://twitter.com/bussgang) and a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School. His course Launching Tech Ventures, is consistently ranked amongst the top in the 2nd year (Elective Curriculum) rankings at HBS. The article merely states facts about Jeff and while it could have more details, I see no reason to remove it. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia provides information about prominent investors such as Fred Wilson (USV), John Doerr (KPCB), Rich Miner (GV) amongst many others. I don't see how addition of Jeff's page is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines or its principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparsh ag (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing suggesting the needed established independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon a review of available sources about the subject, he meets WP:BASIC, thus qualifying for a Wikipedia article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His book, which was published by the business division on Penguin, is only in about 200 libraries,which is on the low side for a popular business book. The reviews are non-substantial. Furthermore the comments by the single purpose accounts above must be discounted; they would seem to represent a concerted effort of those who know him personally to keep the articles . Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an very good reason for deletion, especially when the promotionalism is proven to come from a coi editor. Accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 12:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Delkhasteh[edit]

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

I frankly nearly speeedied and or PROD as there's simply nothing actually suggesting applicable notability and its improvements here, my searches have found nothing aside from an apparent mention here and, as an artist, the listed gallery is not an applicably notable one so there's nothing for acceptance there. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC, per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The (rather ungrammatical) article provides a claim of notability of having three awards (one or two honorary). No useful evidence in English found, however the Farsi-WP article provides a hefty list of links to sources. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:31, 4 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. Michig (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Australian[edit]

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

Appears to be a one-man political opinion blog. Has been stubbed since creation and unsourced since May 2008. Pete (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, this one's been hiding under the radar for a while, huh? Good catch. No case for notability. Frickeg (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amazed it lasted this long and so non-notable I wouldn't have objected to it being speedied. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nope. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:41, 4 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. Michig (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dream League Soccer 16[edit]

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

WP:GNG not met. No hits in Google News. No hits on a WP:VG/RS custom search. No critic reviews on Metacritic. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 06:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 06:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 06:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no third party coverage, fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. --Specialkay1984 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2016 (AEST)
WP:SNOW. Might as well speedy delete this thing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:56, 10 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. J04n(talk page) 00:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Lwanga[edit]

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

Still questionable for any applicable notability and I nearly PRODed but in case that was removed or otherwise barriered, here we are at AfD. My searches have only found expected mentions at News. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this show is as successful as is alleged, in such a small nation/media market. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsider the article - I've added more citations to the article as evidence especially the Awards and recognition section as proof for notability of Douglas Lwanga. Please examine the evidence provided and reconsider this article, Thanks.–Sammy,kent (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article is full of POV statements ("multi-talented", "unique art", "very skillful graphic designer") and COI sources... Lwanga has contracts with NTV and Chano8 and provides them with programming content. HiPipo is a promotions company – is Mr Lwanga one of their clients? KiGossip and Abryanz Collection are just blogs. He might be notable but it's hard to tell with all the PR fluff and non-reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:16, 27 May 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) 06:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Empire Mates State of Mind. MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dance for Me (Empire Mates Entertainment song)[edit]

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable source. This song needs to be redirected to its parent article Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Song is probably borderline notable, given the cited coverage. Article has many incoming links, so outright deletion would be disruptive. In any event, "this song needs to be redrected" is not a valid reason for deletion, and nom is free to redirect themselves. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Not a nomination for deletion. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Please tell me what criteria of WP:NSONG does this article meet. I don't think you did a Google search of the song before deciding to vote speedy keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is that this is an invalid nomination as you are not requesting deletion. AfD is not a place to request redirects, although that can often be the result of AfD discussions. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting deletion. I requested that this article be speedily deleted, but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz declined my request. I could have redirected it to its parent article but decided to bring it to Afd so the community can decide its outcome. Since Hullaballoo Wolfowitz thinks this song is notable, he might have reverted my edit had I redirected it. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a speedy deletion request in the article's history, and a redirect would have been justified. Since Hullaballoo says "nom is free to redirect themselves" it doesn't seem like a revert would have been done. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I added a speedy deletion tag to this one. This is why I said what I said. Few of the song articles from the artist's debut album were redirected to the album article by another user after I added speedy deletion tags to them. From now on, I will redirect song articles that fail to pass WP:NSONG. If someone else reverts my revision, I will bring it to AFd in order to avoid content disputes. Since this particular article is at Afd, let's wait for the outcome. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect if needed, could be kept for history uses but still unlikely for ever having its own article and keeping it open at best has it vulnerable for restarting. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that this song isn't notable. It has enough reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG, and many articles appear to link to it. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - As much as I do see a mentioning of this song in pop culture related article after article, there doesn't appear to be evidence that this significantly charted anywhere, or that it became a particularly viral sensation, or that it formed a turning point in Wizkid's discography, or anything of the sort. A happy, bubbly guy made a happy, bubbly tune, and I've got tons of support for the notion of crossing international barriers with music, but I don't think this passes the bar of notability. In particular, the references to the song appear to constantly come from sources where the reliability isn't clear, and it all seems like run of the mill coverage in the bigger picture of his career. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:31, 27 May 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) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the song has no evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Empire Mates State of Mind, does not meet NSONG but is a possible search term. J04n(talk page) 20:09, 12 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. WP:NOT DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of MCAT topics[edit]

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

This article has no encyclopedic value. There are also no independent sources with significant coverage (coverage of the test topics). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this list wasn't sourced at creation in 2007 and isn't sourced now. The Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) exam has undergone some significant change over this time. Difficult to see anything to suggest that this list belongs in an encyclopaedia. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barring specific discussion of the MCAT topics in RS (unlikely), the case for keeping the list is as a WP:SIZESPLIT of Medical College Admission Test. It is a reasonable split since inclusion would make the parent article unreasonably long; the real question is whether it is WP:DUEWEIGHT to include that list. (A first-party source is enough sourcing here, see for WP:ABOUTSELF.)

I think it is on the good side of the "due weight" line, but I understand others may disagree.

In any case, notability as a standalone list is a red herring to my eyes. And the lead could use an WP:ASOF. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: So, you want to say that if the article is a WP:SIZESPLIT, it does not need to fulfill the WP:General notability guideline? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to me it is what WP:SPLIT says (note that the lead on that page is unclear, but the second part only applies to content splits). It is not a guideline though, but WP:AS (and in particular WP:SPLITLIST) does not say anything either way. Of course, the parent article still has to verify it, and WP:V applies anyways. Am I mistaken? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topics listed aren't the same as what's in the sole reference document, hence it constitutes WP:OR (e.g. Amino acids and protein structure are listed on p. 11, but not on this list). Even if they were the same, a link to the document from Medical College Admission Test would do just as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 4 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. J04n(talk page) 19:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hengen[edit]

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

Although this was kept in an earlier discussion back in 2007, it needs to be revisited as Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for politicians have evolved significantly in the past decade. At the time, a non-winning candidate for the leadership of a political party was a valid claim of notability on the grounds that it was adding context to our coverage of the leadership election -- but that's since been deprecated as not conferring an WP:NPOL pass in and of itself anymore, so that now a non-winning leadership candidate gets a standalone article only if he can be properly demonstrated as notable for some other reason (e.g. actually having held a notable political office.) But nothing claimed or sourced here demonstrates that. The irony that I was among the keep votes last time is duly noted -- simply put, Wikipedia's rules have changed since 2007, and he no longer meets the rules that apply today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected politicians are almost always non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the article found nothing better at all and it seems to note there's no newer information at all, past and present all suggest nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:04, 9 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 Soft Delete. J04n(talk page) 19:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gurjar Aandolan[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Only one of the references gives more than a credit list or similar, and that one is just a brief announcement of the film. Searching for sources I found similar minimal coverage, together with Youtube, this Wikipedia article, download sites, Facebook, blogspot, and so on, but no substantial coverage. The king of the sun (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Gurjar Aandolan Aarun Nagar Leena Kapoor Mushtaq Khan Surendra Pal Ali Khan Kirti Motion Pictures J&J Motion Pictures

Delete for failing WP:NF. My searches found no coverage. If anyone finds archived reviews, please ping me. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 4 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. The sources identified in this discussion have not been questioned J04n(talk page) 19:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Scranton[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer who has no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR, based entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. This is not how a writer gets a Wikipedia article; he gets one when RS coverage demonstrates a proper AUTHOR pass, and does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when actual media coverage starts materializing. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself had reviewed this and found nothing convincing, still questionable for overall applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's some stuff out there: [38] from Slate (a recommendation from Jeff VanderMeer), [39] from CBC.ca (not sure exactly what this is, but it seems to be part of a broadcast that cites him), [40] from Los Angeles Review of Books, [41] from The Atlantic, [42] from Sierra Nevada College (interview), [43] from WBUR-FM, and [44] from NPR. Some of these are a little weaker than others, but I think there's enough to satisfy WP:BIO. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:35, 5 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If You Are the One: The Success of the Show[edit]

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

The show already has an article If You Are the One (game show) and I don't see enough evidence justifying the content fork. According to page history, the page was created as "ARTS3216 Wiki Project". Merge useful paragraphs to the main article. Timmyshin (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 15:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 4 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IDEA Public Schools[edit]

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

I had nominated this under WP:G11 as the entire article would have to be rewritten in order to be neutral. From the first section (!) and first sentence of that section, which is not supported by its source at the time of this nomination, this article is a hot mess of promotionalism and mostly sourced to SPS. TNT. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rewritten?? Nonsense. It's well written now. It is also neutral: NPOV means that all alternative viewpoints are covered, and that is the case for this article. Jytdog has failed to specify any non-neutral material. He completely missed the references to the Washington Post and the US news, which are major national reliable sources on educational standards in high schools. They emphasize the importance of the IDEA schools. Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did point it out. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IDEA has received high powered national attention. The Wikipedia rule on notability is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This article clearly meets that, as exemplified by this powerful story by Jay Mathews in the Washington Post in April 2016

Even more startling is the appearance of six public charter high schools in some of the poorest parts of Texas among the top 50 schools on our list, which I have produced for The Post (and previously for Newsweek) for 18 years. Those six schools, and a seventh that ranks No. 106, are all part of the Idea Public Schools charter network. Last year they had AP test participation rates twice as high as those of affluent public schools such as McLean and Whitman high schools, or private schools such as National Cathedral and Holton-Arms....Idea network students have courses on AP skills beginning in sixth grade, and in ninth grade they take their first AP course, Human Geography. They are scheduled for 11 AP courses in all, with a goal of passing the exams in at least three of them to win an AP Scholar designation from the College Board. Most suburban high schools would reject this as too demanding, but disadvantaged Texas families see a bleak future if their children cannot break out of remedial courses. Idea teachers increase homework gradually so students get used to the load. Jay Mathews, "That’s the Idea: Some schools serving low-income students believe in a challenge" Washington POST April 17 2016 Rjensen (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you responded to the actual deletion rationale. Of course you posted this out of process before I even completed the nomination so how could you even know? Anyway. Who knows, maybe you will completely rewrite the article while this nomination is pending. Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion rationale has vanished. Rjensen (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been around for nine years over a hundred editors have contributed to it. It is sourced to far more national reliable sources than any high school article I have seen. (I compared it to all the California charter schools in Wikipedia; Only one California school can match this article and quality.) It has extensive coverage in the Washington Post, for example, and the Huffington Post. Claiming that it is "mostly sourced" to self published sources is simply false. The idea of puffery is also false. It gained mention in top national contests--eg a Race to the Top grant by the US Department of Education, one of top-three finalists for the annual Broad Prize of $250,000 for Charter Schools. U.S. News & World Report ranked IDEA Donna as 5 in the state of Texas and #8 nationally among charter schools. The fact is it includes some of the most honored schools in the country, and is getting special attention because it serves a poor Hispanic population in rural areas. Nothing has to be rewritten. Jytdog has not raised any of his complaints on the talk page, where they belong. Were talking deletion here, and the case for it is preposterous. Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability is clear for this sizeable group of charter schools, and as I understand it, the nominator does not contest this. The text is excessively boosterish at times, but is it so promotional as to be unimprovable? I don't think so; it has the same optimistic tone that many of our school articles have, and plenty of editing is in order, but not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to be completely rewritten to make this anything close to neutral. That is the nomination rationale. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated this the article at that time there was a boatload of completely unsourced, promotional content (e.g the "Teachers" 'section had no sources; most of the "College Signing Day" section which had just one SPS; the System section which was unsourced but for one SPS; the Schools section was just an unsourced laundrylist; The article had 35 sources; 7 of them were from the school and another was a job ad posted by the school; sources 18-20 were press release and puffery from Broad; source 21 is a letter to the editor by a candidate for governor (really??, this is a good source?). And of course the multiple citings of USN&W3R (5 of them, again some of them just BS explaining how they do their rankings). So that is 17 pretty bad/badly used refs. Not to mention the whole structure of the article, front-ending the overpitched ratings from USN&W report.

Even now, as I write this the article (permalink) has 40 sources, all of those sources are still there including the crappy editorial, the laundrylist of schools is still there, the unsourced content about teachers and the System and the almost completely unsourced promotional "College Signing Day" hype is still there.

The very first source was a press release, added even while the AfD focused on promotionalism is pending.

Others have noted the crappy sources used in this article.

There are good refs. One good make a GA about this school. It needs TNT. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Is greatly exaggerating the problems. For example, press release and puffery from Broad;. Broad Is an independent foundation that gives a major prize to the best charter schools in the country ($250,000) after careful evaluation. IDEA came in number three in its evaluation, which BROAD announced. That is a major national achievement that certainly deserves mention. Jytog misunderstands the political dimension-- the candidate for governor in 2014 visited IDEA, praised as to the sky, and declared that it ought the, a model for Texas. That candidate Greg Abbott won & is now the governor of Texas; Education was (and is) one of his major issues. That makes the IDEA model an issue in Texas politics--and it is sourced with a newspaper story. So yes that is an important fact. Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality criteria is met[edit]

The article meets the NPOV criteria for neutrality--that is, all serious alternative views ARE included. Indeed, I compared it with all the charter school articles for California & there is rather more criticism here than 9/10 of the Calif school articles. Rjensen (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, the grammar and editing is poorly made due to @Jytdog's edits. Much needed information to explain certain awards and other topics have been deleted, leaving readers with vague info. De88 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did the total rewrite myself - dif. No need for this AfD so am withdrawing it. Jytdog (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 04:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Aprile[edit]

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

Inadequate evidence for notability. Being judge on a cooking program is not notability DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC, and has received some coverage in an international source (Mid Day) and national sources (The Huffington Post, Toronto Star). Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Toronto Star
Toronto Life
Post City Toronto
The Huffington Post
Mid Day
Post City Toronto
Art Culinaire (subscription required)

Keep although this may be borderline, the reliable sources detailed above seem to be convincing so that WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 7 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. Michig (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iga Świątek[edit]

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

Teenaged tennis player who is now ranked in the top 50 Junior girls (47). Only tournament wins were at a lower level tournament (both Singles and Doubles at the Grade 4 Riga Open http://www.itftennis.com/juniors/players/player/profile.aspx?playerid=100211627). Does not meet WP:NTENNIS (requires at least a junior Grand slam title, or a top 3 Junior ranking). Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON Meters (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage appears to be WP:TRIVIAL or standard coverage. (I can't find the right policy/guideline to link to regarding "standard coverage") Chickadee46 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG.--Wolbo (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a run of the mill, non-notable tennis player that hasn't even made it to the minor leagues yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 5 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.

[1] Valley Center Historical Society

[2] Valley Roadrunner

[3] San Diego Insider

[4] About Men Behaving Badly

[5] Valley Center Chamber Supports Valley Center Days

[6] Veterans Sought for Parade

[7] Request for Extension of Time to Protest Trademark

[8] Valley Roadrunner

[9] Request for Extension of Time to Contest Trademark

[10] Ficticious Business Names Under Roadrunner Publications, Inc.

[11] Ficticious Business Names Under Valley Roadrunner, Inc.

[12] Ficticious Business Names Under The Valley Roadrunner, Inc.

[13] Ficticious Business Names Under Salter, Justin

[14] About Men Behaving Badly

[15] VC Magazine Flouts Journalitic Integrity

[16] Veterans Sought for Parade

[17] Valley Center Days Event Listed on Church Calender

[18] Invitation to Valley Center Days

[19] Valley Center Chamber Recognizing Valley Center Days in May, with Official Website Cited

[20] Shuttle Bus Available for Valley Center Days

[21] Valley Center Chamber of Commerce Supports Valley Center Days Parade and Program

[22] Valley Center Days Parade Applications Due by May 7th

[23] Valley Center Parade Co-chair Participants Re-brand Community Event

[24] Roadrunner Donates Western Days Trademark to Museum

[25] Request for Extension of Time to Contest Trademark

[26] Western Days is Out, Valley Center Days is in: Bill Trok Announces New Name for Festival

[27] Valley Center Days Official Website

[28] Western Days is Out, Valley Center Days is in: Bill Trok Announces New Name for Festival

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]