Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 May	21 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakgis[edit]

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

Promotional. Lacking external references. Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources I could find were affiliated or directory-like. Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could have been speedied for promotional non notable DeVerm (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any independent sources of any length.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not unambiguously promotional in my view, so not a G11 speedy. But for sure, there are no sources out there (note that citypulse.com.pk is related to Pakistan GIS). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:Doc James per WP:G12. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Seborovki[edit]

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

Blatantly fails WP:ARTIST and, more importantly, WP:GNG. Found not a single source about her online nor in print. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The problem with references seems to have arisen from the article's creator reposting this article with a wrongly spelled surname: it's actually Seborovski. I won't move the article while it's in AFD, but I can find plenty of references online for the correctly-spelled surname, with works in permanent collections satisfying point 4 of WP:ARTIST. OnionRing (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted as it was copy and pasted from [1]. No opinion on recreation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only one sentence from that article was copyvio from that URL: can you please undelete, and I will immediately rewrite that sentence. Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IBC Balita Ngayon[edit]

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

This article was made by a sock of Lpkids2006, if he keeps creating any articles, the admins shall block the account as a sock of Lpkids2006. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposer. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:20, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable to have an independent article as per WP:RPRGM. I think whether it was created by a sock belongs in another forum. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 06:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it only existed 2 years and there's frankly simply nothing actually suggesting it can be independently notable, nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) $Tushi Talk To Me$ 06:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Giuda[edit]

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

Fails to adhere to WP:BLP per WP:BLPDEL having a non-neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Many citations lack WP:V and much of the article was written by several WP:SOCK. Twrofpwr (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - clearly notable and there is no reason for this nomination.Issues of socks do not belong here, they are of another forum here $Tushi Talk To Me$ 06:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Miss Peru. Sandstein 16:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Perú 1977[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Affair was not a pageant, as suggested, but a handpicking: She was handpicked by the Miss Peru Organization for both, Miss Universe 1977 [1] and Miss World 1977. Former nomination was closed before I could correct it. The Banner talk 21:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG Jdcomix (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Peru as a plausible search term. SSTflyer 02:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I've seen nothing suggesting actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is part of a series of year-specific articles on Peru's participation in the Big Four international competitions (similar series of year-specific articles exist for most participating nations). The fact that this year's representative was chosen in an unusual manner is itself something that can be discussed in the article. Also, these year-specific articles, when fully fleshed-out, typically relate what happened to the representative(s) at the international level of competition, and this is information that is relevant regardless of how the representative was selected. I also note that this is one of four Miss Peru articles that have been nominated under essentially the same weak rationale. The other three are Miss Perú 1973, Miss Perú 1976, and Miss Peru 2012. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot 1965, 1963 and 1964! Those three article were - after discussion - redirected to Miss Peru. The Banner talk 06:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If not independently notable, redirect as a viable search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum Maguire[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. His titles were all released by print on demand houses rather than established publishing companies, according to his own website, and the strongest claim of notability is that he won a minor literary award for one of them -- but while a major literary award on the order of the Pulitzer or the National Book Awards constitutes an AUTHOR pass for its winners, the "Next Generation Indie Book Award" does not. And the only "references" here are the website of that non-notable award and the sales pages of his books on amazon.com or iUniverse -- which means that WP:GNG has not been met, as no reliable source coverage about him in media has been shown. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 02:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 02:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 02:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally nominated this for speedy deletion at NPP, and, although it's been improved a fair bit since then, I still don't believe that it's received enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 08:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing currently convincing of the needed notability, there's nothing else to suggest convincingly keeping. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Babasónicos discography. Sandstein 16:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Desde Adentro - Impuesto de Fe[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NMUSIC or redirect to Babasónicos discography. The album itself isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? New live album, it is not irrelavant. Add references if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iehutin (talk • contribs) 22:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The album has been out less than a week – too early to create an article without suitable references, but also too soon to say whether it is/will be notable or not. Maybe wait a week or two and see if any turn up: if not, I'd have no problem with a delete. Babasónicos are one of South America's biggest rock bands of the last twenty years, and the new record is very likely to gain attention in the Latin American music press. Richard3120 (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now and hope that no one will restore with no actual improvements, keep to mind that not all albums are always actually acceptable for their own article especially if simply restored as the previous state. If this is restored as such, we may have to delete therefore. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 16:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mall Panakkukang[edit]

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

No references and no claim of notability. Being the largest mall in some city seems insufficient to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this following related article, the second largest mall in the city of Makassar:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ordinary mall in a provincial, albeit it big, town. Lots of red links and bad grammar are signs of non-notability. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as nothing at all suggesting any Wikipedia notability, nothing actually minimally convincing the needed improvements can be convincingly made. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hanan qureshi[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. Seems to fail WP:GNG. My search for sources came up empty, and for the 2 sources provided in the article, one is a primary source (his homepage) and I see no mention of him in the other. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 20:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion, this would be a valid WP:A7. There's no indication that the honor handed out by the governor was a special recognition, any different from a particular school in the United States surprising the students receiving a National Honor Society certificate (of which thousands are awarded every year) one spring by having the governor on hand to give them out (when normally the principal would have done it) because he happens to be in that city on business that day. Largoplazo (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I also believe this would be best for A7 and G11, regardless if a certain someone thinks otherwise, as there's actually a large amount of people would've easily deleted this as such but, this AfD is also beneficial with that G4 is available if still non-notable in the future. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWE 2K17[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; this game hasn't been released yet and there aren't reliable sources discussing it, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Flow234 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can easily be created in December when more sources pop up, Fails CRYSTAL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Support salting too, as this seems to be a recurring issue according to the article history... Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:Crystal Jdcomix (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL DeVerm (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly still questionable overall, nothing convincing to improve. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little Engine Moving Pictures[edit]

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

Article about a film and television production company, making no strong claim to passing WP:CORP -- as written it simply posits the existence of the company's projects as inherited notability, which it isn't. And there's no reliable source coverage to support it, either -- all we have is a contextless pile of external links to the company's own webpage, its IMDb page and the separate IMDb pages of its principal partners, as well as two brief news blurbs which are about the shows and not the company. Which means the sourcing is not good enough to pass WP:GNG, and the substance isn't claiming anything that would grant them an exemption from having to pass GNG. Also the article was created by a user named "Merkennedy", suggesting a conflict of interest since one of the firm's partners is Maria Kennedy. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting its own solidly independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find enough to show where this company would pass NCORP on Wikipedia by itself. Now it's possible that the article for Mazzotta could pass notability guidelines if I merge the content from this article into that one (which I've already done) and if I find enough coverage for him to make up for what the company is lacking. If that happens, I'll return and change my "vote" to a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:CORP. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a mixture of this AfD and WP:G11, as the page was fairly promotional in tone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACREM[edit]

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

Some local coverage, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches revealed no coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:ORG. MisterRandomized (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smolder (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see coverage in reliable sources. Both the references in the article and the Google results are fan sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all actually suggesting solid independent notability as said of the others. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Dollhouse (Melanie Martinez EP). Content may be merged from history. Sandstein 16:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dollhouse Tour[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a concert tour, consisting only of the setlist and a list of the tour venues. Per WP:NCONCERT, however, "Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Tours that cannot be sufficiently referenced in secondary sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article." So until some kind of notability of the necessary type can be shown and sourced, the correct place for any content about this is in Melanie Martinez (singer) rather than a standalone article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 18:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCONCERT TOUR; does not appear to be much if any content here worth merging to Dollhouse (Melanie Martinez EP). Gongshow talk 23:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely as there's simply nothing to suggest there's enough for solid independent notability as an article. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dollhouse (Melanie Martinez EP). I think a one-line mention should be suitable. SSTflyer 00:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) SSTflyer 00:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheppard Solomon[edit]

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

I have a suspicion this was written by the promoter. It has had no references since 2010 and I find nothing significant when I did a google search. ツStacey (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found (and added) one substantial source, a 2009 profile in The Jerusalem Post (available on HighBeam), also published in somewhat different form in The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. He is a successful songwriter, and searches under the name "Shep Solomon" turn up a variety of briefer mentions in music publications and elsewhere, such as [2][3][4][5]. There also appears to be another, more substantial profile of him in the June 7, 2003 Music Week [6], but it's available only via the HighBeam Business library, which isn't included in HighBeam's Wikipedia access program, so I can't read the whole thing. This would benefit from further scrutiny. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now and Draft later if needed, searches found nothing better and everything here is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find information on sufficiently reliable sources. Has co-written several notable songs but over all not notable enough to warrant their own page. Doesn't meet WP:COMPOSER. DeviantAttitude (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage of him in depth by both The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles and Music Week in particular seem to make him pass above the notability bar, beyond just the slight mentions in numerous other publications. His association with various successful songs appear, at least, significant if not strictly notable. The article may need to be fundamentally re-written, yes, but that's not a particularly good reason for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He has had some notable works. CLCStudent (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 18:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror (Transformers)[edit]

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

Very minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real world notability, and no sources cited. Tagged as of unclear notability (among other problems) for over three years. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name is very difficult to research, but I don't see coverage in reliable sources. As is pretty standard, the Google results are a deluge of false positives mixed with fan sites and wikis. I gave up a bit early on this, but I'm not sure how one can really find significant coverage on a character whose own article describes him as "little known". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. Fails the notability test. Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Tagged as of unclear notability for over two years. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To minimize false positives, I mostly tried searches that include "cloudburst", who seems to use the same mold. My expectation was that this would locate out-of-universe commentary. However, there doesn't seem to be anything indexed by Google except fan sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) SSTflyer 00:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umi Garrett[edit]

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

Does not meet WP: Music DinosaurKiller (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)DinosaurKiller Creating deletion discussion for Umi Garrett[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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE-Notability concerns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.154.209 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep In the prose section of the article there are currently about 19 references from local, national, and international news outlets and websites which all have significant coverage of the article subject in reliable sources. WP:RS. The references I refer to are as follows: San Jose Mercury News 2015 Thinking Out Loud: Umi Garrett [7], 5 questions with teenage pianist Umi Garrett of Aliso Viejo, The Orange County Register [8], Australia International Piano Master Classes [9], Keys of success: Young pianist has traveled the world to performm The Orange County Register [10], VIANDEN INTERNATIONAL MUSIC FESTIVAL & SCHOOL [11], Umi "Wunderkind" [12], Santa Maria Sun, CA [13], Umi Garrett with the Boston POPS [14], San Jose Mercury News 2015 Piano prodigy Umi Garrett to perform in Los Gatos [15], Umi Garrett Shows How Classical Performance Can be for All Ages [16], Rancho Santa Fe Review 2014 Classical pianist Umi Garrett to perform at special Community Concerts of Rancho Santa Fe event [17], Festival Assisi nel Mondo, Progetto Omaggio all'Umbria [18], Liepājas Simfoniskais orķestris, atrastie rezultāti [19], liepajniekiem.lv 2012, Festivāla sensācija - pianisma brīnumbērns [20], Assisi nel Mondo Festival [21], 復興支援活動の取り組み [22], and 宇見ギャレット絆コンサート｜ピアノ少女から東北の皆様へ。笑顔を届ける、音楽の贈り物。[23]. With all of these listed references that contain significant coverage across numerous local, national, as well as international reliable sources, this article subject Umi Garrett more than passes WP:GNG and has crossed the threshold of notability. This article should be retained at Wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 10:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article is well sourced and there is no doubt about notability. Umi Garrett passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC

LionPrince101 (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)LionPrince101[reply]

Keep and I nearly closed it myself, this seems enough and the first comments are not exactly compelling of delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of units of the International Sociological Association[edit]

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

A list about non-notable entries. Notability can't be inherited from ISA which appears to be the mother article. Irakakiku (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing of its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International Sociological Association. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The internal structure of an organization is not generally notable. There is already a separate WP article about the organization itself, but there is nothing of public interest in its internal organizational structure. OtterAM (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Cobb County School District. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dickerson Middle School[edit]

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

Middle school with no real claim to notability other than blue ribbon status. Blue ribbon status is now so common, so many schools have it, that it really isn't much of a claim at all. This should be redirected or merged to Cobb County School District in accordance with longstanding tradition evidenced by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the thousands of middle schools in Category:Redirects from school articles. Jacona (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a strong supporter of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I support deleting articles about schools other than high/secondary schools except where significant coverage can be shown. Such coverage is not evident in this case. AusLondonder (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per AusLondonder. Schools other than colleges should not be kept as articles unless it has received a significant amount of coverage. Which, in this case, there clearly is none. There isn't even a "Notable alumni" section that would indicate this school educated famous people at some point in their lives. Parsley Man (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Okay, if the blue ribbon part is not notable then we could take that out, but I do not think that means that this school cannot have a Wiki page. CLCStudent (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. @AusLondonder:, I know you have been around longer than I, but in the 4+ years I've been here, the standard practice has been keep high schools and redirect middle and elementary schools to the district, diocese, or settlement. Would you consider redirect to Cobb County School District as an acceptable outcome? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder, Parsley Man, while I think we are in agreement, for the sake of clarity would you consider changing your vote to redirect to Cobb County School District per the part of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that reads "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. 'Redirect' as an alternative to deletion is anchored in policy." I think that would demonstrate consensus so this can be closed. If that's not your intention, that's OK, just want to make sure. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. Agree that coverage is not sufficient for a separate middle school article. Gab4gab (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as these not are actually ever to be found as independently notable and there's nothing particularly suggestive of it here. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Not seeing anything which leads me to suspect this is notable enough for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8BitBoy[edit]

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

Previously at PROD, twice (mine was removed because it was the 2nd). This article doesn't prove notability. (according to WP:VG/S) GamingUnion is unreliable, DigitallyDownloaded and Indie Haven aren't listed. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) There's a review in a Finnish magazine and an article at indiegames.com but all in all nothing meaningful in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 06:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 18:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing nothing enhancingly better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K'àak' Chi'[edit]

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

Could be a hoax. Markov (talk) 09:13, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax, but certainly mistaken. If kept it should be rewritten. More and more Mayanists have now piped up that this is misidentification of satellite imagery, and if this ever finds its way into academic literature it will be as a cautionary tale. The whole thing was effectively driven by social media, then picked up uncritically by mainstream media. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article, and... I proposed it for deletion. Now, I don't know. :-) With this article in french, http://sciencepost.fr/2016/05/quebecois-pense-decouvert-cite-maya-a-t-berne-presse-mondiale/ it's not so clear.--Markov (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after due consideration. If on-the-ground analysis throws anything up and a site is given this name, then we can create the article, otherwise I suspect this incident will be rapidly forgotten, and will not be particularly notable. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This story has gained enough international news attention to make the matter significant, but neither the "city" nor it's discoverer are significant. Let's add a note on the Maya city article about Gadoury's constellation-city map theory, but delete this article unless the weight of scientific opinion shifts in theory of it's existence, or towards supporting the constellation-city map theory (or if somebody actually hikes over there and confirms it's just an old corn field). - Eric (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've hiked in the general region, which is a vast forested plain, and generally speaking the pyramids of major sites are visible as forest-covered hills from the tops of the pyramids of neighbouring sites. It is highly unlikely that the "4th- or 5th-largest Maya city" would have escaped notice so close to many other important sites, such as El Mirador, Calakmul, El Tintal and others... and the constellation map theory is really not worth including in the Maya city article, in my opinion... it is certainly not supported by any reliable sources. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. OtterAM (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say keep: The purpose of an encyclopaedia (AFAICS) is to provide a broad outline of a subject for anyone who wants to know more in an easily digestible form.

The advantage of WP is that it is more accessible than a standard encyc, or more usual sources of expert knowledge, and is more neutral than a lot of other stuff on the internet.

The virtue of the article here is that it states clearly that it is a hypothetical Mayan site, lists the pros and cons in a neutral fashion, and provides a host of links to expert opinion (which I certainly wouldn't have found by myself).

If this story has been "driven by social media, then picked up uncritically by mainstream media" (and I don't necessarily disagree) then that, to me, is all the more reason to have something like this. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if there turns out to be anything there, an article can always be created at a later date. At the moment it is all highly speculative, and not backed by any Mayanists. Simon Burchell (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Moonraker12. Hypotheticals, hoaxes etc such as this will be instructive to future readers and researchers on how not to do science etc. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Moonraker12. The second time I change my mind...--Markov (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a media debacle it is not noteworthy enough, and certainly under this title. As an archaelogical discovery it is so far non-existent. Mezigue (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless someone can provide evidence of its significance). It is not a hoax in the ordinary sense. However the description of it as "hypothetical" rings similar alarm bells with me. My impression is that this is a possible archaeological site identified by remote sensing, possibly from satellite imagery. Its existence has not been confirmed on the ground, so that its existence remains dubious. There are thousands (possibly millions) of archaeological sites. WP can hardly accommodate an article on every one of them. In my view, if this is anything, it remains NN, at least until its significance is established. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, whether it turns out to exist or not, because of the coverage it has had in reliable sources thus meeting the GNG. If it turns out not to exist we should still have an article explaining its "discovery" and debunking. We have an article on Atlantis and that probably doesn't exist either. People will be searching for this place for decades wanting to know if it is real or not. We are the people to tell them. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moonraker12 makes a strong case, and it passes WP:GNG. Those arguing for deletion have not advanced any policy-based argument. Edwardx (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until properly disproven. Also it seems the theory that cities were placed according to star maps has merit (possibly Uxul is the third city here) infieldg 21:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So far there is no evidence at all that this city has existed et that the theory is backed up by tangible proofs. And the coverage it has received in the press is nothing else than a total failure of the media in checking an information. However this media debacle this not go for very long (5 days at best) and is therefore not really noticeable per se. If investigations on the field confirm the existence of the Maya city it will still be possible to create this article. Or to include this story on an article devoted to media failures when secondary sources appear and use this story in order to illustrate this topic. --Lebob (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Definitely meets GNG. As a side note, archaeoastronomy was professionally recognized with its first professional conference last summer (2015) in Europe (years after the rhetoric against alignments of sites noted by Alexander Thom) and later work by others noting communities possibly being established using constellation patterns. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existence of that hypothetical city was proposed in a science fair project and a journalist distorted the facts by presenting it as a discovery backed by the Canadian Space Agency and the INAH. The truth is that the CSA helped the kid by providing some satellite images, but it never publicly endorsed his conclusions. Moreover, according to the Yucatan Times, the INAH said they were not even “considering” the alleged find, since “there is no scientific basis for it.”. The city was first reported in Belize, then it moved to Mexico, and yesterday it crossed Guatemala to meet the Hondura's border! Presently, there are no reliable sources for an encyclopedic article on this topic.Pablo Picossa (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 18:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a hoax, meets GNG, properly referenced and should stay even if the future fails to pinpoint it; just like Atlantis, Fountain of Youth etc. DeVerm (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now and Draft later if needed as this is all still questionable regarding exact facts and information, thus is better restarted when a better informed article is available. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 16:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TMB Optical[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP. TMB existed for maybe 20 years, and it's not clear quite when they went out of business (the Wayback Machine's last hit is in 2014, and it looks like activity was spotty and the site was rarely updated before then). According to their now-defunct website, they were founded in 1990. For a company producing a technical product in the US during the 90s and 2000s, they should have at least some significant web footprint. But they don't. 194 ghits is it, and a lot of these appear to be false positives (something called "TMB optical density" is relevant in certain biochemical assay processes). There's also a variety of mentions on forums and used telescope equipment dealers, but nothing reliable or significant.

It looks like TMB's optics were important to a core of high-level amateur astronomers in some parts of the US, and might've been known elsewhere, but there's just not enough coverage. They got briefly profiled a few times in blogs, podcasts, and niche journals, but that's just it... all brief coverage. Much of the coverage came in the wake of Tom Back's sudden death. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge usable content to Apochromat, the article has a section on photographic uses for the lens, nothing on telescopic uses. A search on "Thomas M. Back", founder and lens designer returns some interesting content. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 18:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. That's an interesting thought but I'm not sure there is any useable content for that subject. It's not like TMB Optical invented the apo lens. Also, this article is about the company Back founded, not himself. I really don't think it'd be a good redirect either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect to the founder himself then? Perhaps. - Mathmo ^Talk 06:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - No article on him, and I'd argue an article on him wouldn't pass WP:GNG anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 18:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete altogether as the current article actually contains nothing keepable for notability including minimally and thus is not acceptable, there's nothing convincing from my searches. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. As alluded to above, "TMB" is Thomas M. Back, who died in 2007. It looks like the lenses that he made as TMB Optical got some traction in the enthusiast community, but not really any major press coverage sufficient to pass WP:ORG/WP:GNG. Not opposed to merging/redirecting, but I don't see much to merge and don't know where it would redirect to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:Mojo Hand per WP:G4 and WP:G11. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herbion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted in an AfD in 2005, where the company was found to lack notability. Recreated in 2009 but has slipped under the radar since then, so I don't really think it is eligible for a G4 speedy deletion; there haven't been any secondary sources since it was created and it is written like a promotion piece - not blatant advertising but certainly promotional bonadea contributions talk 17:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nominator. Jdcomix (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 18:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the nominator thinks it's not eligible for speedy deletion... Edgeweyes (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet criteria in WP:CORP. Low quality and/or non-independent references do not establish notablity. Edgeweyes (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Ethnic plastic surgery. There's consensus not to have an article. Whether to merge anything can be discussed further on the talk page. Sandstein 17:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Racial transformation (individual)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

@MShabazz and Nowa: Queried speedy delete for hoax and WP:OR. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My opinion hasn't changed since the first AfD: fails WP:NEO, ill-defined subject, not sufficiently distinct from other topics, relies on WP:OR. From what I can tell there's [still] not anything worth merging, but if someone identifies something I wouldn't be opposed to a close as selective merge to Passing (racial identity) and/or ethnic plastic surgery without redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with redirect I concur with merge to Passing or Ethnic plastic surgery. The material from Changing Race, Changing Sex: The Ethics of Self-Transformation is particularly worth keeping.--Nowa (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Redirect I have heard of people who have done what is specified in this article. Seems truthful. -EggSalt (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect if needed at best, still questionable aside from that outstanding event. SwisterTwister talk 23:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge (to Ethnic plastic surgery, passing doesn't seem relevant). The term is used in some works (ex. Charles D. Martin (2002). The White African American Body: A Cultural and Literary Exploration. Rutgers University Press. pp. 210–. ISBN 978-0-8135-3032-1.). I am not sure which term is more popular, and we may want to consider that one term (RI) may discvuss the sociological/psychological implications of this phenomena, but the other (EPS) seems to be more of a mdeical term. Would be good to hear from an expert of sociology of race on this, but, sigh, what are the odds of one being a Wikipedian... Ping me if one is found :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whether real or truthful doesn't matter, except for showing that it's not a hoax. Malik Shabazz and Rhododendrites sum up the issues pretty well, so no reason to rehash. Would have !voted redirect, but not sure that the target mentioned above is appropriate, and can't really find one that is. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Rhodondendrite. DeVerm (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect per Nowa. Sufficiently referenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A great day in Leamington Spa[edit]

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

This doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. A photo with some minimal coverage. Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a recreation of a famous picture and notability is not inherited. Other then WP:ITEXISTS there is no indication that it is notable. in and of itself. - Pmedema (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a little local news coverage of it happening, but no suggestion that this event from two weeks ago has the "enduring historical significance" required by WP:EVENTCRIT. If it gets it later, the article can come back. --McGeddon (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 18:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 18:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As searches come up with nothing, doesn't meet WP:EVENTCRIT or WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A minor, non-notable local event. It should not have been deprodded.- Mr X 19:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself reviewed, nothing for the convincing notability despite its sources and information. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 17:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rati Tsiteladze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was a repost from a AfD deleted article but the Db-repost was declined because apparently there was includes clear and sufficient claims of significance postdating previous AFD. I disagree with that and consider the issues leading to the last AfD delete (last July) to still hold with no new significant information. He does not meet WP:NACTOR and as with all the previous AfDs the martial arts claims are questionable. Does not meet WP:KICK or WP:MANOTE Peter Rehse (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article keeps getting recreated, but there's still nothing that shows he's notable. Previous discussions have shown he's not notable as a martial artist and he's done nothing to add to that resume. The only change to his directing resume was submitting another film to some minor film festivals (no wins) and that's enough enough to show notability. There's also nothing to show he meets WP:NACTOR. His entire resume is little changed from the previous deletion discussions.Mdtemp (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About "the martial arts claims are questionable." - I have founded actual footage and TV news about the European championship he won[24] And also I’ve founded about the World championship he won [25] [26] About the Criteria supporting notability "Actors, models, and celebrities: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." He has 199,600 likes on Facebook Verified Page and also here is the actual visual evidence: [27] As a "Martial Artist Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations." He has been featured in a lot of national news [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] and also there are international articles (Russian, Ukraine).[37] [38] [39] And also he was in many very well knowns Georgian talk shows: [40] [41] [42] I think no need to delete.Mariam Abashidze (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His kickboxing title doesn't make him notable because it's a minor organization and he fails to meet WP:NKICK. Facebook likes, youtube videos, and passing mentions also fail to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's definitely not notable as a kickboxer or martial artist. I'm not seeing additional accomplishments or coverage since last year's AfD which was a convincing delete once the sockpuppets were discounted. The sources I can see and the arguments made for keeping--his kickboxing and number of facebook likes do not strike me as convincing evidence of WP notability. I'm not voting to delete, at least not yet, because my computer's firewall prevents me from looking at all of the sources mentioned by Mariam Abashidze. Right now I don't see the burden of proof for notability being met. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at those sources and don't think they show notability. Most were at the last discussion, one is about his wife, one says he's off to Hollywood to seek fame and fortune. None of that indicates notability or significant neutral coverage. Of course I can't comment about the non-English sources and youtube videos.Mdtemp (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Since he now lives in the United States, I would have expected to find more coverage in English to bolster the claim of notability. I reserve the right to change my vote should more sources be provided. Papaursa (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually as although the article may be sourced and informative, the current actual contents themselves are not convincing of the needed solidity for an acceptable article, thus Delete for now until better contents and works are available in the future, if at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I wouldn't suggest deleting. In this article [43] which is according to Google is a reliable source is written that he was back in Georgia and was a leading actor for first joint Georgian-Ukrainian TV series Paradox. That why there is no more coverage in English. There are 6 Russian and Ukraine reliable articles [44] and there are more articles about him [45][46][47]. There are many Georgian articles from past year too, just from Georgian OK! Magazine is 3 articles [48] [49] [50] there are more [51] [52]. Regarding the talk shows they discuss his career as former martial artist and now actor/filmmaker. Mariam Abashidze (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may comment as much as you want at an AfD discussion, but please just vote once. I have struck your second vote.Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Can be userfied on request. Sandstein 17:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Carey[edit]

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

Since PROD was removed, The child actress only has 2 'actual' credits, both of which were recurring roles. No other known nominations or awards, article looks more like resume, Article fails WP:NACTOR and is basically WP:TOOSOON..Why was it not deleted 3 years back is unbelievable .. Ste moc 07:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Userfy – Probably WP:TOOSOON. But there's a reasonable expectation that there may be enough here in 1–3 years time to justify an article – also, while it needs pruning, the current article is not unsalvageable assuming a few more significant roles turn up in the next year or two... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete altogether and Draft only if actually needed, there's simply nothing solid to keep and improve if that were to happen thus delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has recurring roles in two television series one of which is the long running peak- time Casualty also has had a significant theatre role in Shrek the Musical at a top theatre Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, passses WP:NACTOR. The article already has acceptable references. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Here we go again. [sigh...] WP:NACTOR says significant roles – "recurring" roles are generally not "significant" enough. The refs associated with this article kind of prove this: almost none of them are mainline press sources (really only the Hastings & St. Leonards Observer is), and most of the current refs at the article are just passing mentions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to annoy you, but the recurring roles are in notable productions- Casualty is one of the most popular tv shows in the U.K. and the recurring role in Houdini and Doyle is listed as fourth in the credits. Also, why ignore stage roles? you are not giving theatre performances proper consideration, a production at Theatre Royal is notable and counts towards WP:NACTOR which in this case is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it – it's not the roles that determine "notability", it's the coverage of the roles that determines notability. There are actors who have headlined TV shows that still don't merit Wikipedia articles because they, and the shows they headlined, received no significant coverage in independent sources. Quite aside from that, recurring roles are generally not "significant" in terms of WP:NACTOR either, despite what you're claiming. (And you're quite wrong about the crediting as well: only the three principal actors on Houdini and Doyle are "main" credited – Carey, among others, is guest credited, not "main" credited.) If you cannot grasp all of this, you need to step away from actor bios AfDs until you can. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See you edited Houdini and Doyle article to change from fourth billing to sixth recurring which is now correct despite IMDb proving unreliable again.However, the theatre roles which are still being ignored and the Casualty show with the sources provided pass WP:NACTOR and verifiability.Atlantic306 (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG – "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." The "Casualty" refs are all passing/trivial mentions. (As for the Houdini and Doyle thing – I thought only the three leads were main credited until I saw Monday's episode and realized that five people got "main" billing. But the important point here is that Carey doesn't get "main" billing, but only "guest" billing, again proving that her role on H&D is indeed "recurring" and thus is likely not "significant" in WP:NACTOR terms.) P.S. I generally agree with John Pack Lambert's point that the bar for "notability" for minors should be high as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recurring is not the same as significant, and we need to put the bar especially high for articles on minors, so I say delete unless we have a clear reason to keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 17:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Las Araucarias[edit]

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

As said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Navegantes (that deleted part of the "neighborhoods of Pichilemu" articles): Fails WP:GEOLAND. The neighborhoods are not "legally" recognized by Chilean Law as territorial units (they are not part of administrative, electoral or census divisions). Juntas de vecinos are not a legal recognition of a place, because they are not government bodies, they are voluntary NGOs based in a territory chosen by their founders. In fact, it could be possible to find more than one junta de vecinos in the same neighborhood, or a junta that is composed by neighbors of two or more different neighborhoods. Villa Los navegantes is a little neighborhood (of 200 inhabitants) with no non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Sfs90 (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate the following related pages because the same reasons; the only reference of this articles is a list of representatives of local organizations on the Municipality of Pichilemu, that is not a legal recognition of the neighborhoods:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question: I don't see why not to believe that they are neighborhoods in fact, but I agree that just a single sentence like "X is a neighborhood in Pichilemu" is not helpful enough to exist as a separate article. Each gives no information about position relative to adjacent neighborhoods, for example. Information about neighborhoods can be far better conveyed by a list-article including a map showing all their locations. I suppose List of neighborhoods in Pichilemu could be created; these could all be redirected to that. But unless someone is interested in creating that now, I suggest instead redirecting all to the Geography section in the Pichilemu article, which could be revised to mention them. It is curious that there has been no need to mention its neighborhoods, so far, in the well-developed Pichilemu article. Question: has the creator of the neighborhoods' stubs been contacted and encouraged to develop something more? --do ncr am 08:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's impossible because the creator (User:Diego Grez-Cañete) has been banned indefinitely, precisely because of their disruptive editing and making a lot of Pichilemu-related stubs without the neccesary relevance, or giving to them more relevance than the real one (sometimes falling under WP:COI and continuing to do that, after it was advised that he should stop with their editing). Also, as I said before, there was a deletion request some months ago that deleted only a part of the neigborhood-related articles (in that time, Warko asked for all the rest of articles to also be deleted, and the administrator in charge deleted only the mentioned in the list of that DR; that's why I'm asking this time for full deletion (without redirects or something else) of these articles, because of the incomplete deletion of that time. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Okay now I have looked enough through stuff about the ban of that user. And the city is small, just 13,000 population. And if its neighborhoods are important, they can/should be listed first in the city article. --do ncr am 03:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can the closer please move Nueva Vida (disambiguation) over the vacated slot. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playa Hermosa, Pichilemu: Meets WP:GNG.

News article (English-translated)
News article (English-translated)
News article (English-translated)
News article (English-translated)

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "El Marino" reports that User:Northamerica1000 put on their message are invalid, since there's a clear WP:COI because the author of that articles (Diego Grez, owner of "El Marino" website) and the user "Diego Grez Cañete" (who was also the creator of most Pichilemu-related articles here on Wikipedia) are the same person, who was banned for their disruptive editing and violating guidelines about COI. Keeping apart the El Marino reports, and according to El Tipógrafo reports, there's insufficient evidence about the notability of a neigborhood. --Sfs90 (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfs90: I'm not seeing that. It states on the El Marino pages that the website's director is Mario Grez Lorca, but the page's creator was Diego Grez-Cañete. Mario and Diego seem like two different people, because the names are different. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Mario Grez Lorca is probably the father of Diego Grez Cañete (the user blocked here because of WP:COI). And also, since February 2016, Mario Grez Lorca it's only the interim director. You could also see in that page that "Carmen Cañete Sotelo" is the "subdirector", and with the Cañete surname I could assume that this woman is probably her mother (Grez and Cañete are the two surnames of a person here in Chile, and "coincidentally" are the same two surnames of Diego Grez Cañete). And in the same page it states clearly that the owner of the "digital newspaper" is Diego Grez Cañete. A true family business, isn't it? All this thing gives only more evidence to the WP:COI. But let's focus on content, please. All pages or reports published on "El Marino" are invalid to these cases because of the COI mentioned from some time ago. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what about the two El Tipógrafo articles? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: This is a WP:WALLEDGARDEN. The creator of these articles cites content written by himself, on a website published by himself, as a source. A small neighborhood having a neighbors association doesn't establish notability. Vrac (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC) (P.S.: a reminder that the entire population of Pichilemu is about 14,000. The detail of coverage is massively WP:UNDUE) Vrac (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all instead as there's nothing particularly suggestive of their own actually independently notable articles. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) SSTflyer 03:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015 Rio Bravo lynching[edit]

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

Seems like a clear example of WP:NOTNEWS to me; sources not contemporary with the event are needed to convince me otherwise. TheLongTone (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the author of the article. The purpose of the article was to move some of the news event to a different page from the Río Bravo, Suchitepéquez article at the objection of this user as stated here. It seems that he felt that the picture and items about the lynching were overwhelming the content of a page that was suppposed to be about a town. In an attempt to ameliorate this, I tried to bring in some town data from the Spanish Wikipedia -- this material however, is poorly sourced in English. However, it does seem to serve to make the Río Bravo, Suchitepéquez article less about the murder and more about the town itself. If it is decided that the event itself does not merit its own article, then the content I suppose would better be left in the article about the town, but the above I hope, explains my intent in creating the article. As TheLongTone mentions above, I can find no sources that are not centered around the time of the event itself, so it may not be deemed noteworthy. I am open to suggestions as to how this should be handled. Many thanks for your kind attention. H.dryad (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but I don't think that creating an article on the incident as a way of removing the picture from another article but keeping it on WP is particularly constructive.TheLongTone (talk)

I understand the objections and have no real qualms with it being deleted; the event got international coverage, but the coverage did not last long. The problem seems to be that the town is mostly notable for the incident and not that much else, but the incident in and of itself may not constitute a notable news event in the eyes of Wikipedia. I have tried to fill out the article of the town itself some. The data that I pulled from the Spanish Wikipedia will likely be easier to verify so that problem may no longer exist. Again, thanks for the input. H.dryad (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep I think H.dryad brings up an excellent point and while the sources need to be improved I think this article is notable enough. If not than it should obviously be merged with Río Bravo, Suchitepéquez, but per H.dryad's logic I think it should be kept separate. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:UNDUE. The incident was of adequate notability in the history of the community, but to merge it into the community article would put undue weight on that article. Occasionally a content fork is appropriate, and this one is. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at best instead as this seems to have still been a then-event, thus it's unlikely there's anything else extra to suggest still needingly enhancing this article of a localized community event. If needed, the history contents can be kept therefore as a redirect. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. No support for deletion here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additive state decomposition[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you're looking for a too-specific name. Amongst other things, in statistics and economics, this is one of the classical decomposition methods of time-series analysis, alongside multiplicative (a.k.a. product), log-additive, and pseudo-additive decomposition, and it is usually called simply additive decomposition. The people who tagged this "too technical" might be interested in the For Dummies explanation of this, which can be found on pages 245–247 of ISBN 9781118940013. A slightly more extensive treatment can be found on pages 93–95 of ISBN 9780521565882. This is a very narrow and specialized explanation of a general thing. Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, can be referenced to sources verifying general notability by using the search term provided by Uncle G. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references have been added to the article since this nomination. DeVerm (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as convincing enough, contents and sources are enough, overall comments suggest this can be closed now. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neudesic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely no sources for anything in the article; not a noteworthy company.

Delete - Article is promotional. It fails notability and reliable source guidelines. - Pmedema (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this basically seems symmetrical as when DGG nominated it and thus there's, now and then, nothing for any applicable notability, nothing at all convincing for current notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is notable. Fastest growing = not yet notable, and neither is being in the top 500 in a specialized field DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost every single source substantially covering the company is a press release. Reliable sources have trivial mentions. Sorry, this just doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - AFD was only just closed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanClap[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability. Might fail WP:SUSTAINED. Ringbang (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 17:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7 for 4[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; clearly fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Couldn't find a single source about them. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article clearly hasn't been updated in some time, as the band had a fourth album out in 2014. Needs an editor who knows more about the progressive metal scene and where to find sources for the genre – we are very unlikely to find sources online. Richard3120 (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find print sources either. Notable bands should usually (as a rule of thumb) have some sort of online coverage, no matter the genre. In any case having a recently released album makes no difference if the album has no extensive reliable sourcing either. Finally, that the article hasn't been updated has no bearing over this discussion. We're discussing notability, not content nor quality. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as even if this could be improved, the current contents are still not hopeful for WP:BAND or WP:GNG, nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 17:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ExpoMarketing[edit]

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

Lots of press releases, primary sources, and brief mentions, but not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG/WP:ORG (and that it was created by a blocked paid editor doesn't help, but is not itself reason for deletion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any good new sources. Best cited source is [53] and is local so does not necessarily satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. ~Kvng (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all noticeably convincing for the needed notability, clearly nothing for minimal notability at best. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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/speedy delete. This is a mixture of the two deletions. The article was created by a sock, but the show also seems to have a serious issue with notability, enough to where it appears to fail GNG and to where any future recreations of this article could be seen as WP:G4 violations unless they provide sourcing to show where the show would pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the Team[edit]

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

Cannot find evidence of significant third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not appear to meet WP:GNG; only finding passing mentions such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G5 created by a sock of blocked User:Wattsj528 Meters (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Has now at least one ref, so can't delete outright lacking consensus. Sandstein 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Reyes[edit]

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

Non notable director, Originally tagged under BLP-Unsourced but bizzarely for whatever reason it doesn't meet it so here we are, Anyway Fails DIRECTOR & GNG.. –Davey2010^Talk 04:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches are simply finding nothing else better at all, not yet independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Comment - The AFD was closed on the 8th May as No Consensus ... however no one's !voted Keep so realistically it should've been deleted, Saw no point starting another nomination as nothing's changed since April so relisting for a third time, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOSSIBLE. Director/writer of dozens of notable films and television shows. Sources must certainly exist, perhaps not in English. Tagged with refimprove. -- IamNotU (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; obviously non-notable. No sources in any language found. He doesn't even have a tl. article. No evidence he's the actual director/writer of said shows. Burden of evidence is on the keeper above. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I easily found several references to him in reliable sources such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer, which for example called the Encantadia series "groundbreaking" and "much celebrated". Again, the existence of dozens of Wikipedia articles on notable works, listing him as director or writer, contradicts the characterization of "obviously non-notable". A number of those articles also need more reliable sources, but I think enough can be found there to support notability for him. The burden is on the nominator to carry out due dilligence in searching for sources WP:BEFORE nominating. "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." It's not my responsibility to improve the article's content, just because someone nominated it for deletion. -- IamNotU (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added a reference from The Philippine Star, the biggest newspaper in the Philippines. There are more in English to be found with Google, not to mention likely many in the Filipino/Tagalog language that most of his works are in, which may not be accessible on the Internet. Please try to be more careful when nominating or supporting deletion of non-Western biographies. SwisterTwister spent less than two minutes searching for sources before declaring him "not yet notable"... he's been notable in the Philippines - a country with a population of 100 million - for at least a decade or two. -- IamNotU (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 as this week has shown this as consensus (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spellbound (The Legend of the Ice People novel)[edit]

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

It's all plot, it's unreferenced, and it's not notable. The 47-volume series has its own page and this book is listed there which seems sufficient. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 15:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 15:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Legend of the Ice People. A redirect seems more appropriate here than a deletion, the subject itself I consider to be notable but the article as it is doesn't reflect that. I agree that the listing of the article at the main page is sufficient. st170e^talk 15:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect has my support. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 17:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Legend of the Ice People. I agree with the above reason. Aoba47 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Legend of the Ice People looks like the sensible thing to do, i found this[54] - "A mixture of myth and legend interwoven with historical events, this is an imaginative creation that involves the reader from the first page to the last.", but not enough for a stand alone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (WP:CSD#G4) by RHaworth (talk · contribs)

Tamar.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indications that this company has been the subject of significant third party coverage. Many of the citations given are dead-links. In general, the "Awards" noted are the typical awards that any company might pick up by applying to enough different trade groups. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given that the reference retrieval dates predate the most recent AfD in Nov-Dec 2015, is this effectively a repost (albeit by a new WP:SPA account) - in which case it should be a CSD G4? AllyD (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Repeating my rationale from the previous AfD deletion less than 6 months ago: "My searches are not turning up evidence that this is more than a Marketing/SEO firm going about its business. No encyclopaedic notability; fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG." I see nothing in the current article or in new searches to revise that view. AllyD (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Let Go (Avril Lavigne album). MBisanz ^talk 17:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another song created by this user, which fails WP:NSONGS, and in this case WP:SINGLE also. No source indicates that this was ever released as a single and the only ounce of release history is from a Discogs link which indicates it to be a promo release. A placement in New Zealand is easily merged in the artist's parent discography article. Also point to be noted that the first AFD it was redirected, but nevertheless recreated without any improvement at all. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You are proposing merging some of the content to another article. For that to happen this cannot be deleted and therefore should not be at AfD. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No I'm proposing to delete the article altogether because its a falsely sourced article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Let Go (Avril Lavigne album) and full protect. Suggesting an early closure per SK1 (nominator's rationale supports merging) and the fact that this has already been through AfD. It shouldn't have been recreated in the first place. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and lock perhaps if needed as there's still nothing actually suggesting its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I won't userfy this content, but others may. Sandstein 17:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MonteCristo[edit]

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

Not a notable person. JDDJS (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this page is a well-known person worldwide, and is not limited to just within the League of Legends community. Wikipedia masterr (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only the Daily Dot source would meet the requirements of a WP:RS, and even that's a short article that only partially discusses him. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG as is. Sergecross73 msg me 04:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a second The Daily Dot article that is primarily about him.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Only mentioned in passing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give it some WP:POTENTIAL. Reliable sources for the subject can be found using a web search.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Can you present some examples? Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the links to the article.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of mentions but currently little of substance about his career or role as an individual apart from Kotaku clickbait czar 06:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the author, Wikipedia masterr, has been blocked as sock. Not saying we should end this discussion, but just feel that it should be noted. JDDJS (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 11:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins, if this page is deleted, can I get it immediately restored to my userspace. Just thought I'd ask here in case I forgot to later. Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Astros (album). MBisanz ^talk 17:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Miedo A Caer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. No sources to indicate notability. Erick (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Astros (album). -- Whpq (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Song allegedly made no. 1 on Colombian singles chart, according to discography on Anasol article, but there is no link to confirm that. Also allegedly made the US Pop top 40, but no evidence of that on Billboard website. Magiciandude, I'm going to write to you on your talk page because I have serious reservations about the editor who created this and other Colombian pop articles in the last few days – there appears to be major copyvio going on (mostly from AllMusic) and a complete lack of editing skills; we need to look into this. Richard3120 (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: And on top of that, there are no known Colombian singles charts to have existed at that time. National-Report didn't come about until 2009, and even then, it didn't start publishing charts until this decade began. Erick (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, redirect to Astros (album) as it fails WP:NSONGS. Richard3120 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as not independently notable, I see nothing convincing to suggest keeping its history. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Astros (album). No prejudice against a selective merge of sourced content. Source searches are not providing sources to qualify a standalone article; does not meet WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Houston Fire Department#Notable incidents. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Houston fire[edit]

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

It happened, but I can't establish that it is WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep or redirect to Houston_Fire_Department#Notable_incidents. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 15:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Houston_Fire_Department#Notable_incidents. There have been many fires possibly in Houston for 2016. One of them doesn't need a specific article. Not notable enough for stand-alone article.FiendYT ★ 17:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as I see no need to perhaps keep this open and be vulnerable to restarting, unlikely ever to be independently notable as an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Houston Fire Department#Notable incidents. Don't see this as being notable enough for it's own article anytime soon. Misceditor1000 (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per FiendYT and Misceditor1000.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Jdcomix (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi, tornado[edit]

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

Non-notable article, proposing a merge back to 2011 Super Outbreak Jdcomix (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy keep (as creator of the article) – Tornado has inherent notability as an EF5 regardless of the scale of damage. There is sufficient coverage to meet WP:N and warrant creation of an article. Furthermore, the main 2011 Super Outbreak article is too large (72 kB prose) to support merging in the specifics of an individual tornado article. Many other sections require this same treatment, but this was the first tornado I decided to tackle. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (ec) - drive-by nomination lodged in the midst of an ongoing merge discussion, which has so far failed to reach a consensus that the article should be merged. By all measures, the article clearly meets general notability guidelines, so the nomination rationale is inadequate. It's worth noting that the main article currently contains nearly 12,000 words of readable prose, which is well into the upper limits of recommended maximum article size. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - a fatal EF5 tornado during the largest tornado outbreak in US history, with a more than adequate amount of information available and listed, certainly meets the notability criteria to have its own article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now that you say it, this definitely should be kept, main article is extremely large. Jdcomix (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – If one would have read the aforementioned merge discussion, they would have noticed that this has little to no support. Bringing this here was a very poor idea in my book. United States Man (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navarro W. Gray[edit]

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

Deceptively well-sourced article. However, upon closer inspection, none of the sources is an in-depth discussion of Gray. Instead, we have a number of in-passing mentions in local outlets (possible not all reliable sources) connected to him being a public defender in some minor cases. In short, what would be expected for any small-time lawyer. His representation of Fetty Wap does not seem to have generated any significant coverage either. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator nailed it. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. The coverage concerning Fetty Wap just mentions him as the lawyer. I do not see any other national/international coverage about him either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable. "Having represented means very little unless the cases were exceptionally notable. Pure promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing actually containing anything for the applicable solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. I concur that this appears to be an example of block evasion. Per WP:NOTSTATS nothing encyclopedic worth saving. Fenix down (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Cupa României Final[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article consisting of detailed sports stats with almost no encyclopedic prose, context, or analysis. No evidence of notability. This could easily be summarized in the main article 2015–16 Cupa României. - Mr X 11:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:G5. The creator of this article is almost certainly a sock of banned user Alexiulian25. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per above. WP:G5 applies here and this article should be deleted as created by sock. Qed237 (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5, article created by user in violation of block/ban. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamaguchi先生: I'm curious. Why !vote here rather than just deleting the article yourself if you think WP:G5 applies? Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. and rename. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nangali Saledi Singh[edit]

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

No evidence for existence of this village, which has been tagged as unreferenced since July 2013 (recent attempts to use other Wikipedia pages as references). Its mention in Shekhawati was added by the same editor - possible COI? "Hails from" the place, in one edit summary. Does not appear to be a recognised populated place. PamD 10:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The place does exist -- it has an Indian postal code, as seen here. Whether it merits a stand-alone article is a different question. If someone can offer a reasonable redirect target, I'll be happy to reconsider my recommendation. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but correct name - the name seems to be more usually given as Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - it is a few miles west of Khetri. Coordinates are roughly 28°00′N 75°39′E / 28.000°N 75.650°E / 28.000; 75.650. PWilkinson (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or, correct the name and add some redirects from the alternate spellings. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - althout it would be highly recommended to improve the article by adding reliable sources. Possibly change the name too as per PWilkinson and NewYorkActuary's comments. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:GEOLAND as per the source listed below; the village is a legally recognized place by the Government of Rajasthan. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"District Census Handbook, Series 18, Rajasthan: Jhunjhunun". India. Directorate of Census Operations, General Administration Department, Government of Rajasthan. p. 28. Retrieved 27 May 2016.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Cape Air. MBisanz ^talk 17:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nantucket Airlines[edit]

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

Does this have sufficient notability separate from Cape Air? If not, it should be redirected. SSTflyer 10:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 10:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 10:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 10:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a subsidiary of a company does not disqualify it from meeting WP:CORP standards. I don't understand the reason behind this nomination. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence company has received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cape Air. Although being a subsidiary doesn't disqualify the subject from having an article, there still is no need for a stand-alone article. The portions of the instant article that are not already duplicated at the target article could readily be added to it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as nothing actually suggesting its own notable article, imaginably best connected to the other company. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue-Redmond Road[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE; it exists, but that seems to be all. Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 15:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Google search only comes up with generic terms and nothing that would relate to anything being credible about this road. st170e^talk 15:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information about the road is better placed in an article about the neighborhood (Bel-Red), which may be notable in its own right. Sounder Bruce 16:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another road.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all for notability, obvious as it gets. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Morgan Technical Ceramics. Independent notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Electro Ceramics[edit]

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

Just an unreferenced advertisement for a subsidiary company Dubbin^{u | t | c} 08:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing independent, significant coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Morgan Advanced Materials ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect as this is basically their own website with the products listed and such, therefore not acceptable at all, my searches have found only a few links so there's simply nothing actually suggestive of keeping it, altogether or saved as a history. Delete therefore at best, SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you prefer deleting first before creating a redirect? ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Morgan Technical Ceramics, along with Morgan Advanced Ceramics. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I considered the notion of merging, but the article has no sources or inline citations, just external links to official websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is uncited material not a candidate for merging? You're not the first I'm hearing this from. It isn't mentioned at WP:MERGE. I haven't heard of this before so either it is a new thing or something specific to deletion discussions. Where does this come from? ~Kvng (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A blanket merge of entirely unsourced content essentially goes against the grain of WP:V. However, if the content is able to be sourced (and if this were to actually occur), I would be willing to change my !vote to a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, sourcing is required for challenged material or material likely to be challenged. The notability of the material here has been challenged in the AFD, but not the material itself. I realize that this article is not a particularly good example but I frequently see material blanked and redirected with unsourced as the justification and it doesn't always make sense to me. ~Kvng (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) Mhhossein (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Las Vegas[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, uninformative, unbalanced and written like a high-school essay. DePRODded after another user supported the PROD by citing WP:TNT Dubbin^{u | t | c} 08:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is probably a worthy and interesting topic, and I can see their is at least one item published on it.... just needs to be re written, and (a Lot) more references Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable topic, and, as Uncle G has demonstrated, there is no need to delete an article before rewriting it, so the essay WP:TNT should never be cited as a reason for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I agree the topic is notable and deserves a killer article. So I guess my question is where we go from here? Could this AfD discussion informally endorse my blowing it up so that someone can start again? I think we all agree it's a terrible article but nobody has yet volunteered to fix it. It would be a shame if the only result of this discussion were 'oh well'. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 12:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Uncle G already has blown it up and started again, and article deletion was not part of that process. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I hadn't seen that that had happened. My watchlist only highlighted up a more recent minor edit. Props to Uncle G. In that case, keep. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 18:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That means that this discussion can be closed now as withdrawn with no outstanding "delete" opinions, which is the best possible result of an AfD discussion, being a very rare case of such a discussion where people actually take note of what others have said rather than get into entrenched positions. I don't know how to do that myself and am too busy cooking dinner to spend the time looking it up now, so maybe someone who does know how could close this? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Blue Mountain (band). MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Stirratt[edit]

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

I considered PROD too, there's nothing to suggest she actually has the needed solid independent notability for an article separate from the apparently one band she's best known for; my searches have only found expected mentions at Books and News. I suggest Deleting and then at best Redirecting to the band itself. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Blue Mountain: completely agree, the article just talks about her former bands, and she doesn't appear to have made any solo records so I'm not sure why she has an individual article. And her business isn't notable either. Richard3120 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge verified content to Blue Mountain (band). Subject does not meet WP:BASIC, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarpuram[edit]

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

~~I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG~~ Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not even clear whether this film has even been released yet. The articles on the two main actors state that the film is still in production (in which case WP:TOOSOON is relevant). The only thing I found on the Web was this, which mentions the film only in passing (and which says that the film is the director's first). NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's comprehensibly nothing minimally better for films notability and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking beyond the article:

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)

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Nagarpuram N.P. Sarathy Sridivya Akhil Arul Dev

Keep per being a ~~released~~ film project with coverage to meet WP:NF. A report for Boleyn, NewYorkActuary, & SwisterTwister... Audio launch was in early 2013,[55][56] and the film (trailer) was apparently released later that year,[57][58][59] rather than the asserted 2015. When SwisterTwister says he could not find anything, that pretty much assures me that there's plenty to find for those who actually look. His not having working google-foo is no reason to believe sources do not exist. {chuckle). Better to fix this one up to serve the project than to delete it because it began as an unsourced offering. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Perhaps I could have been more comprehensive in my posting. I did come across some sites that indicated that trailers for the film had been released in 2013, but nothing that said the film itself had been released. However, there is no longer any need to speculate on the film's status. I note that, since your posting here, you've added an external link to the article that confirms that the film remains unreleased, with a projected release date of August 2016. So, we are definitely in "too soon" territory. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Here's me being "more comprehensive" as well: As author of the essay TOO SOON, I will clarify that it defaults to and does not over-rule nor supplant guideline WP:NFF...the guide which instructs us that when filming is confirmed (as it is) and a film is not yet confirmed as released, if the elements of its production have the coverage to meet WP:GNG (as does this one), then an article is merited. In my own searches, I found and offered coverage of casting, of production, of audio launch, and of trailer release... coverage directly and in detail of the project's particulars... not just trivial mentions. An article is merited. Simple... and thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination (although this can't be just done because there are delete votes) MichaelQSchmidt has proved me wrong with his findings. Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 G5 after moving. —SpacemanSpiff 12:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bodybuilding the Indian Way[edit]

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

Promotional piece failing WP:NFILM. See Saksham everyone is capable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saksham - everyone is capable and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaurav Goswami (Body Builder) for the history of promotion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article creator has move the article to Draft space. If the piece is promotional, it should not stay there as well. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: Yes, as this is now been moved by author Bollywoodfilmwiki to draftspace and is not in article space, so WP:AFD is the wrong venue. Why not close and nominate the draft for deletion at WP:MFD? Same suggestion in case you wish the redirect deleted... AFD is the wrong queu. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I do offer the clue that draft space is just the place where things such as a promotional tone are meant to be worked on OUT of article space, and when being in work in draft space a topic does not have to strictly or immediately meet notability guidelines. There the author may bring it into line with MOS:FILM, without a threat of deletion. Just sayin' Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator is waiting SPI and if that succeeds this all stuff from all domains can be speedy deleted. Will wait for that to get over with. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 G5. —SpacemanSpiff 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Goswami (Body Builder)[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete with no major awards won. Fails WP:GNG. Also possibly part of advertisements being done on Wiki. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saksham - everyone is capable and Saksham everyone is capable for history. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As above, non notable individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 07:38, 20 May 2016

Note: The article creator has move the article to Draft space. If the piece is promotional, it should not stay there as well. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Shankar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. no participants in last AfD so renominating. the alternate foreign language article in Farsi is very bare. I could find sources for other Raj Shankars but not significant coverage for this neurochemist. Given that his research is in medical sciences one would expect significant coverage in English, which there isn't. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked several of the papers listed, and they have between 2 and 10 citations each. Not seeing WP:PROF satisfied here. -- 120.19.181.150 (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially per nom. Most of the awards listed in the "Awards and Fellowships" section of the article are from his undergraduate and graduate studies, and thus do not contribute to notability per WP:PROF. As the IP above, I tried to look up GS citations for the various publications by this subject (which I looked up at his webpages preserved at [60], to be certain they are his), and mostly came up with single digit citation cites, including for his article in Nature [61], with only 4 cites. For someone who was working in an active field like biochemistry and was genuinely academically notable, I would have expected to see a much bigger footprint. Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although sourced and informative, this is still questionable for the applicable notability afterwards, thus delete as there's nothing else convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) SSTflyer 17:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SilverPlatter[edit]

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

Completely unsourced for nearly a decade. Holypod (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's had a source since January 2007. I'll grant that the sources are still mostly not cited inline and still mostly not third-party, but "completely unsourced" is, charitably, flatly untrue. —Cryptic 03:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I searched for independent third party references and found nothing. RockyMtChai (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was an important pioneer in the history of electronic information services. Lots of sources are apparent in the HighBeam and GScholar searches linked above, and even if many of them are of questionable independence, examples of sources that could be used to support an article include several pages from this book about "Infonomics", a lengthy 1991 article from Information Today, and a news analysis about the 2001 sale to Wolters Kluwer/Ovid Technologies. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As above, important electronic info provider, there should be plenty of references.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep – The topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Also note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Challenges of Academic Library Management in Developing Countries. pp. 86–87.
Information Today (subscription required)
Program. pp. 169 - 175. (subscription required)
Library Hi Tech. pp.49-60. (subscription required)
CD-ROM Professional. pp. 12-13.
Infonomics and the Business of Free. p. 22, p. 23.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Orders, decorations, and medals. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 17:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State decoration[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has not been referenced ever since its creation by Andrew Yong on 14 October 2003 at 15:05 UTC. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Orders, decorations, and medals - SimonP (talk) 13:06, 16 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) 05:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SimonP JackHoang (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's nothing convincing here for a separate article, likely best connected to the article above. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RU Recovery Ministries (Reformers Unanimous)[edit]

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

No external references Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself patrolled this in early March, nothing suggests any solid independent notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 13 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) 05:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anuja Siraj[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The article is sourced entirely to primary, commercial and social networking sources, with the sole indication of reliable source coverage in real media being a single blurb about her winning of a non-notable "teenager of the year" award -- and the "positive reviews" for her book are all on user-generated content sites like GoodReads or amazon.com, which means they're not the professional critical reviews that it takes to support notability. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which any writer is automatically eligible for an article just because she exists -- RS coverage, supporting a credible claim of notability, is required. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing currently suggesting better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 13 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) 05:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As above, non notable individual. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMP Mister Indonesia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, not sourced conform WP:RS, promo The Banner talk 18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found a few links but nothing outstandingly convincing and that's not surprising considering it's only about 2 years old. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 13 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) 05:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quintephone[edit]

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

This article is part of an esoteric and nonstandard scheme of musical instrument classification proposed by Steve Mann (User:Glogger, who created this article), in which musical instruments are grouped based on the classical elements. The term "quintephone" has almost never been used outside of publications by Mann and his colleagues, and in web sites and books which copied from this article; in fact, the article notes that "the classification has still not been debated in organological studies". In short, it's a neologism with a longstanding Wikipedia article. Zetawoof (ζ) 00:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence for notability. Also, no evidence that the name "quintephone" is commonly accepted. OtterAM (talk) 20:22, 13 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) 05:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing from my searches and the overall article still questions the actual needed independent notability, therefore nothing convincing leads to delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smartkarma[edit]

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

Appears entirely sourced to PR material. Looking pass the advert issues, I am unable to locate any independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth as defined at WP:CORP. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this actually suggests convincing notability. Simply a somewhat newly founded company. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The best reliable independent references I found are [62] (a passing mention) and [63] (one word mention). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 04:58, 12 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) 05:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As above, non notable company. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hdh. Atholhu Madhrasa[edit]

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

Should probably be speedied but speedies for schools are always rejected. This is not an article, but more like a directory listing. Would need to be totally rewritten to be an article. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion rationale is rather deprecated now. I have re-written and cleaned up the article. AusLondonder (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unsourced and the "Vision" section seems to be lifted from this source from Delaware, which makes me suspicious. I haven't been able to find reliable sources that we could use to rewrite the article. If anyone can, I will reconsider. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, no context for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 04:59, 12 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) 05:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Economics and Management, CULS Prague[edit]

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

hanged this to a redirect to Czech University of Life Sciences Prague on the grounds that individual faculties are rarely notable; article creator begs to differ. TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Faculty of Economics and Management, CULS Prague is largest Faculty in Czech Republic - proof - official stats of http://www.msmt.cz/index.php?lang=2 : http://dsia.uiv.cz/vystupy/vu_vs_f1.html (more than 10,000 students + more than 2000 Foreign exchange students) - probably is also largest Faculty in Central Europe. If this large Faculty can not have own wiki page should be deleted also majority of other (mostly smaller) faculties - for example: Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University, Faculty of Informatics and Statistics, University of Economics in Prague, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Jaffna, Faculty of Economics, Ljubljana, Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Management of Warsaw University of Technology and thousands of others. Another reason for its own wiki page is a little different focus from the parent university. I am believe that the largest faculty of economics in Central Europe, its wiki deserves.TradeCZ (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no need for a serarate article, especially given that at present there is no content that could not be found in a prospectus.TheLongTone (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content has been expanded TradeCZ (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After expanding is IMHO acceptable. --Postrach (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps and Redirect instead as this still seems questionable for solid independent notability. Asking DGG who asks to be notified of these subjects and I welcome his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The question is whether this is a first order division of a university,, or an academic department. The standard for academic departments is being world-famous, or an international basis. That does not meet the situation here. The criterion for a first order division is 1/usually to include medical or legal schools, and sometimes business schools, on the basis that they are often --at least in US universities -- independent of the university. 2/otherwise, being a major part of a very iconic and important university and recognized as such internationally--the model for this is the University of California. Size by itself is not sufficient.

but ,as mentioned above, a key factor is whether there is sufficient content. There is no such content at the moment--only a list of degrees. This sort of content will fit perfectly well in the main article for the university..When there is some genuine encyclopedic content then there can be an article DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content will be extended in the coming days / weeks. Do you really think that, for example the faculty Faculty of Management of Warsaw University of Technology has a greater right to have a wiki page?193.84.36.110 (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that. This discussion is about the faculty in Prague. If anyone believes the one in Warsaw not to be independently notable then they can start a separate deletion discussion for that, where the issue will be decided on the same grounds. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - TradeCZ (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Duplicate "keep" stricken. One person one !vote please. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:33, 19 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) 05:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. being the largest in the Czech Republic does not grant automatic notability. Nor does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. LibStar (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I see no basis for creating a separate article here; I see no evidence of coverage specifically for the faculty, so WP:GNG is not cleared; being the largest faculty does not grant inherent notability; and if you purge the lists per WP:NOTDIR, there is not enough information for a standalone article in any case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Luniz. MBisanz ^talk 17:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We Are the Luniz[edit]

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

Non-notable album. The user Lil' Kim Monica reverted the redirection to Luniz by Live and Die 4 Hip Hop. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist article Luniz for now per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for recordings is met. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:29, 19 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, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect if needed as there's nothing actually suggesting the needed solid independent notability here and nothing to suggest future signs thus there's no need to keep this considering the questionability. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luniz or Luniz discography, as a viable search term. Source searches are not providing significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Stutts[edit]

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

This is an advertisement for an executive of a PR firm and political spin-doctor. While the subject has had a few appearances as a talking head/spin-doctor on TV and has been quoted on behalf of his clients, there is no in-depth coverage of this individual. I don't believe these appearances on behalf of his clients meet the bar to pass WP:ENT. Note that almost all content has been contributed by 3 WP:SPA editors. Toddst1 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found many references to him in a variety of news sources. When he gets quoted so often on political issues, people want to know who he is (at least people who consider the source in evaluating info...), so I think the article is a keep.RockyMtChai (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a paid spokesperson that leads to him being referred to in news sources does not satisfy WP:GNG or any other standard of notability. Toddst1 (talk) 00:46, 14 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) 05:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very ordinary - involved with, co-coordinated, etc. - every national election has dozens if not hundreds of such functionaries. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sandstein 08:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FurryMUCK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It is currently an impressive refbombed collection of every passing mention, primary source, and local paper that has mentioned the game, but shows no enduring or independent notability of its own. Remove the unreliable sources and there would be nothing left. The game had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. It is most often invoked as a cultural gateway into furry fandom so a redirect to its mention at Furry_fandom#Role-playing should suffice. czar 03:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously notable community, with coverage from reliable third party sources casually dismissed in the nomination. Here's more coverage.[64][65] - hahnch e n 19:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could go source by source if you want. I saw the Wired article, but as I said in the nom, the subject of this coverage is really "furry fandom on the Internet", of which FurryMUCK is a part (usually in passing) behind the more notable LambdaMOO and A Rape in Cyberspace. czar 23:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it for my links too. High Noon on the Electronic Frontier spends over a page on characterizing FurryMuck in its sections on "Cyborg Sexuality" and "The Cyborg Self", but the subject of that coverage is really the more notable cybersex and the internet. The Players' Realm spends over a page discussing the interaction between FurryMUCK's moderators, minors, the ACLU and the impact of the Communications Decency Act, but the subject of that coverage is the more notable internet. - hahnch e n 23:25, 13 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) 05:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This MUCK is discussed extensively in reliable sources; its existing citations should more than suffice to demonstrate notability, but if for some reason that doesn't seem to be the case, with hundreds of hits on Google Books and 67 on Google Scholar I haven't the slightest doubt enough additional ones to settle the matter can be found. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Keep – I'm finding lots of coverage in books, but a great deal of it is {{paywall}}ed, making assessment of the depth of coverage uncertain. See sources below. I'm only able to fully access the first source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Players' Realm. p. 86. McFarland.
Communities in Cyberspace. pp. 129–. Routledge. (subscription required)
Atlas of Cyberspace pp. 187-188. Addison-Wesley (subscription required)
Net Games. p. 209, 228. Random House Information Group. (subscription required)
Internet Virtual Worlds Quick Tour. pp. 109–. Ventana Press. (subscription required)
The Active Reader: Strategies for Academic Reading and Writing. pp. 426-427. Oxford University Press. (subscription required)
Internet starter kit for Macintosh. p. 65, pp. 115-116. Hayden Books. (subscription required)
Internet Starter Kit for Windows. p. 63, p. 81, p. 105 (subscription required)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Bash League centuries[edit]

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

Non notable list that could be merged into main article, but it does not need to be in it's own article. Fails WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Big Bash League records and statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with above comment, the list isn't very long so can easily be merged.Atlantic306 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Again, with the other BBL nomination, this is on the same level as the IPL. They have List of Indian Premier League centuries, which is a Featured List. This COULD become a featured list too (if someone puts the work in). No objection to a redirect with the possibility of it being restored to an article if improved to the FL standard. 18:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep There are 14 centuries that I think are enough. GreenCricket (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per similar IPL list. St Anselm (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge as needed, still questionable at best for own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 18 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) 05:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument for deletion is not strong. I don't know why this AfD was relisted, since consensus is not pointing to deletion. This might be a good time for closure, either by an admin or a non-admin. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a highly popular league with the worlds top players. Enough centuries to warrant a seperate article. If this was a lower level T20 league than yes there would be no need but as the BBL is one of the top T20 leagues it is appropriate - Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not that I'd object to a merge, but this list will only get bigger and would probably have to be broken out again later. Why create extra work for ourselves? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Notable subject that generates significant coverage when it occurs. The list is small for now but will grow and be unwieldy to merge. Smartyllama (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment snow time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Singh[edit]

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

Actress with no notability to be found-she has done no films as of now, so way too soon. Wgolf (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references. Half the article is about a film which has not yet been released. Maproom (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is questionable at best, WP:CRYSTAL. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person is not sufficiently notable. --Dcirovic (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable "up and coming" performer's spam, created by a paid marketer too inept to conceal their own COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT YET (actors) - one unreleased film. - Arjayay (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability, nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The film is not released. Plus we need two films to pass on films alone. If her role in the film becomes truly notable, we can have an article just on that. But that will require sources showing such after the film is released.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of now she doesn't meet the basic notability guidelines. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 10:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Consensus is to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Kicks[edit]

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

I came across this as a speedy candidate, where it was tagged as being overly promotional. The page isn't over the top promotional enough to be a comfortable speedy, however at the same time there really isn't anything out there to show how this game is ultimately notable enough for an article. It exists and can be played, but there's just no coverage outside of an article written by the student newspaper of the college the game's creators attended. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For what it's worth, I agree that this probably shouldn't be speedy deleted, because there is content and there is referencing and theoretically possible notability. That said, I agree that this page does not quite pass the threshold for notability. It's just too small and local. Fieari (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I'm still working on the Twisted Kicks page, adding more links and reviews. I just added a 'Reception' sub-topic to the page. The page is a work-in-progress, but I have been slowly updating it. Kbar100 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbar100: You cannot and should not link to Amazon reviews on Wikipedia or really to Amazon at all. (This wasn't meant to be harsh, just to emphasize that it isn't seen as appropriate to add to Wikipedia. In general you should not be linking to any e-commerce site like Amazon, Barnes & Nobles, Wal-Mart, etc on Wikipedia.) The reason for this is that anyone can write a review on Amazon, so the site isn't discerning at all. There have actually been articles about people swaying the ratings in one direction or another to either promote something or troll someone, something that's actually pretty common on most sites that allow for user submitted reviews. The Board Game Geeks site looks to be the same, although it isn't an e-commerce site. The basic rule of thumb is that if the site allows users to post reviews, it cannot be used to establish notability and should not be mentioned on a Wikipedia article. While I don't think that the game creators are going around asking people to bolster their ratings on various sites, people can and have done this in the past, to the point where this sort of information shouldn't be used in the article at all. The only exception to this would be if the user ratings gained widespread media attention, as was the case with IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes user ratings for Saving Christmas or Amazon reviews for Bend, Not Break. In either case the user ratings got fairly widespread media attention, allowing us to include mention of the user ratings in the article. It's also something that can be seen as fairly promotional in tone, even if the intention wasn't to promote. Now I've also removed the link to the Apple store download. Links like that are considered to be inappropriate on Wikipedia because they can also be seen as inherently promotional. The official website can remain and ideally the link to the various download sites should already be in the official website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only possible source I could find came from the Daily Bruin which is the student newspaper for the university the two creators were attending when they developed the game. There aren't enough sources covering the game to meet notability requirements, and the one possible source that does exist is not independent of the subject. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all of this simply suggests it's too soon for a solidly notable article and searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article with no suitable sources to prove notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 02:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Brokers[edit]

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

Sources are mostly press releases; the key aspect of GNG is that here are sufficient independent sources with substantial discussion with which to build an article. That the article "must" be built on press releases, as that is pretty much all there is, makes the article inherently promotional and not encyclopedic Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick check reveals plenty of news coverage beyond press releases, such as this one. It is also frequently featured in global press due to consistently winning Barron's top broker awards. Article needs work, but sources are plentiful. Owen× ☎ 01:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For reasons noted by OwenX. Confirmation of founding date and place would be nice, however... Doprendek (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing this. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) SSTflyer 17:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vel Soap[edit]

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

Non-notable product lacks references. damiens.rf 08:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep au contraire, very notable brand, maybe there aren't many articles or reports about it written, but if you click on the newspaper link up here you will notice that, at least, the brand was advertised in many newspapers over the years and that's not including spanish newspapers. also i recommend looking for detergente vel or Vel Rosita, Vel Rosa, and you will get many links too.Antonio Mr. Hot Body Martin (digan lo que digan!!) 09:49, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet the general notability guidelines. As the article creator himself acknowledges, all there is, is advertising. YSSYguy (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, ~~speedy keep~~. Please do your research before putting articles for deletion just because you do not know about the subject. Even if most information available now is on selling vehicles, that still shows notability. Count the links where "Vel Rosita" or "Detergente Vel" is mentioned and you will see how famous this brand was. And please don't say it's only 3 (or 5, or 10 for that matter) links because we know better than that. At least in Latin America Vel was a huge product once and, it seems, in the United States too as it was sold at major stores at a time.^[1] Antonio El Super Detergente Martin (Diganme) 23:52, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/vel-detergent-display-at-marshall-field-company-chicago-news-photo/141832973

— Duplicate vote: AntonioMartin (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

No, what shows notability is in-depth discussion of the subject in reliable independent sources. Was there a product recall? Was there independent scientific research into the product? Was the product discussed in detail in Soaps Monthly or Surfactants Now or Detergents Digest? All you have done so far is prove that it existed, and that is not enough in the context of Wikipedia. YSSYguy (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable product that survived for 60+ years in major markets and still is sold in at least the Danish market. I've added sources, subject meets WP:GNG, and can be expanded. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added by Sam Sailor are the manufacturer itself; four words ("Vel", "Colgate-Palmolive" and "Denmark") in a Table in the book by Kuo-Yann Lai; and a transcript of a commercial advertising the subject with two passing mentions in the book by Jim Cox. Contrary to his assertion, none of these result in the subject passing the GNG. YSSYguy (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The oxford press reference is sufficient claim to notability for me. Fieari (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entire coverage of the subject in the Oxford Press book amounts to nine words. That is not significant coverage. YSSYguy (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Byrd[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he played Major Arena Soccer League, which is not confirmed as fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete all per WP:NFOOTY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I want to see full prove that the Major Arena Soccer League isn't fully professional. Not just some subjective opinion stating that it is not a professional league. Shotgun pete (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The onus should be to prove that it is professional and not the other way round. Spiderone 17:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated my argument and have presented some evidence to support my claim at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Shotgun pete (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - failure to meet notability standards of WP:GNG Spiderone 17:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all also since nothing suggests the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O'Neil Brown[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he played National Professional Soccer League, which is not confirmed as fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I want to see full prove that the National Professional Soccer League wasn't fully professional. Not just some subjective opinion stating that it is not a professional league. Shotgun pete (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No evidence the league was fully professional, and so they all fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of evidence to prove it was fully professional. I posted evidence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Shotgun pete (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all still questionable for their needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean questionable did you brother to look or even challenge the evidence posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues to prove that the NPSL wasn't fully professional? Shotgun pete (talk) 6:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Nakon 00:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Farooq Rehmani[edit]

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

Article about biography without any significant citations. Looks Autobiography. GreenCricket (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete certainly as nothing suggesting the needed improvements which this seriously needs, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking down the given references and seeing an assortment of Scribd, Blogspot, Wordpress etc., I was heading towards a Delete opinion. But then there is the Simon Tisdall piece from the Guardian, worth quoting: "Muhammad Farooq Rehmani, chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir People's Freedom League and former convenor of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference opposition coalition, bears eloquent witness to the invidious consequences of such neglect. A journalist, author and political activist, he has spent nearly 10 years in jail, on and off, since first being arrested by Indian security forces in 1968." Perhaps this is needing tidying and better sourcing. AllyD (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man of the House (short film)[edit]

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

Non notable film. Koala15 (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here suggests notability under WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking further:

production:(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)

co-writer:(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)

Delete for failing to meet WP:NF. I gave the article a face-lift (it's always good practice) and expanded my search parameters, and though it exists and screened in 2005, it did not gain any media attention. No coverage = no notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nor could I find sources to add; this short seems to fails the notability guideline for films and the general notability guideline. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, and for failing to meet WP:NF Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as sufficient consensus, no convincing signs at all of the applicable notability, there's been enough time and resources to have enabled this to be kept but it has not, delete as non-notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Nakon 00:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bacon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see enough sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. Leading a a team to a minor league championship, as mentioned in the lead as what he's "perhaps most notable for" is not an inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. I don't understand the keep votes in the previous discussion, which fail to note the lack of significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have a general bias against deleting pages that have been here for years, like this one, which is 7 years old. I also have a bias against deleting bios for people from the pre-internet era, although this guy's page has as many good sources as some internet-era bios that people have voted to keep. As always, Baseball-Reference Bullpen is the best place for weaker bios like this one, so hopefully someone will copy this bio over there, if it hasn't been done already. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:ARTICLEAGE at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, the age of the article is a "notability fallacy", and not a reason to keep. The pre-internet argument, suggesting there may be print sources that aren't online, is a legit argument, though I don't know that any of these sources exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it says he played for the White Sox but it was not the actual major league thus, aside from that, there's simply nothing else convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - This article does have print references that single out Don Bacon, specifically, in two different articles, in detail. This does not appear to be routine coverage, given the length of detail these two references go into. That said, I recognize that the WP:NBASE policy is that "Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players". The trouble is that this is not a RECENT minor league player, so I'd be loathe to create a page specifically for historic players of this minor league team. Given that there was apparently significant contemporary coverage of this minor league player, I'm leaning towards keeping this one. Fieari (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those pages are meant only for active players. I clarified that on WP:NBASE. Does two references count as "significant" coverage? I think it's not enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm prone to believe that, given he won an award and led a team to victory, and given that we have two articles with him (not the team, the person) as the central focus of the article, that there are likely more contemporary sources that will continue to establish his notability. That said, even if there aren't any more sources (and I still suspect there will be more), the two articles we do have are from reliable sources, and they are extensive, not merely a mention but the actual focus of the articles. Reviewing this closer, I've actually become convinced to upgrade my !vote from "weak keep" to "keep". Fieari (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Girl Bill of Rights[edit]

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

May not meet "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. Seems to fail WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTWEBHOST. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this page. It is a working document for the Black Girls Bill of Rights, where Black girls will declare the long- and short-term rights that they would like for politicians to really fight for,” Where they are simply demanding their humanitarian rights.

Here are some additional sources.

https://www.facebook.com/girlsforgenderequity/photos/pb.165741433480093.-2207520000.1461016678./996401230414105/?type=3&theater

https://twitter.com/alondra/status/718921357074046976

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to make this page suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valreed93 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social media posts are, for the most part, not considered reliable sources (see WP:UGC). Wikipedia is not the place for working documents or promoting a cause, regardless of how worthy that cause may be. Please see What Wikipedia is Not. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for "working documents". You may find it more useful to look into a Wikia to aid editing a working document together with likeminded individuals. Wikipedia is for reporting on things that other people have reported on, only. This article has multiple references, but each of these references only state that the Congressional Caucus on Black Women and Girls exists, not that this bill of rights was presented, or any information about this bill of rights at all. There are no reliable secondary sources that this is something that has even happened, and without reliable secondary sources, we cannot include it in Wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 02:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This bill of rights has been reported on in several reliable sources listed below, this page is meant to merely be educational, not promotional.

http://www.movetoendviolence.org/blog/black-girl-magic/

http://www.essence.com/2016/04/06/first-black-girls-movement-conference-coming-new-york-city — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valreed93 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Movetoendviolence reference: The article text does not mention it at all. There is a video link that has it in the title, however, the article is about the caucus, and the video appears to be providing an example of the sort of thing the caucus does, not being an in-depth report about the bill itself. I would call this a "trivial" mention, and not an establishment of notability.

Review of Essence reference: The article does not discuss the bill of rights except to mention it in passing, not as a thing that exists, but as a thing they look forwards to seeing once it does exist. This reference does not provide notability.

Unfortunately, my !vote for deletion must still stand. Maybe this SHOULD be of more importance. Maybe this SHOULD have more coverage, more media attention. Alas, this particular subtopic of the caucus does not appear to have the sufficient attention of reliable secondary sources, even those interested in the caucus to being with. As such, Wikipedia can't sustain an article on it.

There may be a valid argument that these two references are sufficient to allow a reference in the main caucus article. However, even in this contingency, all that could be stated would be the name of the bill, and the fact that it exists. The contents of the bill, and the majority of this article, are unsourced and thus must remain excluded. Fieari (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ambition and enthusiasm of this project is admirable, but the coverage of it in reliable sources is simply not sufficient at this point (WP:TOOSOON) to do anything but delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I have tagged as G11 since there's nothing at all seemingly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy since this still has one more day at AfD, so it'd be a better idea all around to just let the last day roll out here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 vandalism. JohnCD (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dlokcuc[edit]

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

Probably hoax. Possible copyvio of http://www.dictiome.com/en/93367/Apophis-pronunciation-Aussprache-prononciation-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-pronunciaci%C3%B3n. As far as I can tell, it's just been copied form there with the name changed. I can't find any evidence that an Egyptian deity of this name exists. Adam9007 (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Speedy Delete - It may be moot anyway... the text has been hidden due to copyvio, but even without seeing the text, I can tell that "Dlokcuc" is "Cuckold" spelled backwards, and is thus almost certainly WP:BOLLOCKS. I did double check with some googling to make sure... coincidences between languages do happen, but... no. Fieari (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Duplicates Apep (CSD A10), Vandalism (CSD G3), Copyvio (CSD G12). —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 11:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 per CSD A9: Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bleed Or Burn Yourself[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Adam9007 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. No artist's article (speedied under A7) or discography to merge into. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 00:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A9--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petey and Jaydee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There's no evidence to suggest this is still active and the new external link is now closed and my own searches only found a few links here and nothing good, thus with no signs of improvement and existing like this since February 2007, there's nothing to suggest keeping.

Previous AFD closed as "No Consensus" when the AFD had no "Keep" arguments whatsoever. "No objection" may have been more appropriate. Relisting. Toddst1 (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject has a lot of hits on Google but no reliable sources covering it in detail for support. Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article currently does not provide enough sourcing, and searches revealed absolutely nothing except a single hit to YouTube. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there isn't any reliable, credible sources to support the subject having its own page. Aoba47 (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 07:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Franky_Zapata[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has read like an ad copy since 2013 and has very limited sources, almost all of which are from Franky Zapata or his company. His product may or may not be notable, but his page is centered around it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:48, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some input on this one. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising, WP:NOTPROMO. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like advertising. Delete.RockyMtChai (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all suggesting the solidity of a notable article, article has nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/vel-detergent-display-at-marshall-field-company-chicago-news-photo/141832973

[1]