Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 June	8 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus that this novel does not reach notability guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

169 (book)[edit]

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

This novel fails the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unfortunately could only find a library blog as a source, doesn't pass WP:GNG unless someone finds some RS. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't really find anything to suggest that this book is notable. It's possible that sourcing might exist in other languages, but I found very little to suggest that this is the case. I wish the author well and it's impressive that he wrote this at such a young age since that requires a lot of dedication, but the book just doesn't pass NBOOK at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:MihaiCucu28. The article makes unreferenced claims to positive response from teachers, friends and readers; I am seeing nothing better than a Blog entry about the book launch. Fails WP:NBOOK and broader WP:GNG notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that there is also a Draft:169(book) which has been being declined at AfC. AllyD (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, have been unable to find anything useable, just some book selling/publicity sites. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to me to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. In any case, as stated above, it fails notability standards for books and GNG. Also, hopefully "Draft169 (book)" doesn't make it out of AFC - more promotion anyone? Steve Quinn (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss BC World[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article begins as a word for word copyright violation of this website, which isn't even cited. I could find precious little published about this event, so I believe it fails WP:GNG. —Prhart com♥ 04:34, 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. An article with no content other than an infobox and a see also section. Perhaps a PROD would have taken care of this but here we are... Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Universe Canada[edit]

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

no relevant content The Banner talk 22:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Makes no assertion of notability. Graham (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article receives some first aid. Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Immediately below the title of the article is the See also section? No way is this article useful. —Prhart com♥ 05:13, 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. Agreement that the subject does not meet notability standards. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Community Gardens[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just by the title I knew Banner rooted out a super minor pageant here. Does not appear to be notable for a stand-alone article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No regional coverage and ignored by local media too. Gab4gab (talk) 16:47, 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 Consensus is clearly to Keep and cleanup. Steven Walling • talk 03:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sword of Truth characters[edit]

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

This was brought to AfD back in December 2015, closed as a redirect, and just recently, that close was brought Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 30 for review. The result of that review was to relist the article for a new discussion. My role here is purely administrative; I offer no opinion the the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of these characters have received extensive coverage from secondary sources. It is better to have a list then multiple stand alone articles. This New York Times article gives coverage to multiple characters and then Sam Raimi's thought process in creating them, here is another source Hypable giving coverage to the characters. Some coverage here, Den of Geek and NJ.com.
Keep From the last discussion " Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Does this article need clean up? Yes. But there are 17 books in the series and the television series lasted for 2 seasons (44 episodes). The books have sold over 25 million copies as of 2008 (since that was 7 years ago, much more have probably sold). The series is clearly notable. There are a lot of characters in the series. There needs to be a page to contain them. Like Flyer22 Reborn pointed out, there are many articles in very similar situations like List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters and List of Game of Thrones characters. If we delete this article simply because it is all plot, we will have to do the same to those articles and many others." Basically, my point is between all of the books and the TV show, these characters are notable, and while the page does need cleanup, so do so many character list articles. JDDJS (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of not-individually-notable fictional elements that appear in multiple notable works is an ideal use of list of non-notable elements. BUT, per the above the article meets the GNG anyways. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CSC #2 ("Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles"). VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like I stated in the previous AfD, the article can certainly be fixed up, especially with actor and/or creator commentary in relation to the television version of the characters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the assumption that cleanup is possible and will occur, if that turns out not to be the case we should reconsider. Artw (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my previous nomination: Per WP:NOTPLOT, a policy, articles must not contain only plot summary. This cruft here is nothing but plot summary. In addition, it's unsourced (WP:V), and I would be very surprised if the topic of the characters in this novel series, as a group, had received the kind of coverage required per WP:GNG. (The sources mentioned above are not enough; they cover some characters in passing, but are about the show, which is notable, rather than about its characters, which are not.)
This type of article often devolves into a dumping ground for fancruft better suited for fan wikis. That this has happened here is apparent from the fact that it is written in an in-universe style, portraying the fiction as real, contrary to our manual of style (Wikipedia:Real world). It would need a complete rewrite to be anywhere near MOS-compliant, and is therefore a WP:TNT candidate even if one were to be of the view that a list of this sort has a place here, which I do not. In Wikipedia, significant characters are generally better treated as part of the (appropriately concise) plot summaries in the context of the articles about the respective works. Sandstein 11:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent that character lists for significant fiction series/franchises are acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Iron[edit]

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

This article is about a porn director and performer in a very extreme section of the industry ( the article has been cleaned up to remove the details). Lack of coverage in reliable sources so WP:BASIC is failed. The awards are minor or group sex so don't count for Porn Bio. Also, please note that the subject himself wants this article to be deleted- see[1]. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The XRCO Unsung Swordsman wins meet the letter of WP:PORNBIO, but niche categories have been disputed many times. • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO#1 with XRCO Unsung Swordsman wins, which are well-known/significant industry awards that aren't scene-related/ensemble categories. This specific award has also been described as prestigious by a mainstream media outlet. There's an AfD for a similar award resulting in keep too. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Unsung Swordsman is a long-running body of work award, not a scene related one so it meets PORNBIO. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there's any point in expressing an "delete" opinion, because the WP:PORNBIO guideline is so absurdly inadequate as to be impossible to argue against. In other fields the secondary notability guidelines act as indicators that significant coverage probably exists in independent reliable sources even if it can't be found easily in the timeframe of a deletion discussion. There is no evidence that awards such as this "XRCO Unsung Swordsman" lead to any such coverage of the recipients. Indepenendent reliable sources are very rare in this field, so our articles in this field should also be very rare. Most of the silliness that prevailed in Wikipedia's early years has been eliminated by the more mature people who started editing later, but this field seems to be one of the last such vestiges remaining. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale behind the "silliness" is that some porn stars may be of general interest even though the mainstream media tend to shun pornography. Recognition by peers and established critics in a particular field can indicate notability. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the claimed rationale, but I don't buy it. We shouldn't host articles about living people that don't have reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which none of the sources here, including the web site of the organisation conferring this award, do. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTE: I've recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject here has "won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the XRCO Award for "Unsung Swordsman" twice. I don't think that a request from 2009 (that wasn't honored then for whatever reason) should be honored now.

The PORNBIO inclusion standards are still designed, at this late date, very similarly to the ANYBIO standard, and the idea that an awarding organization isn't a reliable source for who won its own awards is an argument that has been dismissed many times in many different forums at this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, and many others, the WP:PORNBIO guideline directly contradicts the WP:BLP policy. The latter should prevail. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 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 delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organic silica[edit]

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

The title "Organic silica" refers to either a nonexistent or a poorly-defined chemical entity, and this article is being used as a coatrack to hold a topic fork of the subject that is currently covered at Silicon#Biological_role. The current content is of a very low quality, and hasn't reached a good level despite hanging around for two and a half years.

In summary: the title is almost meaningless; the content is hardly relevant to the title; and the content is not of a high enough quality to warrant salvaging it. Slashme (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have Silicon dioxide#Biology and Organosilicon. The 2007 source refers to the latter. Other than that it seems like a WP:OR WP:ESSAY. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content is so incoherent and badly ref'd as to be unusable. The first ref pointlessly cites a dictionary headword with no significance relevant to the text. The title is misleading and the article has no meaningful structure. I suppose one could write an article on a topic on these general lines if the material is not covered elsewhere, but the title should be changed, and since the content is not a helpful basis to start from either, that doesn't leave much to salvage.JonRichfield (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe we have a content fork and this is currently better described in other, existing articles listed above. DeVerm (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Silicon dioxide per WP:CHEAP, since "organic silica" is a legitimate search term (though it is mostly a marketing term for cosmetic products). Trash the content, but the title can redirect. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:51, 15 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Werthmann[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. As a city council member of a relatively small city, Werthmann is not inherently notable, and the coverage available for him is all the routine local coverage that any local politician might get -- nothing significant indicating that he meets the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN local politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here constitutes an WP:NPOL pass, and the depth of coverage does not nationalize sufficiently to get him over WP:GNG as a substitute. If he were on the executive of the DNC, then that would be a credible claim of notability — but the DNC has over 200 state-level members, so if he hasn't already gotten over NPOL by virtue of an office that he's held, then being a state-level DNC delegate does not get him a special presumption of notability in the absence of much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Rust[edit]

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

Mr. Rust has been mentioned in a number of sources, and the author did a laudable job citing them, but most are not independent of the subject, and the remainder don't address the subject in any significant depth as required by the general notability guideline. Rebb ing 18:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Rebbing, are you referring to statements made without supporting references? Just seeking clarification. I see a lot of apparently valid references in the piece. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APesica (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to sign above comment. APesica (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @APesica: No, I'm not. Notability isn't about what's in the article; it's about the available coverage of the subject, whether cited in the article or not. (That's why the AfD has "find sources" links.) Before nominating an article for deletion, an editor is required to conduct the research described in BEFORE—which I did. During my BEFORE, I confirmed that the available sources—the references in the article and those shown with the "find sources" links above—either don't count (e.g., because they're press releases and thus not independent) or only mention Mr. Rust in passing, if it all. Does that answer your question? Rebb ing 02:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Rebbing: Yes, thanks. APesica (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all for any applicable convincing notability, it's detailed but by far nothing substantial. SwisterTwister talk 01:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 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 speedy delete. — foxj 21:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True friendship[edit]

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

PROD tag was removed by an anonymous IP (with no rationale provided). My original concern was: Non-notable future film. (See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films) Pichpich (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No coverage, extremely minor production and the article's a mess. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Where do I start? Not close to even being notable, the page is nothing more than a picture, WP:CRYSTAL, it goes on and on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Blatant promotion, not even notable, the page is a picture, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had to delete the Image, as I'm pretty sure that it isn't public domain. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:34, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Robinson (actress)[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:NACTOR as an actress: she's had a string of minor roles in film and TV. No indication of notability per singer per WP:MUSICBIO: she recorded a duet last year with her notable husband, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I can find no significant coverage of her online from WP:RS, just passing mentions as Travis Clark's wife (or fiancée for the earlier ones). Bizarrely, it's "referenced" almost entirely by the titles of YouTube and social media posts, mostly without URLs. OnionRing (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far exploding with only something PR agents would put here, only works are expected background works and by far nothing for any applicable notability, the fact that the information revolves around this and the sources not being any better at all shows there's simply no notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 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 merge to Code Geass. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knightmare Frame[edit]

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

Long list of fictional mechanical devices. Full of Original research and Plot summary with no discussion about their creation or development from a real world perspective. The reception section doesn't actually discuss the focus of the article but rather the series in general. Sources are largely spread between primary/secondary media and online stores. The ANN source doesn't discuss the devices at all. Even assuming reception information could be found, I don't see any reason this could not simply be noted on the parent article. While AFD is not cleanup, the chances of the work being done on the article body are extremely slim.

The article was kept at AFD in 2008, however much of that AFD does not read well (and if anything was balanced between votes) and the article has not been improved since then. The issues still remain and are less likely to be resolved now. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Trim The website does treat these like characters [2] [3] with each having its own profile, however, the detail spent on each is excessive and unreferenced, even to the official anime websites. There is also not much to show these would be notable outside of the Code Geass world, like whether they show in crossover video games and such as with many of the Gundams. This should be compacted into a dictionary list on the main page with groupings and basic description. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These may be a better fit for a fan Wikia: [4]. For some reason our article has more text about the model than the fan Wikia's article? Missing all the metrics, however. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. These mecha have not received significant independent coverage in reliable sources to write a verifiable article about them. While there is a lot of information cited to official sources, like the nominator says, there is insufficient coverage for real-world information such as impact, reception, or conception. Thus they do not meet our notability guidelines to warrant an independent article. Opencooper (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if needed then Redirect as there's simply nothing else to suggest its own article as it's only connected to the series itself. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Phaseolus vulgaris. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phaseolus vulgaris 'Tongue of Fire'[edit]

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

Previously proposed for speedy deletion. Fails WP:GNG and lacks notability for cultivars. 68.148.186.93 (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of the above IP editor. I offer no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main bean article: Phaseolus vulgaris as this is a cultivar variety among many others. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Phaseolus vulgaris: No need for a separate article when the main article contains a detailed list of cultivars with room for the salient information presented here. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Phaseolus vulgaris - Agree with the others that it does not pass our notability guidelines on it's own, while it can have place in the main article. DeVerm (talk) 18:04, 14 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Piano Competition “Johann Sebastian Bach” Würzburg / Germany[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable piano competition. Does not have independent multiple reliable sources. (If author or others can find independent reliable sources in seven days, then Keep.) Robert McClenon (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The competition is the largest Bach Piano Competition in the World according to the Alink/Argerich catalogue. This page is set up independently - without any COI. The statistics are provided by the Bach Competition and are all accountable. The Repertoire information, Honorary Comittee and Jury, as well as the prize-winners can be found on the homepage. Independent and reliable sources can be found on sites that are used by other major piano competitions (e.g. Tchaikovsky and Geza Anda): Alink/Argerich foundation

[[5]] and
[[6]] and
[[7]]

Statistics come from the Alink/Argerich brochure and the home page of the Bach Competition:

[[8]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirill Monorosi (talk • contribs)

I know it'll be concerning for you that the article has been nominated, but it does you no credit to skip over the potential WP:COI. Are you not the winner of a diploma in 2010?[9] At the very least, this should be declared rather than glossed over. Likewise, your relationship to Walter Blankenheim, if there was one, should be declared.

The Bach Competition website is reliable for supplying details of the winners, but it's no good for establishing notability, so we can ignore it. The other sources that you provide are basically directories of music competitions. I'm sure that the better among them might be reliable (AAF certainly looks well constructed, not that that necessarily means it's the most reliable), but they're basically just list websites. The sorts of sources that you need to establish notability in this case are things like newspaper articles.

You might want to have a quick look at another competition page that someone tried to deploy, Draft:International_Arthur_Grumiaux_Competition, as the review decline templates have put in all the links to the relevant policies that you'll likely need to familiarise yourself with.

Don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~ Bromley86 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the constructive tips Bromley86. Am fixing the outlined issues now (new to this so bear with me!) Thanks again! ~~~~ Kirill Monorosi

A question on citations: I have a number of sources in the form of newspaper articles from the first competitions (e.g. 1992, 1995, 2001, etc) but they are not digitised and there is no link to them. Can I still reference them? (the dates and page numbers are there, so they can be verified, and I am happy to send through a scan. Kirill Monorosi (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offline sources are perfectly acceptable, Kirill Monorosi, so you can cite those newspaper articles, and you don't need to scan them (which might be a copyright violation). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Kirill Monorosi (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Apparent COI. Association with the Bach competition - I was one of the competitors and a Diploma Prize-winner in 2010, and a member of the Jury in 2016. However, I am not being paid or compensated in any way, and am not furthering any personal interests in creating this page. As this is a not for profit organisation, there is no financial incentive for the competition to have a wikipedia page. I have uploaded only factual information about this competition, including structure, program, jury members, honorary committee and a list of all prizewinners with the goal of providing a quick overview of this cultural event. The information provided is factual and neutral, and does not differ from that provided in existing and approved wikipedia pages for other competitions. E.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XV_Gina_Bachauer_International_Piano_Competition

External sources were consulted and cited for additional information)

Let me know if the number of independent sources that are now cited sufficient. There are also numerous other newspaper articles that are not digitised that I can cite; however, at the moment I have only cited those that are digitized, as they are easier to verify. Thanks Kirill Monorosi (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches clearly found nothing noticeably better of coverage, overall article still questionable for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what kind of coverage is needed? I am not sure I understand what notability is needed when even these competitions have a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregynog_Young_Musicians_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciutat_de_Carlet_International_Piano_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Piano_Competition_Svetislav_Stan%C4%8Di%C4%87 Kirill Monorosi (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to not worry about what other things have made it onto WP: I've seen blatantly promotional pages survive for years. If anyone can be bothered to, all 3 of those articles will be scrapped, as there's not a single source between them that establishes notability.

Newspaper articles are the thing. Or specialist magazines, perhaps, as long as they're not too specialised. So, if we were looking at a martial arts competition, mention of the (made up) Joe Bloggs Gojo-ryu Competition in the (made up) Okinawan Martial Monthly would not establish notability, but mention of the same in Black Belt Magazine (a major mag), Blitz Magazine (a minor mag) and a national newspaper would establish notability. Bromley86 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 20 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) 04:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have added citations from various sources as requested. Kirill Monorosi (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still not notable. Bromley86 (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles from national newspapers such as Saarbruecker Zeitung and more importantly MAIN POST have been cited (these are digitised and can be verified). More citations can be added (there are about 4 articles for every of the 9 competitions from 1992, as well as articles from National Newspapers of the Prize-winner's countries). Again, according to the independent observer of International Competition Gustav Alink of the Alink-Argerich Foundation: this is the largest Bach Piano Competition in the world (he is writing an article about it at the moment for the AAF, where all statistics about number of contestants and countries, as well as the impact of the competition will be published). If it is not notable, then I don't know what is. It is of course a specialist undertaking without the massive public appeal of the Super Bowl. So is it just a numbers game? Again, much less notable competitions have wikipedia pages that are not marked for deletion. Kirill Monorosi (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having won one prize in one of these competitions does not provide significant COI. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there is enough evidence that this is a significant competition, and enough sources to show notability DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)1[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:02, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G. Manohar Reddy[edit]

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

Delete. Fails NPOL. Has not been elected and does not have significant independent coverage. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only two relevant news articles covering the subject and he is only mentioned in passing thus lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 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) 00:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Spencer Trials (Band)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and semi-advertorial article about a band which doesn't even claim, let alone properly referencing, anything that would pass even one criterion in WP:NMUSIC for the notability of a band. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds to the name of the band's guitarist. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because they exist -- reliable sourcing, properly verifying one or more specific and quantifiable accomplishments that would satisfy NMUSIC, is required for an article on here to be earned. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, makes no claims to notability whatsoever, per nomination, and a quick search indicates that the only mentions they get online are social media and local gig listings. OnionRing (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Star Islington (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unsourced and no evidence of notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:04, 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 procedural close. Use WP:CSD#R2 for cross-namespace redirects. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Martínez[edit]

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

Moved out of Mainspace by creator. No need for redirect for non-notable subject. Egghead06 (talk) 14:36, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Lloyd (actor)[edit]

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

Cannot find any articles about this man, who has had one tv role in his life. Alligators1974 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable family members does not mean this person is notable Seasider91 (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would not pursue Redirect as it was only 89 episodes from a 15 year span so it's not entirely likely this would be searched and likely at best only because of the show. By far nothing convincing for any applicable notability whatsoever. SwisterTwister talk 01:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 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 redirect to Franciszka Themerson. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Jane023 with the following rationale "rv Prod, made new articles about the defunct company and the current company which prove the notability", which is akward since it is not an article about the company but about a painting, suggesting it was copypasted and in anyway is meaningless here. This series of postcards exists, and has an entry at Europeana, but that's about it - except few passing mentions I cannot find a single in-depth coverage of this topic. Not all artwork is notable, and I just don't see how this one can pass without as much as a single reference except a catalogue entry. PS. I thought about merge to the artist page (Franciszka Themerson), but I am not sure if it is good style to list artist works in separate sections... still, perhaps it can be somehow salvaged. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I put my reasoning on the talk page, where I believe these notability discussions are supposed to take place first. Jane (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jane023: Seeing as such talk pages have very little visibility, in cases which I deem less controversial I prefer to discuss it here, so I suggest you copy your comment here. And I deem it not very controversial, as I still don't see - and you have not presented - any sources which show this series of postcards received any recognition beyond some catalogues entries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I prefer to keep comments about notability on the talk page of the item, since whether or not the page is deleted, it is best to keep the rationale with the page itself. I and many others have trouble navigating the Articles for deletion archive. Unfortunately, my opinion about whether or not I disagree with your comments above is irrelevant, since I created the page. I am amazed that you dismiss the Polish ministry of Culture which selected this collection as 1 of 10 important works of Poland art in 2016. The whole list is here. Jane (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jane023: Since the talk page of the deleted article is deleted as well, it is better for the discussion to take place here; you are welcome and encouraged to link this discussion from the said talk page. And I am still waiting to see better sources. Your link to [10] is a link to an untitled search result page from Europeana and contains no mention of the Ministry. If you can provide a link to a webpage where the Polish Ministry of Culture discuses the significance of this work, please by all means do so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be here: d:Wikidata:Europeana Art History Challenge. Jane (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jane023: It is a very nice initiative, and I do want to thank you for contributing many new entries to Wikipedia, Jane. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of all artwork, only of important ones, and what is important is covered by WP:N guideline. There's a difference between Mona Lisa and a painting that has only a catalogue entry; also note WP:NOTINHERITED - works of a notable artist are not notable by the virtue of being created by said artist. I see in your contributions several other articles that are of dubious notability. Please take time to improve their sources, keeping the above in mind. You are welcome to ask me for advice if the concept of notability is not clear. PS. The page you linked does not mention the Polish Ministry, just "Each country's ministry/department of culture then made their own process for deciding these works." Anyway, Wikidata is not a reliable source, because no wiki is a reliable source for Wikipedia. I'll however ping User:Wittylama who wrote that section there, maybe he can provide us with a better source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, are you actually questioning whether the works are considered of national importance? Because I really don't see your point of questioning the judgement of the Polish ministry of culture or the library, because I have always regarded National Libraries to be valid authorities on Wikipedia. Demanding that all artworks on Wikipedia have the same amount of notability as the Mona Lisa also seems silly here. I find it quite surprising to read that you feel I have written articles that are of dubious notability. Please enlighten me which those are! Jane (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jane023: Sigh. Let's keep this simple. Can you produce a single verifiable reference which satisfies WP:N for this work? In simple words, can you link to a non-user generated page where a reliable authority has made the claim that this work is important, or has reviewed it in depth? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well your request of "in depth" would be all the books written that mention this archive, though since it only moved in 2015 to the Library those sources written previously to 2015 will not mention the Library. As for a non-user page regarding the nature of the 280 cultural project, see here. Jane (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article does not mention Gaberbocchus. I cannot explain our policies more clearly without quoting myself. Please read them again. You clearly do not understand the concept of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. As well as WP:CITE, come to think of it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, it seems we have come full circle now, as in response to your original "prod" I created the article on the Gaberbocchus Press which you called "meaningless". A Google search on "Gaberbocchus" shows it is undeniably linked with "Themerson archive". Jane (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full circle of you not understanding Wikipedia policies. The sentence above has no bearing on this discussion. Per WP:AGF I am assuming that you are not purposely trying to lead this discussion of track, but for the n-th time I will ask you to familiarize yourself with policies such as WP:N and WP:CITE.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's hard for me to follow your track of thought. Mentioning Wikipedia's notability policy does not help to establish your case on the non-notability of an object declared by the Polish minitry of culture to be of national cultural importance. In case you were wondering, the English Wikipedia is not only interested in obects of national importance to the USA. You seem to want to doubt the judgement of the library, the Polish ministry, or Europeana, and I simply cannot imagine why. Jane (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link in which a reliable source (like Europeana or the Polish Ministry) discuss the Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites in depth or fat least several paragraphs? And let me preemptively say that a link to Europeana or another museum or such catalogue showing that "Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites" has been displayed or is owned by them is not sufficient. I am asking for an article about "Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites", or one that shows this collection/artpiece has received some attention beyond being mentioned in passing. The fact that some official from the Polish ministry presumably (I say presumably because I still have to see proof, i.e. document connecting "Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites" to the Polish ministry) decided that this would be an interesting topic for Europeana-Wikipedia collaboration, sadly, only means that that said official also is unaware of the WP:N requirement. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't read Polish. Piotr, it is not our job as Wikipedians to check the work of respected institutions, we can only reflect the public information they share. There is no question that the library recently digitized a collection and and reported it to their ministry as being of national importance that subsequently was reported to europeana as being one of 10 works of national importance. That the library gave the collection a name that you don't like does not detract from its notability. Jane (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jane, it is our job as Wikipedians to follow the project policies, such as WP:V or WP:N. "There is no question that the library..." - but there is. "It was reported to europeana as being one of 10 works of national importance." - says who? Please cite a source that says so. If you cannot read Polish, with all due respect, I'd suggest focusing on topics for which you can find WP:RS. "That the library gave the collection a name that you don't like does not detract from its notability." Please don't use straw hat arguments. I never said I dislike the name of this article. Me or you liking or disliking the name does not detract from its notability - or its lack of notability, because you still haven't made a single argument for asserting it is notable except for your own personal view that WP:ITSIMPORTANT. And as an experienced Wikipedian, you should know better then to create articles without sources backed up only by your own subjective feel of their importance. Rather then arguing ad nauseum, please provide sources - or stop repeating claims about importance, based on nothing else but your own feelings about the topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I put the sources in the article and find them sufficient for the reasons I stated above. You have yet to convince me they are insufficient. I see no reason why we should doubt the name the library gave to Europeana. Jane (talk) 08:39, 5 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 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Franciszka Themerson for lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Expand within the context of the artist and split out summary style as the sources necessitate. czar 22:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Czar, I am confused - why do you feel there is a lack of multiple reliable sources for the collection? Europeana, the Gaberbocchus Press itself and the Polish ministry of culture as authorities are not in dispute here. Are you objecting to the lack of English language sources? Because that has never been a requirement for notability on Wikipedia. This news article clearly states why the library's collection is considered to be of national importance. Jane (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot speak for User:Czar, but I'll note that the topic of the news article is Themerson Archive, while the topic of this deletion discussion is titled Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since there is no one Themerson Archive, it makes sense that each Themerson archive holder would call their collection by another name. Note that there are archives in at least 3 countries, which is not unusual for internationally respected artworks of international artists. Jane (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There needs to be commentary about the actual subject of the article. WP:42 explains this concisely. Listings from websites doesn't give us anything about which to write an article. czar 13:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Czar, I am sorry you feel that the article is not about its subject, but I respectfully disagree with you. Jane (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Franciszka Themerson. The collection has no independent notability - it is always discussed in the context of Themerson. At least within Google results. — kashmiri ^TALK 14:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting choice to redirect. Why would you redirect to Franciszka Themerson? Also, why must it show up in Google results in order to prove independent notability? What does that even mean? Are you referring to independent work by Franciszka Themerson? Jane (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, Jane023, I normally love your work, but this one is a bad idea. At least this AfD has explained where these articles on non-notable artworks come from. Wikidata, which was at one time a good idea but has become an increasingly annoying "one site to rule them all". Articles like Bellringer of Caernarvon in costume of trade, Mourning portrait of K. Horvath-Stansith, View of Mt. Triglav from Bohinj, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrait of Goffredo Mameli (the first I encountered), Man Entering a Room (why not create an article on the artist first in this case?), ... Many of the articles are on undoubtedly notable artworks, but they seem to have been made indiscriminately, just because they are listed on wikidata. Fram (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect afterwards I believe at best as any of this could easily be moved to the other article without having its own article therefore. There's also nothing else to actually insinuate its own article or any future signs. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 15 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Education Without Borders (Sudan)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, the two citations included are not reliable sources JMHamo (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently not linked to Education Without Borders (NGO) ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Evidence of notability found in HighBeam search. I have added some of these to the article's talk page for future improvement. ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restart at best because these sources and information simply suggest it was a local event, this is best restarted so it can have a clean start. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Does appear to meet WP:ORG, even if "the two citations included are not reliable sources." The news links in the Afd clearly show more WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 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 redirect to Championship Manager series. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Championship Manager 2016[edit]

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

Non-notable game. This topic doesn't pass the general notability guide or the specific guidelines for video games (see google search). Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:30, 30 May 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 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Championship Manager: The game exists, with one source supporting it. With the lack of content and sources covering it we certainly don't need a standalone article for this mobile game. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should go to the series article Championship Manager series. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect afterwards because there's nothing at all to suggest this can actually be its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, until more is known and there is sufficient content for a standalone article. Giant Snowman 14:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - insufficient content for standalone article. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Championship Manager series per AdrianGamer. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:57, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Benanti[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. This was PROD'd (for the same reason) but contested by the original author (see the article talk page for the reason).Peter Rehse (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all for any applicable notability including the general basic, simply nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning a state title doesn't meet WP:NBOX and there's a lack of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG and he also fails to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 23:29, 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 delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

451 Research[edit]

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

My searches have found basically nothing actually convincing of solid independent notability, only expected links at Books and News particularly press releases. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage. Tom29739 ^[talk] 17:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, the company exists. But most sources either quote an analyst from the company or mention it in passing or talk about it in context of a survey [11],[12],[13]. The dept of coverage WP:CORPDEPTH is unfortunately lacking here. I couldn't find an independent reliable secondary source which talks about the company in detail and focuses on the company itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:24, 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 both. Agreement that neither person meets notability standards. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Rizzoli[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. Does not meet WP:KICK as a kickboxer or WP:GNG. Being the brother of Patrizio Rizzoli has no relevance via WP:NOTINHERITED and considering the latter is also of questionable notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. Also founding and being head of non-notable martial arts or organizations does not equate notability. Does not meet notability criteria for mixed martial artists either.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete both Neither one has significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. As for being MMA "experts", they have a combined total of 1 win between them and no appearances in even a second tier promotion. The unsourced kickboxing claim, even if verified, would not meet WP:NKICK. There's nothing to show the martial art they founded is notable or meets WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neither gets anything in Google Newspapers. Both get a very little in Google News (some of it not RS) despite apparently having been doing what they do for many decades. What little they do get seems to be all very recent too. I'm not best placed to judge the quality of the hits as I am reading them in Google Translate but a lot are short articles or articles primarily about other people. Neither one has an article in Italian Wikipedia so we can't look for better references there. I can't see this being enough to keep either article. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and Template:Rizzoli martial artists family. Per above. I flagged the template for speedy delete but we might as well consider the package.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I found nothing to show that either of them are WP notable. They don't meet any SNG nor do they have the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 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) 08:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry (company)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. ubiquity (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the one name is not helping but I have simply found nothing actually better, nothing currently to suggest a solidly acceptable notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep, speaking as one of the thousands of parents who carried babies in "Gerry carriers" in the 1960s. It was certainly a well-known company then. The company was a pioneer in modernizing outdoor gear and made the tents Edmond Hillary slept in while climbing Everest. Sources for older companies are a problem but I will add what I find to the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No compelling case made by nom or other editors for delete. ~Kvng (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clear claims of notability for company and its creator from sources currently in article. With what's available, it should remain as a company page with info on its creator included. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:06, 14 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:NOQUORUM, closing as delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dickinson (journalist)[edit]

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

The entire article is still questionable for the applicable notability and my searches have found nothing noticeably better. Particularly the second paragraph-sentence would've likely been enough to not PROD, but this is certainly still questionable for notability though. Notifying taggers AllyD and Boleyn. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 May 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 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication he is a major jornalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a resumé with nothing that jumps out to pass notability. — Wylie pedia 18:55, 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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing as delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gulfaraz Khan Khattak[edit]

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

Still questionable for any applicable notability such as WP:POLITICIAN and my searches have only found expected links at News and browsers, this particularly says he's a local district chairman and, unless this can be convincingly found to be notable, it's still currently questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. GreenCricket (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 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 SNOW delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Catholic Church In Asia[edit]

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

No sources found, nor for Laurence F. William its founder. Hoax or not-notable. for (;;) (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and obvious conflict of interest. Laurence F. William should also be deleted; a bit surprised to see that these two AfD discussions aren't kept together on the same page. They should be. Jeppiz (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. JimRenge (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax, one of a series of hoax/test edits by the creator. No trace of this church or its alleged founder was found outside Wikipedia. I have tagged Laurence F. William for G3 speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gene93k, tagged it G3. for (;;) (talk) 07:52, 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. Sandstein 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ancient Rome video games[edit]

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

Video game genres are based upon gameplay elements, not narrative or setting. That the historical era of Ancient Rome might appear in video games might be true, but Ancient Rome video game is not a genre. This makes this WP:SYNTH (possibly WP:OR) of a particular historical era that happens to represented in video games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Ancient Rome is a common setting in many video games. Since it is a specific location in video games, this article should be kept. However, the article needs more citations for verification as well as some clean up. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Yoshiman6464:, I appreciate you replying here and also agreeing with me on my other AfD's. To me, a setting in a video game doesn't seem notable. It's also arbitrary, Ancient Rome mostly refers to Ancient Roman civilization, not just the city of Rome proper or even the Roman Empire. I mean, what's the cut-off? Plenty of games are set in New York City for instance, which is part of the state of New York and the United States of America. "List of video games set in the United States" seems very unwieldy to me. And if the setting of Ancient Rome in video games is somewhat notable, shouldn't we start out with an article like "Ancient Rome in video games" (or "Portrayal of Ancient Rome in video games" or something like that) that describes the portrayal, before having a list of video games that lists those games, without context? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good points. However, if we were to create such an article, the information from that list would be merged into that page. One of the few sources I could find is a top 10 list on Paste Magazine: https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2013/11/the-10-best-roman-videogames.html Yoshiman6464 (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That something is true/exists doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia. There are inexhaustible "specific locations in video games". In order for this not to be WP:OR, and in order for it to pass WP:NLIST, we need to see some citations of sources which also group games according to being set in Rome. I searched and only turned up this listicle at Paste Magazine. Happy to change my !vote if others turn up, but I'm not seeing them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary page. Before this is deleted though, create Category:Video games set in Ancient Rome based off this list. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Anarchyte:, I'm not too familiar with categories, is there an easy way of doing so? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a similar category called Category:Video games set in the Roman Empire. However, that category refers to the Roman Empire, not the Ancient City of Rome itself. Also, I redirected the "Video games set in Ancient Rome" category to an already existing category. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - We've got Category:Video games set in Rome, which is about the city. I think we should move Category:Video games set in the Roman Empire to Category:Video games set in Ancient Rome, as the Roman Empire refers to the time when Rome was an empire, while Ancient Rome also includes the Republic of Rome. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could use HotCat to put the remaining pages into categories. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:24, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangster games[edit]

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

Video game genres are based upon gameplay elements, not narrative. Gangsters are an actual thing and are certainly a theme in popular culture. Gangsters and crime also appear in video games, but gangster video game is not a genre. A list of "gangsters in games" is WP:SYNTH (possibly WP:OR) of a certain element that happens to appear in video games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is a common, generic theme in multiple open world video games. Also, what makes a video game "gangster"? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No definition of "gangster game" given. I agree with the nom reasoning. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not particularly a defining characteristic of video games. As such, probably a failure of WP:LISTN. Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 14 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) 17:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of dragon video games[edit]

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

Video game genres are based upon gameplay elements, not narrative. There's the concept of the mythological and magical creature dragon and they might appear in video games, but dragon video game is not a genre. This makes this WP:SYNTH (possibly WP:OR) of a fictional element that happens to appear in video games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is redundant; Dragons are a common theme in Roleplaying Games in both the West (eg. Skyrim) and the East (eg. Dragon Quest series). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiman6464‎ (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 June 2016‎
Delete per nom. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not particularly a defining characteristics of video games. As such, probably a failure of WP:LISTN. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 14 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 15:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Kennard[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. Way TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 11:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've pursued PROD, by far nothing for any basic notability and therefore nothing else convincing beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 01:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at present she is no where near meeting notability criteria for an actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 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 speedy delete and salt per WP:CSD#G4. The new article was much shorter than the deleted version, but contained no new material not already present in the deleted version. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seetha I. Wickremasinghe[edit]

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

Delete, person not notable. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please SALT the page since this is being repeatedly recreated. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This is simply a recreation of an article that has recently been through an AfD process and been deleted. No new evidence has been proposed to establish the subjects notability. Dan arndt (talk) 15:37, 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 speedy deleted by User:Widr per WP:G5, "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Pechurov[edit]

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

Article on a blogger with no indication of notability. Searches don't show any independent coverage. So far edited by 7 (!) accounts created today and only editing this one page. Proposed speedy delete turned down by one of these accounts. No longer a penguin (talk) 10:14, 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. Happy to preserve this as a draft/user space copy if anyone wants it. Jenks24 (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Para verte mejor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It is too early to create this article, it will be released in 2017 and I have my doubts that this really is released, I think it would be best to wait, Venevisión telenovelas always take too long to be released. Philip J Fry Talk 00:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any need to delete the article. Venevision have already released the names of the protagonists and will be releasing the names of the rest of the cast soon.MarVit3 Talk 00:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft perhaps instead if it's not going to be released until the following year, these series nearly always air but it's still currently questionable thus delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 18:41, 22 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) 05:48, 23 May 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 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 30 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) 09:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. — Wylie pedia 19:42, 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 merge to Intratec. Jenks24 (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Arms[edit]

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

Quite easy AfD material and I would've PROD too, my searches have basically found nothing better than 1 Books link, here therefore nothing at all convincing for the applicable notability. Still as unacceptable as when I reviewed it. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Intratec as an imitator, or to the only notable thing they made Kimel_AP-9. As far as notability, they were in business less than 5 years and closed their doors 22 years ago. They basically stole the design of a shitty gun(Tec-9), made it worse but did offer an improved front sight post.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:56, 30 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) 09:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Intratec, per the advice of Mike Searson above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Conductor (company). Merging was suggested by most commentators, including one of the 'delete's. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searchlight (software)[edit]

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

An article about SEO software, created by a single-purpose account. Nothing in this article stands out to make this software notable. Srittau (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There a bit of coverage listed in the article, but I'm not really seeing enough to make this obviously notable. Too many of the hits are press releases or look like glorified press releases. This article in Advertising Age is independent and in a mainstream trade magazine, but it's very short. This would probably be better covered briefly in the company's article. Toward that end, I guess I'd be alright with a merge, but I'm not sure why that's absolutely necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:09, 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 05:53, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's independent coverage (e.g. TechCrunch). Suggest merging with company's article. Pburka (talk) 17:25, 30 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) 09:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches only found a few links but by far nothing at all actually convincing, nothing else noticeably salvageable. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Conductor (company), which will improve the merge target. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 14 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) 17:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Febriansyakh Kurniawan[edit]

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

Does not pass the notability guideline for basketball players. A google search show nothing that indicates this person passes the general notability guideline. The results on the search are all routine coverage which isn't enough to pass Wikipedia's notability standards. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this should've actually also been BLPPRODed, nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:12, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Riach[edit]

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

Nothing at all actually convincing of any applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better at all which is not surprising considering his IMDb. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 30 May 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 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 17:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a resumé with nothing that jumps out to pass notability. The external linking to his work also doesn't help. — Wylie pedia 19:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the current state of the article has no bearing on his notability, a search found little coverage, only mentions such as this, this, and this, which are nowhere near enough to justify keeping the article. --Michig (talk) 17:44, 14 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 15:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Nighthawks[edit]

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

Non-notable sports team Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be someone's ultimate team from an NHL game. Seasider91 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. I should note, however, that there was a team called the "Milwaukee Nighthawks" that played in the NFL in 1930, though the media apparently preferred to call the team the "Badgers" because there was a football team named the Milwaukee Badgers that played there from 1922 to 1926. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Likely WP:MADEUP. --MuZemike 21:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a fictional hockey team from EA Sports Hockey League (part of the NHL video game series by Electronic Arts) and is not notable. This link has more information: https://www.easports.com/nhl/eashl ZettaComposer (talk) 15:08, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mathews (composer)[edit]

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

There's nothing particularly better here for the applicable notability and my searches have also found nothing noticeably better, nothing to suggest this can be kept and improved as would be needed. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined to agree w/ ST here, though I have found some marginal sourcing (see a newsletter, a trade publication, and a newspaper). There are a few others, but many of them are short mentions. If there are more (especially those which aren't indexed on the net), then the subject may be notable. But I'm not sure what I've found is enough. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article and above sourcing doesn't pass the general notability threshold—needs more significant coverage than passing mentions. czar 21:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:18, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Ngando[edit]

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

My searches found nothing at all and that included Books (where I found my one link, a mention simply for being an album producer), News, browsers, All About Jazz and JazzTimes. Therefore there's simply nothing else to suggest the needed applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable producer. And it doesn't look good for impartiality when the article's creator writes this in an edit summary. Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:16, 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 merge to Valley Center, California. Per Wikipedia:Merging, a redirect is typically performed after a merge has been performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Center History Museum[edit]

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

Hyperlocal coverage in the few RS that exist. Fails WP:ORG ( I looked for more sources, they are more of the same as what is here) Also ceated by SOCKing editor connected to Roadrunner Publications, Inc., which in turn is controlled by Justin Salter, Director Website/Social Media/Newsletters of this organization per this - clearly created for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge this small museum to Valley Center, California as per standards re: small museums Wikipedia:Museum projects : " If it's a small historical museum in a small town, it probably does not deserve an article of its own, but it almost certainly merits a mention in the article about the town.... (where) probably a paragraph about almost any museum would be welcome."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per EMG. BMK (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge excerpt should be included in Valley Center, California, but it does not need it's own stand alone article Vchero (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per E.M.Gregory. Compare for example, South Sea Islands Museum in Cooranbong, Australia which was kept because it had received national coverage as well as recognition of the importance of its exhibits by the Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage. This is not the case with this museum. Voceditenore (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with redirect and merge. I would close this myself and do that but that is too bold, I fear. Jytdog (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC) NB: Article under discussion was subsequently moved in this dif to Daily Times-Advocate and remaining page was made a disambig page Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Times-Advocate[edit]

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

Local weekly. The brief stories used for references are both on the change in owner and local. Fails CORP. See also Valley Roadrunner and its AfD. John from Idegon (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:SPLIT content on former, possibly notable old paper into separate article and strong delete for content about 2014 paper~~ in addition to the nomination rationale, this article is WP:PROMO, created and developed primary by SOCKing editor clearly connected to parent company Roadrunner Publications, Inc., see SPI and connected contributors on Talk page. The growing consensus is that we delete articles about marginally notable subjects created by conflicted editors - we are here to be used that way. Jytdog (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC) (redact, and see note below Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)) (redact again, see below Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep but move to Daily Times-Advocate and delete the resulting redirect Times-Advocate (see my comments below). I have expanded this article to include more of the history of this paper and re-referenced it, adding references from two books (Early Escondido: The Louis A. Havens Collection and Photographing Farmworkers in California), the Times of San Diego, New York Times, etc.. I'm sure there are many more given its long history This paper has been around since 1909 and was originally a daily. I'm going to repeat here what I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Roadrunner: The COI of the creator is not a valid reason to delete an article if it can be fixed. Yet none of you !voting "delete" even tried to (a) find independent sources or (b) fix it. Given that many local newspapers are used in references and are often the only sources for local history, it is of considerable encyclopedic value both to readers and editors, to know the history and background of the source itself. Who created it is immaterial. AfD is not supposed to be used as a punishment. I have nominated and/or !voted "delete" in many, many COI/promo articles for non-notable subjects. I can't stand the stuff. However, I have also re-written, re-referenced, and rescued many others. In my view this is COI-phobia carried to an extreme, to the point where our readers are deprived of encyclopedic information. Voceditenore (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiman6464 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 June 2016‎
Keep per explansion by V. BMK (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment explaining my refined !vote. The newspaper created in 2014 has nothing to do with the old institution other than the name. For the new paper to take over the old name was great marketing: "When we were searching for a name that residents of both the Escondido and Valley Center areas might find appealing, it struck us that the Times-Advocate strikes the perfect note of a local and trusted news source,” the story states. “Happily, the name had fallen into the public domain, so we were able to pick it up and register it for our own use." (ref) For the creator of this article to actually couple them was intellectually dishonest, and not what we do here with similarly named topics. This is understandable behavior for a self-promoting newbie editor. The subsequent edits and !votes here by experienced editors are less easy to understand. I just clarified and strengthened my !delete vote for this hot mess. ~~The stuff about the older institution should be WP:CONSPLIT into its own article.~~ Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC) (redact per article revisions and comment below Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Comment re page move In light of Jytdog's comments and on a careful re-reading of the North Coast Current source, I have revised the current article so that it's now solely about the original paper and makes clear that it has no connection to the publication launched in 2014. It seems to me that the problem can now be solved by a simple page move followed by deletion of the resulting redirect page Times-Advocate. This would be a good idea anyway given that there are quite a lot of other papers in the US and Canada known as the Times-Advocate. Note that WP:CONSPLIT requires keeping the original page source to preserve the edit history and despite the skullduggery of the article's creator, some of the content in the current article which pertains to the "real" Times Advocate was added by him. Anyhow, I'll leave it to the closing administrator to decide. Voceditenore (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment - well this is a new one in my experience - the article has been completely rewritten and focused on the older institution, with the new one a passing mention, which... is appropriate. Interesting. The article that was nominated no longer exists and I have struck my vote as it was about something that doesn't exist anymore. User:John from Idegon do you consent to withdrawing your nomination? We can deal with the page move at the article level, without this. I'm willing to do the logistics of the close if you do consent. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it Withdrawn, with my thanks to Voceditenore for his hard work to save this and make it appropriate. Note that I do not feel quite the same about the other one, but will also withdraw it in the face of overwhelming opposition. John from Idegon (talk) 20:49, 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) 17:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pluribus Networks (company)[edit]

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

Directly created by employee of company (disclosed here) under a variation of the name Pluribus Networks - they couldn't directly create under that name as it was salted after 1) the article was deleted following an an AFD in Feb 2014 and 2) that article was re-posted by a SPA in June 2014 and was speedy deleted per WP:G4.

Is the company now Notable? I went and looked for sources and removed chaff and added what substance I could in these diffs. In my view it is borderline. The growing consensus is that we delete articles about marginal subjects directly created (not through AfC) by conflicted editors where there is a clear effort to use Wikipedia for promotion, counter to WP:PROMO. Hence this nomination. Marginally notable; promotional. Jytdog (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as closely examining the article only found this to be appear as if the article is filled the ample sourcing and otherwise apparent notability but considering my searches have found nothing better, there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not really a newsworthy topic because no reliable sources cover this business entity. Hence, the exsitence of this article on Wikipedia serves as a platform for promotion only. The only independent reporting I have found are two articles in the web publication of "Business Insider" [14], [15]. It seems the first article is relying on a correlation between Jerry Yang and the company - and there really isn't one. Yang has invested in 50 startups [16] and this happens to be one of them; so there is no notability to be found in this correlation. The second article covers, in part, the new CEO of this company - and he is not a notable subject. Also, whatever the company itself is doing has not become newsworthy or noteworthy ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As specified, promotional and only minimally notable at best. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 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. Most of the voters agree that the person is either not notable or has borderline notability, and the subject of the article itself nominated it for deletion. I do not find the counterarguments, which are all coming from a single user, convincing enough to overcome the majority and to keep the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Thomson[edit]

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

Exercising admirable unbiased objective restraint, GorgeCustersSabre and Kashmiri (who for reasons best known to themselves are extremely reluctant to reveal their true identities and use their own names) have deleted most of this Article in double quick time – but they have not gone nearly far enough, especially since Ahmad Thomson himself recognises that he is both lowly insignificant and not at all notable – and to quote Little Big Man (Thomas Berger, Vintage Classics, 1999), the Article's life "is not worth the reversal of a Custer decision". This Article was originally created in order to attack Ahmad Thomson (which is not included as a valid objective for contributing to Wikipedia) and, more than 10 years on, it is now high time that the historical grievance of Klonimus and Babajobu should be laid to rest and Ahmad Thomson's right to privacy and desire for anonymity be respected, so that all may be well and Wikilove flourish and prosper! – signed: Ahmad Thomson. Ahmad Thomson 07:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Leaning delete. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows BLP deletion in certain cases, although it can be argued Thomson is (or was) a sort of public figure. What puts me off is his (Ahmad Thomson) attitude to fellow editors, which effectively prevents having this as a decent quality Wikipedia article. See Talk:Ahmad Thomson four countless examples of attempts to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and condescending remarks towards fellow editors. — kashmiri ^TALK 08:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought, I am leaning delete - the subject's shortlived fame was actually WP:ONEEVENT in 2005 and was a result of two newspaper articles, with little or no followup aterwards. Sure, Thomson has authored a few books, but I couldn't find any mainstream reviews (apart from those two newspaper articles picking up on one of them). Being on a few TV shows or making legal representations to the legislature does not satisfy WP:NBIO, as GorgeCustersSabre already wrote below. — kashmiri ^TALK 12:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am very frustrated by Ahmad Thomson's interference in the editing of this page. He has made things worse even today, rather than letting editors just get on and solve the problem. Earlier today I wrote: "I would like to propose deleting the page, but would like the views of other editors before I go ahead and create the deletion nomination." What did he do? He rushed to nominate the deletion without waiting to see what others thought. Like kashmiri, I also feel put off by his bullish attitude and patronizing manner in dealing with editors. So why do I think the article should be deleted? Because Thomson simply isn't genuinely notable. He has authored books, but none has made an impact or been discussed much. He has appeared on a few tv programmes, but so have many others without Wikipedia pages. He was mentioned twice in mainstream, third-party newspapers in 2005 for having shared some views which were reportedly mistaken or disagreeable, but so what? That hardly establishes notability, and it fails to pass the WP:SINGLEEVENT test. He is not a public figure. I recommend deletion of the Ahmad Thomson page and its accompanying talk page. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that while only 2 newspapers are cited on the page in re: 2005 statement, a search produces coverage of his statements about Blair and Iraq in a great many newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete KEEP~~ NEUTRAL (EDIT: re-read all material found on the guy this morning and honestly at this point am unsure whether his notability is clear. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE seems appropriate for the time being as per other editors): (First off, hat tip to GCS and Kashmiri for editing on the article and dealing with difficulty) Uninvolved editor. LexisNexis has 22 hits for the name. However, not one rises beyond WP:ONEEVENT that Kashmiri mentions or trivial mentions as covered by WP:GNG. 12 refer to the one event (9 in September 2005, and 3 trivial mentions since then). The remaining are quotes attributed to him, but all are trivial mentions with no additional context about the person. I am not concerned with the motivation for the creation of the page, but would not consider the person notable at this point. The whole of coverage does not pass ~~WP:NTEMP~~WP:ONEEVENT (EDIT, not NTEMP but single event should be the policy referred to here) or the non-trivial aspect of WP:GNG. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: responding to this AfD after Gorge asked me to look at the article itself. This seems like an open and shut case. The coverage hasn't been sustained in the past ten years, plus - as mentioned above - the subject of this BLP has requested deletion, and their request falls within the parameters for deletion mentioned in the policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is poorly sourced and has a self-promoting tone, including a great deal of citation of facts to Thomson himself. The claim to notability at first blush appears to be that he founded the Association of Muslim Lawyers, another self-sources, apparent self-promotion. However, as I continued reading, and, especially, when I read MezzoMezzo's comment that the Thomson has asked to have the article deleted I began to suspect subjects reasons for having the article deleted. A news search quickly turned up a 2015 article in the Wall Street Journal about Thomson's testimony in defense of Al-Qaeda operative Khalid al-Fawwaz, convicted after this article ran and now serving a life sentence. (Deliberations to Begin in Trial Over 1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings; Saudi man accused of playing key role in al Qaeda attack. Hong, Nicole. View Profile. Wall Street Journal (Online) [New York, N.Y] 19 Feb 2015 [17]) Here is the relevant passage: " Ahmad Thomson, a London-based lawyer who testified for the defense, said he helped draft a constitution for the Advice and Reform Committee, the group that Mr. al-Fawwaz led in London after moving there in 1994. Mr. Thomson testified that the group was trying to promote "peaceful and constructive reform" in Saudi Arabia. However, prosecutors say the organization was just a front for al Qaeda's activities." Moreover, this cannot be a ONEEVENT since Thomson has sought a role as a spokesman for Islam in the U.K. Here on Polygamy: " Ahmad Thomson, a barrister and founder of the Association of Muslim Lawyers, said that polygamous marriages could work in Britain if all parties were open and in agreement. But "sometimes the husband has tried to keep the earlier marriage secret. When the second or third wife finds out, it's devastating," he added. " ('DEATH OF EX FACE OF ASIA EXPOSES MURKY WORLD OF MUSLIM POLYGAMY IN UK' (RE-ISSUE). The Hindustan Times [New Delhi] 28 Dec 2008. [18]). Here on anti-Muslim media bias: " Ahmad Thomson, a leading barrister and co-founder of the Association of Muslim lawyers, who is also supporting calls for an inquiry, said he believed that most members of the public were unaware of the "depth of the vilification of Muslims" in the media. "I think the thing is that [an inquiry] will make people think and, if it gets on to the mainstream media, people will look at it more closely," he said. "In the long term, the object of this exercise is to raise standards of reporting in whatever form of media, as well as heightening public awareness of this issue. Maybe they would look at their fellow human beings in a much more favourable light if only the media would let them." (Calls for UK inquiry into 'anti-Muslim media bias'. The National [Abu Dhabi] 27 Jan 2012. [19]) There are a lot more quotes, over many years on many issues. Moreover the 2005 incident where he asserted that "Jews and Freemasons" were responsible for Prime Minister's Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq was quite a flap, extensively covered at the time. In conclusion, he stepped forward as a spokesman for Islam not once, but repeatedly. Solid sourcing exists for this role. His testimony in that Al Qaeda trial happened. The article needs editing and better sourcing, not deletion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Julius has a discussion of Thomson in Chapter 8 of Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added some material on Thomson from a Robert S. Wistrich to the page, this one I was able to easily access on books google.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added some material on his geo-polical ideas from a Jean-Pierre Filiu book accessible on books google. More could be added from that book, and probably should. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory Thanks for a detailed analysis. Links you listed don't work without subscription to ProQuest - any chances for public links? Thanks. — kashmiri ^TALK 06:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kashmiri, I apologize for that. And I want to say that the first page of my first quick news google search showed little - that's when I went to Proquest. Wikipedia has arrangements to get qualified editors who request it past many paywalls. It is possible to search other ways, such as going through the many pages of a google news search on Ahmad Thomson, or searching the web sites of the individual newspapers. Here, or example, is the Wall Street Journal article where he testifies to working with a group that prosecutors call an Al Qaeda front.[20].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory Yeah, these are all still (very, very) trivial mentions. Being a go-to quote for journalists does not seem to me to make someone notable. I've gone through Proquest and Lexis and don't know much more than that he is a London-based lawyer who said something in 2005 that got some coverage and has some other opinions. To see how trivial the mentions are, in the Wall Street Journal article you link to he is the 9th and last person mentioned in that article. You don't get more of a trivial mention than that. And if his only notability really is his link to Association of Muslim Lawyers, then it should be merged there. Right? I'm staying Delete (MERGE cool too) until there is a non-trivial mention from a source. But so far, none of the hits in Lexus or Proquest are). Indeed, after searching Proquest I'm actually more committed because there's only 3 mentions of the guy in Newspapers or Articles. Two in 2005 and the WSJ in 2015. This is actually a great example of someone who is ONEEVENT+trivial mentions otherwise. For me, that ain't even close to notable. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I second AbstractIllusions here. The WSJ only mentions Thomson as the lawyer who helped to draft a certain legal document - this is way too WP:TRIVIAL to make the person notable. I haven't checked ProQuest but assuming AI's assertion above is true, all these mentions are insufficient for a Wikipedia biography. Actually, your detailed research has given me an increased confidence that Thomson indeed is not notable. — kashmiri ^TALK 12:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I conveyed a impressionism. I did only the quickest searches, certainly no "detailed" research. I did a quick search on Proquest and another on google Books, added a couple of the news article on the Proquest search above and added a bit of material in books bluelinked scholars to the page. I'm sure that detailed research would produce better results. Cheers!E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, changed to Keep above. The Filiu source did it. That is significant coverage of his ideas in a book. The media coverage still doesn't do it for me, but a couple paragraph discussion in academic book with all the trivial mentions. Cool. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still DELETE from me, because a single book chapter does not account for significant coverage in multiple sources as required by BLP (underline mine). Non-BLP compliant equals delete for me. — kashmiri ^TALK 13:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources presented by E.M. Gregory.

CaseeArt ^Talk 04:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Note to Ahmad Thomson: If this AfD does not close with the deletion of the article, file a complaint with WP:OTRS to have it removed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz Apologies, I'm getting back into wikipedia after a long break. Could you explain more about how you think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies to this situation. The way I read the policy: If person is not notable and requests delete, then delete. But isn't that what we are trying to hash out, is dude notable or not? I think E.M. Gregory has made a convincing case for base notability. His writings have been featured in multiple books about Islamic thought (I even found an academic book that refers to him in a list of "well-known names"). That sorta makes it so that BLPREQUEST doesn't apply. But if you have a better reading of BLPREQUESTDELETE, I might have to flip on back. Thanks for the time, just want to help get this right. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Malik Shabazz is right that if Ahmad Thomson has any notability at all, it certainly isn't much, and because Thomson opposes the article and requests its deletion, it could be deleted according to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The policy is precisely for marginal cases like this. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, your reading (and I agree, I think) is in case of request, "tie" (not literal) goes towards delete. OK. That's fair. But that's for closing admin to consider, and isn't a policy that helps us ascertain notability. I agree that newspaper coverage is quite marginal and likely to make weight in the article very difficult to get right, but if an academic expert in the topic mentions a person in the same breath as Yusuf Islam as a prominent British Muslim convert, that raises the evidence bar for a 'Delete' vote. I still see him as clearly passing GNG (which is the policy we should be looking at, and not BLPREQUEST, which is unhelpful) AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I wasn't 100% clear. I expressed my opinion (delete this article about a "non-notable individual") and added the reference to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE because, in my experience, many editors -- including administrators -- don't know all the BLP rules. It's also my opinion that if we have to debate the notability of an individual who has asked to have his biography deleted, it should be deleted. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more with MShabazz! George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Still clears the bar for me, and it isn't even that close. But, it is all good. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Thomson is a public figure, has been one for years, and that he has been so as a result of of his own activities and self-promotion - not due to some random or sole event. He is the author of many books, books that he has promoted with interviews and speaking tours. He has served as an (informal, non-appointive) adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair. He has given many press interviews on topics related to Islam over the course of more than 20 years. He was the subject of a long profile article in the Journal of the Muslim World League as far back as 2001. Although a barrister by profession, his many books are about Islam and, according to Canadian scholar of Islam Andrew Rippin, he is "well known" in the Muslim community. (cited on the page from a Rippin book) Outside the Muslim community , he has, for many years, been regularly sought out as an authority on Islam and Muslims by the Anglophone press. I brought a few examples of such citations above, there were many more in the Proquest archives where I found those. Here, for example [21] from the BBC, is an example of the many times he has been called on by the media as a expert on Muslim affairs. Sentences asserting that he appeared on programs called "Celebrity Lives Sharia Style,"[Celebrity Lives Sharia Style'] , " [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmad_Thomson&diff=724570653&oldid=724570336 and Note also that a good deal of material supportive of his notability has been removed from the page during this discussion. A RS section sentence section detailing his involvement with the Advice and Reform Committee [22] was removed. Discussion of Thomson's conversion and career in a book by Robert S. Wistrich was removed. Discussion of his writing in a book by Jean-Pierre Filiu, a highly-regarded academic who explores and discusses Thomson's published work at length, was removed.[23]. As I have said above, the material now on the page, and the material that has been removed form the page in the last few days are only a part of the reliable material on Thomson that exists in reliable sources. It exists because he has been an author, spokesman for Islam and, in other words, a public figure for many years. E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear E.M.Gregory, I hope you are well. Your statement about why the reference to the Advice and Reform Committee and other assertions about Thomson were removed from the page is a bit mistaken, in my view. The edits were reasonable and explained in the edit summaries or on your own talk page. I'm responsible for reverting some of your edits myself, but I did explain my rationale and at no point did I edit in order to misrepresent or whitewash Ahmad Thomson's views, some of which, if reported neutrally and accurately, would offend me. I merely wanted to ensure that, until other sources could corroborate your assertions, we err of the side of caution, given that the page is a BLP. I am concerned by what some might see as bias in your claim that Thomson is a public figure "as a result of his own activities and self-promotion". I do not accuse you of wanting to present Thomson negatively, but I do think he deserves his activities to be portrayed neutrally and factually, if they are proven to be notable at all. Regards and best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources GeorgeCuster asserts are in need of "corroboration" include a straightforward report on testimony in a criminal trial from the Wall Street Journal and a lengthy discussion of Thomson's work in a scholarly book by Jean-Pierre Filiu. The notion that, in removing this material GeorgeCuster is Whitewashing (censorship) the page is his own, I have not accused him of Whitewashing (censorship).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created no such notion. I was categorical: I am not whitewashing Ahmad Thomson. As for the sentence I reverted, I explained on your talk page that I have removed your good faith mention of Thomson's alleged connection to the Advice and Reform Committee, and thus his alleged connection to Al Qaeda, because the statement is not actually impartial; it comes from the Prosecution in a legal action and neither the Defense view nor the final verdict/decision are mentioned. It also does not say whether (or what) Thomson knew about this alleged connection to Al Qaeda at the time, but only mentions what he thought of the motives of the front group. Without other sources being added, we should be very cautious in a BLP. Do any other sources fill in the missing details? Given the weakness of the source, in good faith I am therefore adhering to the BLP guideline: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Street Journal reporting on a trial is as reliable as a secondary source gets. What the Wall Street JOurnal wrote is: " Ahmad Thomson, a London-based lawyer who testified for the defense, said he helped draft a constitution for the Advice and Reform Committee, the group that Mr. al-Fawwaz led in London after moving there in 1994. Mr. Thomson testified that the group was trying to promote "peaceful and constructive reform" in Saudi Arabia. However, prosecutors say the organization was just a front for al Qaeda's activities." E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sources In addition to being discussed in many books by reputabbe publisers/authors, he e googles awfully well for an allegedly non-notable, albeit much of the material goes back to the 90s and may not have been immediately apparent on the early pages of a search. Here's a typical paragraph about him, typcal also in misunderstanding what he's saying, that is, expressing a pious hope that the whole world will soon see the light and accept Allah is no more radical than a pious hope that the whole world will soon see the light and accept Jesus. Nevertheless: Alive and Well and Living in London, Olivier Guitta. The Weekly Standard. (May 7, 2007): 10-11. [24] : By and large, though, British Muslims are the most radicalized Muslim community in Europe. An ICM Poll survey in February 2006 found that 40 percent of British Muslims favor the institution of sharia (Islamic law) in Britain. Another sometime adviser to the British government, Ahmad Thomson-z Rhodesia-born convert to Islam and a member of the Association of Muslim Lawyers-used this smooth formulation in the Cambridge University magazine Ar-Risaakh a couple of years ago: "I look forward to the day when the majority of British people have voted in favour of being governed in accordance with the Sharia of Islam." Thomson has argued that "Blair decided to go to war in Iraq because he is under the influence of a sinister group of Jews and Free Masons." .E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another: "Who are all these Muslim 'advisers' to government? Ahmad Thomson comes from the Association of Muslim Lawyers and advises No. 10 Downing Street." Moore, Charles. The Spectator (Sep 17, 2005) [25].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the Daily Telegraph, a Muslim barrister who 'advises' the Prime Minister has said that Mr Blair is the victim of a sinister conspiracy between the Freemasons and the Jews, who control him and took us to war in Iraq. Ahmad Thomson, from the Muslim Association of Lawyers, has previously denied that six million Jews died in the Holocaust: that's a 'big lie', he avers." Why do we tolerate intolerance? Liddle, Rod. The Spectator (Sep 17, 2005) [26] The man was an adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair, an informal, non-appointee adviser to be sure, but hardly a non notable person and his opinions are a matter of public record largely because he published them in books and had a reputation within the British Muslim community.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Described as one of the "advisers to the British Government in dealing with Muslim extremism" in Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within, by Melanie Phillips - who does not approve of his views, but who is notable, as are authors I cite above (Anthony Julius, Robert S. Wistrich, and Jean-Pierre Filiu) in all of these cases, the sourcing is solid and while only Filiu engages Thomson's work at length, these mentions are far form "trivial."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that while the first page of a google books search produces Thomson's own books, keep scrolling and you find discussions of his work in other books of Muslim piety and in books discussing contemporary Islam such as Religious Polemics in Context: Papers Presented to the Second International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (Lisor) Held at Leiden, 27-28 April, 2000. Theo L. Hettema, Arie van der Kooij; British Muslim Converts: Choosing Alternative Lives Kate Zebiri, 2008; Routledge's 2014 Literature of Travel and Exploration: An Encyclopedia (Thomson's essay about experiencing the Haj), and many more, just scroll and remember that only a fraction of what exists appears on any particular books google search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable individual. All the sources presented so far only seem to mention Thomson in passing. Even the work by Jean-Pierre Filiu only mentions him on 4 pages out of a book of 260 pages. Additionally, the discussion in this book is mostly focused on one of Thomson's works named "Dajjal and the New World Order" as opposed to Ahmad Thomson himself. Similarly, as far as I understand, Melanie Phillips is not an academic scholar and her book Londonistan is not peer reviewed or published by a respected publishing house. As such it would probably fail WP:RS. Additionally, she devotes less than half a page on Thomson.Saheeh Info 22:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A misunderstanding of WP:GNG. Thomson's notability is supported by discussions in books of many kinds, including bestselling popular books like Phillips' Londonistan (published by Encounter Books and the other non-academic books I mentioned. Also, to support notability coverage must be "more than a trivial mention," but need not be lengthy. Discussions in books that I brought to this page include books that describe him as "well known" and others that describe Thomson as an advisor (by implicaiton an informal, occasional adviser) on Muslim affairs to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Of such sources is Wikipedia notability made.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states that (emphasis mine) "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". The book by Melanie Phillips does not appear to be a reliable source as she is not an academic scholar and her book Londonistan is not peer reviewed or published by a respected publishing house. Examples of respected publishing houses include Brill, Oxford University Press etc... Additionally, none of the other books appear to provide "significant coverage" as WP:GNG requires. At best, they seem to only mention Thomson in passing. Can you list any works that pass WP:RS and provide "significant coverage" per WP:GNG which states that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail... ? Saheeh Info 19:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A misunderstanding of WP:GNG. A book does not have to be from an academic press to contribute to notability. What we are establishing here is WP notability. A discussion of Thomson in a "bestseller"[27] by Melanie Phillips published by a major press is a RS towards notability, as are the other books I have mentioned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a misunderstanding. You stated that sources don't need to be reliable. However, WP:GNG and WP:WHYN states that:

We require the existence of "reliable sources" so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information.

It also states that:

We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.

So, for a subject to be considered notable it is a requirement that sources be reliable and it is a requirement that these reliable sources provide significant coverage. So far, the books / authors that you have listed only mention Thomson in passing and you haven't proved that they are reliable per WP:RS.

If you feel that unreliable sources (such as the book by Melanie Phillips) are valid to prove an individuals notability then please provide policy reasons for this view. Saheeh Info 07:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor That the page has been here since 2005, when it looked like this [28]. So I surmise that it was sparked by the spate of news article about Thomson that appeared that year, criticizing Tony Blair for having an adviser with radical views. Essentially an attack page, it soon replaced with a page that was long, unsourced, and defensive of Thomson. In 2006 Ahmad Thomson (apparently editing under his own name,) revised the page producing this: [29]. What can I say? Lots of people do that here. An editor who often works to defend Islam here cleaned the page up, providing RS that should certainly be replaced on the page (here: [30].) Editors came and went, Thomson weighed in periodically to snow the article with myriad un- and self-sourced edits (here, for example,: [31] article as it stood when he finished a typical bout of edits in 2011). In 10 years of editing his page, Thomson behaved as many artists, authors and others do, using WP as a personal advertisement. A few weeks ago an editor removed a swath of Thomson's un- and self-sourced text and Thomson objected: [32]. My interest in this is that while I object to WP:PROMO I equally object to a long-standing self-promoter like Thomson, a man who promotes himself not only on Wikipedia, Facebook, Youtube, etc., but in newspapers, as an author, spokesman for Islam, adviser to Prime Minister, and so forth, (albeit, one who is in less demand than he was 10-20 years ago. possibly because back then he was relatively unique as an Anglophone, pious, Muslim, British barrister) requesting deletion. It frankly feels like an attempt to abuse WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to whitewash the past, and if Wikipedia is WP:PROMO it is also WP:NOTCENSORED. In conclusion, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and I think it's too much of a stretch to define a man with the degree of sourcing, appearances in mainstream media, and even a role as advisor to a Prime Minister that Thomson demonstrably has (sources found on this page, in the old revisions, and in books and news sources not yet mentioned here) as WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we are not concerned with whether anybody promotes themselves on YouTube, TV or the press. Conversely: if that has made the person/product/brand notable, they can get a WP article. Look, notability of people, brands and products is often a result of years of self-promotion, taking place before being picked up by independent sources. But as long as this promotion is carried out outside of Wikipedia, and as long as it resulted with independent sources attesting to notability, we should be fine with this.

Here, BLPREQUESTDELETE is of little relevance: either the person is notable, and then the article has to stay per policies, or he is not - in which case the article has to go anyway. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminding editors that serious consideration of Thomson's work by scholars exists, but some has been removed from the page, and more (mentioned above) not yet added. Wall Street Journal coverage of his work as a barrister was also removed. The solution to deletion of sources is surely not deletion of the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable explanation for the removal of the Wall Street Journal piece has been given several times. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of RS info during AFD is not good form. Here is the text form the Wall Street Journal article on a trial that resulted in the conviction of an Al Qaeda operative. " Ahmad Thomson, a London-based lawyer who testified for the defense, said he helped draft a constitution for the Advice and Reform Committee, the group that Mr. al-Fawwaz led in London after moving there in 1994. Mr. Thomson testified that the group was trying to promote "peaceful and constructive reform" in Saudi Arabia. However, prosecutors say the organization was just a front for al Qaeda's activities." Mr. Thomson is a barrister. This is the work he did as a barrister. Let other editors judge the appropriateness of removing this during AFD, and of its relevance to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article insinuates nothing at all for any basic general notability, there's information and sources but nothing actually thoroughly convincing. Certainly not inheritable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As is so often the case, I am not certain that I even understand what Sister Twister means to say. And there is no evidence of in her !Vote that she searched beyone sources already on the page.) However, in general, discussions of a topic in both academic and bestselling books, discussions of the subjects work in major newspapers, and coverage of a activities such as advising the British government do establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to insult SwisterTwister. He or she has expressed a view that the article should be deleted. I understood that view. I'm sure others will too. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, as I have said above, he was better known in the 1990s and early 2000s (many discussions of his books in popular, scholarly and pious (Muslim) articles and books) exist. For example, he was then discussed in a scholarly book, Ali Köse Conversion to Islam: A Study of Native British Converts (Routledge. 1996,) as a "well known" convert to Islam.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Ralph Grillo Muslim Families, Politics and the Law: A Legal Industry in Multicultural Britain (Ashgate Publishing, 2015) he is described as "Hajj Ahmad Thomson a Muslim convert and head of a legal firm specializing in Islamic Law."(p. 10) Grillo goes on to discuss that public role Thomson took in a 2012 national debate over whether British courts should adopt Islamic family law. Thomson, according to Grillo, appeared on television asking why Baroness Onora O'Neill raised only the question of Muslim law, asserting that Ecclesiastical Christian courts and Jewish courts have been allowed under British law to adjudicate family law since the 12th century. Grillo implies that O'Neill was forced to respond to Thomson's question, and did so at a Parliamentary hearing. Look, I am not going to bring ever similar RS in which Thomson work is discussed to this page. (There are far too many.) What I am arguing here is that there is so much evidence, over so many years, and so much evidence that Thomson sought out and filled very public roles that I truly fail to see a policy-based argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Despite the length of this AfD page, there's still only one person who actually gave reasons why they think this article should be kept (the other person merely voted), and those reasons haven't been accepted by the community at large. Lengthy AfD pages consisting of one person pushing a point against the entire body of interested editors always seem odd. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Critias. And leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dropidas[edit]

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

This was a redirect to Plato when discovered and was immediately sent to RfD. The result was "restore article without prejudice against sending to AfD". Therefore, I am now committing it to your hands. The Traditionalist (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfD closer here. ~~I recommend keep.~~ I was personally persuaded by Legacypac's argument that "Anyone we know something about that lived that long ago deserves at least a stub." Because he's closely related to three people for which we have articles - Critias, Solon, and Plato - there isn't a single sensible place to merge this. The mention by Critias, the cited 1892 book,[33] and these modern sources ~~[34]~~[35] add up to "persistent coverage" (over 1500 years!) in "independent reliable sources". So I recommend keeping this article despite the likelihood of WP:Permastub. Der yck C. 14:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Closely related" is a bit strong: Critias was his great grandson, Plato cannot have been more closely related than great great grandson, and ~~we have no idea how Solon was related to Dropidas, except that Critias asserts that he was.~~[See below] As for your modern sources, one is the cited 1892 book in question, which is simply a translation of Plato's dialogues; the modern book mentions Dropidas once and gives us nothing new; and the website gives us something new ("Dropidas was mentioned in the poems of Solon."), but doesn't identify the poem, which makes finding it to confirm more difficult, and at any rate is part of a website arguing among other things that Atlantis was real: hardly a reliable source!

That said, it does seem to be WP practice to keep articles on pretty much every attested ancient Greek person ever mentioned in any source, no matter how permastubby they are. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it turns out that Diogenes Laertius tells us that "Dropides" [sic] was Solon's brother. Given that he was writing 700+ years after Solon, however, I'm not sure how accurate that is likely to be... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: There actually is a single sensible place to merge this into: Timaeus (dialogue).--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Traditionalist: I'm not so sure. Timaeus is a large text and the mention of Dropidas is too little a portion of it to warrant a detailed mention there. Besides, the discussion below seems to have established that Timaeus wasn't the only ancient Greek text that mentioned the Dropidas who is the subject of this article. Der yck C. 22:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with the translations. See here.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: The bit about the poems is most likely a misreading of the ancient text. The text says: “[...] ὡς ὁ τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφώτατος Σόλων ποτ᾽ ἔφη. ἦν μὲν οὖν οἰκεῖος καὶ σφόδρα φίλος ἡμῖν Δρωπίδου τοῦ προπάππου, καθάπερ λέγει πολλαχοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῇ ποιήσει” which I quickly translate as: “[...] as the wisest of the seven, Solon, once said. he, then, was a friend and very much beloved of Dropides, great-grandfather to us, exactly in the fashion he himself (i.e. Dropides!) says many times in his poetry”. The text says that Solon is mentioned in the poems of Dropides. ~~Solon, after all, did not write poetry.~~ As if Atlantis was not enough, the source has confirmed its complete unreliability.--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Traditionalist: My Greek isn't good enough to tell whether the poems in the text refer to Solon's or Dropidas', but it's certainly not true that Solon didn't write poetry: indeed, poetry attributed to Solon survives, though only in fragmentary form. You'll find it in the Loeb Classical Library's volume on Greek Elegiac poetry. (And it gets an entire subsection at Solon#Poetry) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Ouch, I suppose I did not know that. Still, it is rather obvious from the Greek text that the speaker refers to the poetry of Dropides.--The Traditionalist (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:19, 30 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) 05:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Critias. I agree that it's worth keeping this information, but don't see what disservice it does to the reader to take what scant content we have about the subject and merge it into the subject through which most of that content relates. Certainly no objection to recreating at some point if we have more to go by. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Critias, per Rhododendrites. Being related to a notable person does not confer notability, per Wikipedia policy. I'm sympathetic to the argument that anyone who lived that long ago must be notable; but there ought to be some kind of facts other than how he's related to another person. Relationships can be summed up on the pages of notable persons to whom he's related, with no loss of content. P Aculeius (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the biography of Critias per above. There seems to be enough space in Critias for more information about Critias's ancestry, and the entirety of this article can be merged there. Deryck C. 11:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion is leaning toward deletion, but the "no indication of notability" delete !vote is ambiguous in terms of whether or not it is based only upon the state of sourcing in the article, which is not an indicator of whether or not a subject is notable, or if additional source searches were performed to qualify the stance. The weak keep !vote provides some evidence to substantiate the rationale. Ultimately, no consensus for a particular action exists relative to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and the strengths of the overall arguments herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandra Silva[edit]

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

Nothing at all actually solidly pinning applicable notability here and my searches clearly found nothing better, keep to mind this is apparently not connected to Richard Gere's girlfriend, Alejandra Silva. The links tossed about here also offer no solid signs of the needed notability too. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She has been in Spanish news steadily for the past 2 years. She is on the June cover of Hola! She is in Vanity Fair, too. However, much coverage is related to Richard Gere, her boyfriend, but not all of it is. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 30 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) 05:32, 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) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Wallace (photojournalist)[edit]

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

I would've PRODed too as the article basically contains nothing actually convincing for the applicable notability, the best claim is only sourced by his own LinkedIn and the best my own searches found was only this. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs citations. All I did was google the title of the book: "The Unconquered: In Search of the Amazon's Last Uncontacted Tribes" + Wallace (cool topic) and bingo, here are the news google hits: [36] Note that it got reviews in The New York Review of Books and the New York Times. The book can certainly support a page, ergo Wallace can. Suggest that [[User:SwisterTwister withdraw this one. Just leave it tagged for sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:26, 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 02:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 31 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) 05:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC: NPR, The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Murray[edit]

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

Nothing to particularly suggest the needed solid independent notability and the only outstanding work seemed to be 25 episodes of Coronation Street thus this could be redirected there after deleting, my searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one important role in a notable work falls below the threshold of two, so delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs work and more sources, even IMDb lists more roles than this article. There are several people with this name, so an exhaustive google search is a bit tricky. But appear to meet at least a minimal standard. We also probably should ping the UK noticeboard, as folks there may be more familiar with the Television of that period. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:35, 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 02:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 31 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) 05:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as had prominent roles in two of the U.K's most popular series, Coronation Street, and Hi-de-Hi, passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added her roles and references. She passes WP:NACTOR Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is not the most notable actor in the world, but she does seem to meet WP:NACTOR. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets acting requirements. — Wylie pedia 19:02, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hibon[edit]

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

My searches found nothing better at all for any actual applicable notability and there's nothing particularly convincing from his list of works. SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 31 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) 05:30, 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) Daniel kenneth (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Gumilla[edit]

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

Article on non-notable organization. Has two independent refs that are minor mentions. Third ref is from related organization. Overall non-notable, as there are not enough refs to establish wide independent significant coverage. WP:BEFORE turns up little; work by three editors so far fails to turn up genuine notability. This is an important organization, but not in terms of Wikipedia's notability requirements. Information like this belongs on a separate web site hosted by the org itself, or the Jesuit faith. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article was a translated stub, offering others the chance to enlarge it. Thanks to someone in Venezuela this has been done and I have added an English explanation of these independent references, while adding others (please note). I suggest that all large development centres should qualify for inclusion under the rubric of development charities or poverty-related organizations. This is such a centre and does extensive work, as can be gathered from reports in its publications as well as from the independent sources referenced in the article.Jzsj (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jzsj, You have said you have a master's degree from somewhere. I'm hoping that I can infer from that that you have the mental ability to understand the following, which you have been told numerous times. There are no special rules for "development charities or poverty-related organizations". The general rules are WP:ORG and WP:GNG. You continue to argue that there should be special rules for your pages. It does not work that way. You say you are impartial, but your editing is blatantly promotional, and you call repeatedly for special rules for your "development charities or poverty-related organizations". Your pages are bing deleted and merged with other pages because, once again, there are no special rules for "development charities or poverty-related organizations", no matter how many times you ask. It does not matter that you are a priest or a retired priest or even God. No special rules. Please stick to the actual rules: notability and good sources.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above statement by HappyValleyEditor is a personal attack against a specific editor, and also quite offensive in nature. "You have said you have a master's degree from somewhere. I'm hoping that I can infer from that that you have the mental ability to understand the following," Remember during an AFD it is best to discuss the article, not comment on the editors. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As we all know, you do not appreciate my deletionist agenda nor my aggressive approach to COI editors. In any case, the above advice is very reasonable given that the editor in question cpersistently ignores the basics of WP:GNG and WP:RS, despite my having told him about this multiple (i.e. five to ten) times, and there having been a dicsusion at COIN about it. Despite this, the editor persists in asking for special rules for religious and poverty organizations. When an editor consistently ignores the foudnational rules, it is time to ask them if there is something going on in the comprehension area that might be causing them to continue to edit outside of the established policies. My statement above is simply another request that he follow the basic rules of WP:GNG and WP:RS. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as books, journals, newspapers and articles, and thereby passes WP:GNG. Some of the sources are as follows:

Justicia social en Venezuela: la preocupación social de la Compañía de Jesús [37], Centro Gumilla [38], Political Communication and Leadership: Mimetisation, Hugo Chavez and the construction [39], Firmado convenio de investigación entre Fundacredesa y Centro Gumilla [40], Interview with international media. [41], Popular Voices in Latin American Catholicism [42], Embassy in Bolivia carries Gumilla report. [43], Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice [44], Prensa on violence in the schools. [45], BOB award. [46], ProDaVinci report on contemporary journalism [47], El Espectador [48], PROVEA. [49], Public library catalogue. [50], Centro Gumilla realizó taller de desarrollo personal para Warao en Tucupita [51], Local Church, Global Church [52], Important contributions on cooperatives in Venezuela. [53]

With all these reliable sources such as newspapers, journals, books, articles and magazines, and the significant coverage within their pages the subject has well crossed the threshold oh notability WP:N and passes WP:GNG. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 00:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced. I know that earlier you had added the Yellow pages as a reference, so I checked the ones you provided above. The first link provided is published by a Cathoolic university. Of course they say good things about a Catholic organization. The second link is 404. The third link is two very brief partial sentences in a book. Some are good finds, but let's see: #10 provided above is a Wiki page. A Wiki page is a bad source, becasue anyone can publish there. #11 is actually a publication of the Centro Gumilla, so that would qualify as a self-published ref, wouldn't you say? #13 is an announcement for a photo contest. #14 is not actually a reference, but rather a library catalog listing. All in all, you've come up with a few decent refs and many very sketchy refs. I'd encourage more attention to WP:RS, and in turn notability. The bottom line here is that when you take away the Jesuit-published sources, most of these articles disintegrate. It's good work, but not notable in the wikipedia sense, and it should be published elsewhere. Wikipedia is just being used as apromotional vehicle to promote these entities.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stand by my diffs from the article and my statement above, "With all these reliable sources such as newspapers, journals, books, articles and magazines, and the significant coverage within their pages the subject has well crossed the threshold of notability WP:N and passes WP:GNG." Discounting sources that you did not even take the time to read is certainly not convincing and surely a quite poor argument. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 01:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was just ponting out that you have a habit of providing a slew of sources, many of which are weak, poor or inappropriate, like the addition of the Yellow Pages listing as a reference. Also I was pointing out that it would be good to take more care in actually reading your sources. I did read most of your sources carefully, which is how I found that you were presenting the Yellow pages, a library catalogue listing, a wiki, a self-published item and a 404 page, among others, as good references. Sorry, that's just the facts! Happy editing!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, source #15 that you give above is publised by Fe Y Alegria, a Jesuit organization. Look at the domain name. I really encourage you to read your sources carefully, to avoid providing bad ones as you have above and in the article.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly nothing wrong with citing sources published by a Jesuit organization or a site connected with some aspect of the Catholic Church. They are reputable organizations and can be used to confer notability. Perhaps you should read over WP:RS and not be so quick to dismiss good sources because you might or might not have a bias to their organizations. Do you have a bias toward Jesuit organizations or the Catholic church? I notice that you are attempting to delete many articles about Jesuit and Catholic related organizations. Just asking for clarity. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 02:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madam, I'm not the one who added the Yellow pages listing as a reference! I'm simply pointing out your addition of bad references. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really cute response, but oh yeah you avoided the question. I guess that answers it. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suggest that all large development centres should qualify for inclusion under a rubric like development charities, poverty-related organizations, social science institutes, and the like. This is such a centre and does extensive work, as can be gathered from reports in its publications as well as from the independent sources newly referenced in the article.Jzsj (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup. The article contains promotional text: "The Centre also holds workshops to help young Venezuelans to break out of a cycle of passivity and to realize their dreams through discovering their fuller potential" Lrieber (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What particularly else is there to suggest this is actually independently notable though? SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe I may have to go with Delete here unless better coverage can then be found as there's still questionability for independent notability. Delete instead and Draft perhaps as about 10-15 pages of Google Books has only shown the best link so far to be this, it's still questionable at best. This would need familiar attention but I beleive this would be restarted anew. Notifying DGG for his analysis with this subject. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain: move to draft space awaiting better references. I think it is quite possible that the organisation is in fact notable, but we do not have the references to show it at this point. I would expect there must be additional ones from new sources in Venezuela? DGG ( talk ) 13:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A well documented article and notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The specific points made have been tended to and improvements made. There are several quite independent and powerful references supplied. I see no point in adding to the article more press notices on its articles, as its publications are immense and the article attempts only to summarize its works. What's on its website backed up by the refes given should be more than sufficient to establish its notability.Jzsj (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: please note the double keep votes by Jzsj. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:50, 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MAKE award[edit]

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

Non-notable production. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the parent organization has very little mention on the internet. Its website looks like a content farm. And the article as it stands is unreadable. Lrieber (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:16, 30 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) 05:22, 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 delete. Solid rebuttals to the sources provided have been made, arguing that they are routine coverage only focussed on the candidacy. Jenks24 (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Medina[edit]

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

Campaign brochure for a person whose only substantive claim of notability is her status as an as yet unelected candidate in a political party's nomination contest. This is not a notability claim that passes WP:NPOL; a person must win the election and thereby hold a notable office to earn inclusion on that basis, and otherwise must be properly sourceable as having enough preexisting notability to have already earned an article under some other criterion independent of her candidacy itself. Nothing here properly demonstrates that, however; while there are some small claims of minor local notability as a housing rights activist, they're sourced exclusively to neighbourhood community weekly newspapers and don't suggest a compelling reason why she'd warrant coverage in an international encyclopedia for them -- which just leaves us right back at the non-starter "notable because candidate". Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly as Nom says; coverage of campaigns this year and in 2014 does not suffice, and my search [54] turned up nothing to indicate that she is notable beyond candidacy.(It did turn up other Debbies Medina). E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is an unelected candidate and does not meet any other notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all for the applicable notability and also thus nothing else for anything convincing for any minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – The subject has also received coverage for her involvement in Los Sures, so this is not a WP:BLP1E situation. There is actually some coverage that demonstrates the subject meets WP:BASIC. A great deal of coverage is local, but the subject has received national news coverage, such as in The Nation. See below for source examples. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

" Meet the Democratic Socialist Who’s Running for New York State Senate". The Nation.
"Working Families Party Backs Challenger to Martin Dilan". Observer.
"There’s a Democratic Socialist from Los Sures Running for State Senate". Bedford + Bowery.
"Political Ties Color Williamsburg Democratic State Senate Race". DNA Info.

But that coverage is candidacy-related. It would, I think, take more candidacy-related coverage than that to make this a keep if she wins. This category has been consistently interpreted very strictly to exclude campaign-related coverage. Take a look, for example, at the recent AFD on Chrys Kefalas here[55], which had national (and even international coverage - in the country his ancestors immigrated from), and pre-campaign coverage as an activist and political operative.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all coverage of the candidacy itself — and three of the four are local online media startups, whose coverage focus is local to the district where she's running, which makes them WP:ROUTINE local coverage. The only one that even slightly counts toward making her more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate is The Nation — but if you want to get a candidate into Wikipedia on "the coverage is expanding beyond routine-local" grounds, then the volume of extralocal coverage it takes to get there has to be a hell of a lot closer to "the eight-headed media beast that ate Christine O'Donnell" than to "one article in one magazine". Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A number of sources were provided near the end of the AfD, and more time is needed to discuss notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Quezada[edit]

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

Despite headlining a (short-lived) Nickelodeon series, there is a serious dearth of significant coverage of this young actress (i.e. nothing in Variety, THR, EW, LA Times, Deadline.com, only the barest passing mentions in the NY Times and TVLine) – i.e. she fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability, 32 episodes even if a lead for her own show is not at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources given are only blurbs about the shows and mention she is on it. — Wylie pedia 19:34, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India Mein Lahore[edit]

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

An article about an upcoming film - the problem is that it has been "upcoming" since 2013, the official website of the film (indiameinlahore.com) is dead, and when I looked for sources I found an official statement from the producers from 2014 saying that the movie is "on hold". There are a few rather meager sources in the article about the original plans, and I also found this fairly substantial article, but a shelved movie project doesn't meet any of the WP:MOVIE criteria and the existing coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG.

It should also be mentioned that the user who started the article was subsequently blocked as a sock of a previously blocked user, and it appears that one reason the article was created was to advertise a nn person and their company - currently there are no such problems in the article, but it's there in the history. bonadea contributions talk 19:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking further:

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

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

producer:(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)

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)

and WP:INDAFD: India Mein Lahore Ikram Akhtar Rajesh R. Tripathi Mohammad Asif Moosa Khan

Redirect temporarily with a partial merge to its arguably notable writer/director Ikram Akhtar. Even though its filming has been confirmed, and elements of the slow production (cast, creww, director, filming, locations, ect.) have received more-than-trivial coverage to meet WP:NFF for an unreleased project, the redirect can be reversed if or when we have confirmation of a release date. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect only as there's nothing actually emphasizing the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet on this debate. st170e^talk 00:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:00, 31 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) 05:04, 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. Wizardman 21:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Fish[edit]

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

Individual fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Sources cited do not establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He played minor league baseball in Germany and Israel? Also competed on Israel national team. He won a Gold Glove in the Israel Baseball League as the best defensive infielder. Many players from the league played professionally after the league folded. After retiring he founded a baseball academy in New York. He was appointed Director of Israel Baseball and plays on Senior national team Basketballfan12 (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That and $4 can buy you a cup of coffee. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of Basketballfan12's rationales meet any of the five very specific criteria set forth in WP:BASE/N. There is certainly not enough independent, significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EricEnfermero. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before the article is deleted, Nate Fish competed in the Israel Baseball League whose teams were coached by former Jewish MLB players ie. Art Shamsky, of the New York Mets, Ron Bloomberg of the New York Yankees,Major League Baseball's first designated hitter. The League Administration was led by Dan Duquette,Director of Operations who previously worked for the Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos,currently works for the Baltimore Orioles.These individuals made an impact on the MLB on and off the field.

Do these count as reliable sources? They all describe the successful work Nate does of bringing baseball to Israel using the lessons of being an athlete and coach.These are some secondary sources which can be added. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6]

Basketballfan12 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're all reliable sources, but I don't think they establish notability. Many of them are brief mentions in passing, Maccabi USA is a primary source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Unfortunately, non-independent sources and trivial mentions do not establish notability.—Bagumba (talk) 21:08, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Durbans very own records[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet the general notability clause as there is no significant coverage in reliable third party sources of the label. sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 03:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have speedied it as being made up or a complete hoax. Gbawden (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a blog, that's it. Non-notable company. GAB^gab 13:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's not a hoax, but it is a non-notable record label and fails WP:CORP. Article creator has been blocked, no coverage found anywhere on the internet apart from the company's own Facebook page, and even their blogspot contains no posts at all. Richard3120 (talk) 14:00, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mizuki Ōtsuka[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor. Nagi in Tenchi Universe is probably her most notable character, but not much else to support. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As is often the case the japanese article has a vastly longer list of roles but at a glance most of them seem to be roles like "student A, child, old women" etc.SephyTheThird (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing noticeably convincing for any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:30, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn as article was saved via editing. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Roadrunner[edit]

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

Non notable publication. Fails GNG John from Idegon (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 3/4 references are self published. External link leads to website of creator. Creator of article is the owner of the newspaper and small town publications are not notable enough for encyclopedia. Vchero (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG and even if some consider it marginally notable, it is here for promotion. That is enough reason to delete. We are not here for that Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have re-written and re-referenced this. This is a print newspaper which has been around for over 40 years and has been covered independently in the San Diego Union-Tribune. The COI and advertorial tone are not a valid reason to delete an article if it can be fixed. Yet none of you !voting "delete" even tried to (a) find independent sources or (b) fix it. Given that many local newspapers are used in references and are often the only sources for local history, it is of considerable encyclopedic value both to readers and editors, to know the history and background of the source itself. Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not widely used in WP. I'll also note that editors with a COI should put articles through AfC so they can be peer reviewed before they publish. At minimum AfD puts it through a peer review to see if should be here at all. If it is improved to the point where it should exist through this process, great. Jytdog (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, the fact that it is not currently widely used is immaterial, especially given the efforts to expunge any mention of it in any article because of its creator's COI. It could in theory be used to reference multiple articles in that area of San Diego County. Who created it is immaterial. AfD is not supposed to be used as a punishment. I have nominated and/or !voted "delete" in many, many COI/promo articles for non-notable subjects. I can't stand the stuff. However, I have also re-written, re-referenced, and rescued many others. In my view this is COI-phobia carried to an extreme, to the point where our readers are deprived of encyclopedic information. Voceditenore (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second edit conflict. I was just reviewing your work and was coming back here to change my !vote. You saved it. I do not appreciate the "COI-phobia" nor your other rhetoric but maybe we can talk about that some other time. Jytdog (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - saved via editing by Voceditenore Jytdog (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Kudos to Voceditenore for WP:HEY article rescue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks so much for your contribution, Voceditenore! nice job making it objective Vchero (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the edits of Voceditenore. Thank you. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list of awards is sufficient to establish notability. BMK (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment, User:John from Idegon thanks for nominating; the article has been saved. do you consent to withdrawing your nomination? I'm willing to do the logistics of the close if you do consent. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn on the basis of a strong consensus to keep, however, I do not feel a local weekly paper gains notability simply from winning some regional awards. Obviously others mileage may vary. John from Idegon (talk) 20:51, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civis Center Timișoara[edit]

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

Article says that the shopping center "will have" such-and-such retailers, suggesting it wasn't completed at the time the article was written in June 2008. The only mentions I can find in English are clearly copied from Wikipedia. This and this article in Romanian seem to suggest that the place hasn't been built (but I don't really speak Romanian, so I might have that wrong).

The article was proposed for speedy deletion in 2010 (CSD 11), but the reviewing admin said it was not obvious spam.

Bottom line, it does not appear to satisfy General Notability or WP:CORP. Cnilep (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. As a Romanian language speaker, I can confirm that both sources make a passing mention of the project, and never state that it has ever materialized.- Andrei (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (never materialized). (Rgvis (talk) 10:00, 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. Michig (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan D'Silva[edit]

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

The subject claims to notability are that he was a schoolboy rugby player, who played for a 'A' Division club in Sri Lanka in 1976, who then emigrated to Australia where he was a prison guard. Upon retirement he self-published a coffee table book on wildlife in Sri Lanka. Fails to satisfy WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR or WP:NRU. Dan arndt (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per norm. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 01:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither his role in rugby or his publishing books makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing convincing having examined the article; the nearest he would've come was an author but that article also overall is saying it's not an outstanding career either. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any accomplishments that meet any notability criteria or significant independent coverage that meets GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:12, 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. Michig (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Mysteries of Fudo High[edit]

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

List of plot elements from the Kindaichi Case Files series. Completely unsourced plot point summary from a select number of chapters/episodes. A merge doesn't make sense to me as the series is too big to focus on "episodic" plot points and I don't see any need for a redirect. SephyTheThird (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem notable and doesn't seem to be written like a Wikipedia article. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 01:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a Wikia, completely unsourced, and full of original research. This is from a single episode? Why not make it an episode article then? However, given that it is unsourced and not notable, this won't happen. It isn't even a theme of the series. There are plenty of other anime series like Haunted Junction which have stories about seven supernatural wonders at their school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full story: The series is basically lots of mysteries that run for a number of chapters/episodes and then are done with, much like Conan. Originally this particular mystery was published as 10 chapters across 2 volumes in japan, but as the english edition recompiled the chapters so each book contained a single "case", it was one volume in english. The anime adapted it into the first three episodes of the original anime. It's essentially an episodic article but the episode itself is not notable. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mysteries lacking coverage in reliable sources. Opencooper (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Adukia[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy WP:ANYBIO, WP:FILMMAKER or WP:SIGCOV. The only references are that he is involved in Fraud (the reference cited is not even verified by CNN) and that he was an officer in a company that was named in the Panama Papers, which is hardly notable. No hits on GNEWS - the only sources I could find when I searched are LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and personal blogs. Dan arndt (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Through WP:INDAFD: Rakesh Adukia Karma Production

Delete for failing WP:BASIC through no coverage in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sourced for fraud rather than film production and that is WP:ONEEVENT Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Fouad[edit]

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

My searches have found nothing noticeably better and the other two Wikis offer nothing else better. I'm willing to reconsider if substantially better can be found. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 23 May 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 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 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 01:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notalbe Egyptian entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a large body of work, enough to pass WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NACTOR sets an unfortunately low bar, and a Google search does turn up a couple independent sources, even if they aren't reliable. I'd say he's notable enough, even if it's not by much in my opinion. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:18, 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Z. Mann Zilla[edit]

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

The article simply contains nothing actually convincing of any applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 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 01:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable as a musician. His album illustration of guy Friday might be a bit closer, but is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kubi Springer[edit]

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

Quite detailed....until you see the sources which basically consist of her own sources and my searches simply found nothing better at all thus the applicable is essentially still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article for a person who specializes in promoting things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:24, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ely[edit]

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

My searches have simply found nothing actually better and there's nothing here at all for applicable notability. At best, when deleted, this could be redirected to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#Legacy. Notifying tagger Wgolf. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the proposed target. Absolutely no reason to delete content prior to merge or redirection. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:24, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Corp Dyrendal[edit]

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

Nothing here at all actually suggesting the obvious signs of an applicably notable article and my searches have apparently found nothing better than this and this (only an interview. I'm willing to reconsider if anyone finds anything substantially better.) SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Appears to pass WP:MUSICBIO, having released four albums with GMM Grammy, Thailand's leading record label.[56] --Paul_012 (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is link to Thai Rath (Thailand No.1 newspaper) news tagged with him [57]: 10 news in 2016, 46 news in 2015, 10 news in 2014, 14 news in 2013, 8 news in 2012, 5 news in 2011 starting from 3 September 2011 (likely due to the limit of newspaper's tagging system). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, older articles in Bangkok Post are only available through paid subscription, thus do not show up in Google search. This search directly at Bangkok Post website shows more news coverage [58]. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:29, 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 03:33, 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 01:23, 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 Speedy delete under G5 criteria: Banned/blocked user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Superheroprashast. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kattarpanthy[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no secondary independent coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In looking beyond the article:

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

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)

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

And in using WP:INDAFD: Kattarpanthy हिंदी: कट्टरपंथी Prashast Singh Prashast Singh Presentations

Delete per failing WP:NF. Short films have a challenges, yes... but when lacking coverage in reliable sources, inclusion here is disallowed. If it ever gains proper coverage, the topic cam be revisited. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:33, 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.

^ http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/nate-fish-brooklyn-artist-leader-israeli-baseball-2013-10-10-200000
^ http://www.maccabiusa.com/professional-baseball-alumni-to-coach-usa-juniors-boys-baseball-team/
^ http://forward.com/culture/qa/341319/how-a-survivors-son-is-bringing-baseball-to-israel/
^ http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=crasnick/060830
^ http://www.jnf.org/about-jnf/news/jnf-wire/jnf-wire-rounding-the-bases.html
^ http://www.jewishjournal.com/sports/article/israel_baseball_creating_diamonds_in_the_desert

[1] ttp://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/nate-fish-brooklyn-artist-leader-israeli-baseball-2013-10-10-200000

[2] ttp://www.maccabiusa.com/professional-baseball-alumni-to-coach-usa-juniors-boys-baseball-team/

[3] ttp://forward.com/culture/qa/341319/how-a-survivors-son-is-bringing-baseball-to-israel/

[4] ttp://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=crasnick/060830

[5] ttp://www.jnf.org/about-jnf/news/jnf-wire/jnf-wire-rounding-the-bases.html

[6] ttp://www.jewishjournal.com/sports/article/israel_baseball_creating_diamonds_in_the_desert

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]