Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 May	22 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Center for the American Idea[edit]

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

Lack of reliable, independent sources containing significant coverage of the subject. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found nothing independent of subject on EBSCOHost news databases, Google News, Google Scholar, etc. that was more than a passing mention of someone who held a position there. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have found nothing noticeably better and there's nothing to suggest an applicable notability independently. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oded Brandwein[edit]

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

Do the guidelines at WP:NBASKETBALL give automatic notability to players in the Israeli Basketball Premier League? This guy does not independently qualify for GNG outside of that. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd argue the IBPL is a major professional basketball league, so yes, he would qualify under WP:NBASKETBALL. Smartyllama (talk) 18:47, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballpark of The Palm Beaches[edit]

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

Does not qualify for WP:GNG. Previously deleted. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Host site for two MLB teams in spring training beginning next year. Expansion, not deletion is the best course here, and plenty of sources for addition exist under a search for the stadium's name. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A large new public/private project, with plenty of substantial coverage in a diverse variety of national and state sources, including The Washington Post [1]; MiLB.com [2]; The Bond Buyer [3]; Sports Business Daily [4]; Treasure Coast Newspapers [5]; Palm Beach Post [6]; Sun-Sentinel [7][8]; etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:43, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Pauga[edit]

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

Does not pass the guidelines for automatic notability outlined in WP:NBASKETBALL, nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary or passing mentions. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – D-League general managers are not notable. Fails NBASKETBALL and GNG. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated by other does not meet GNG or NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 13:26, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tristam (DJ)[edit]

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

Not nearly enough WP:RS for this youtube fame article. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the new references i listed was from a very reliable website, and it also contains much more information about Tristam, that i may add in the future. --User:Aidenscraft ^(Talk) 20:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself PRODed this and thede's nothing at all convincing of any applicable notability, current article has nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NMUSIC 7 GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm guessing the "very reliable" source is the article in Tristam's local arts magazine The Vault. Struggling to see how he meets any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article's creator is a single-purpose account that appears to be dedicated to promoting the subject. "Number of Youtube views" is not a reliable indicator of notability, and a single article in a local 'zine is insufficient. -- IamNotU (talk) 11:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Seeks Father[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on film. If reliable sources can be added for the awards, it can be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the box office and referenced one award. The same source mentions two more awards (Minsk and Vicenza), but it does not mention years and nominations, so that I decided not to include them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:HEY. --Cavarrone 12:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Keep per meeting WP:NF for a 57-year-old film from the Soviet Union. Who wants to "argue" that we do not have old Soviet newspapers archived on Google? Enough coverage in books. Hats off to the work performed by Ymblanter to meet The Heymann Standard. Good job. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:26, 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 delete. Discounting the obviously canvassed opinions. Sandstein 09:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Bunch Paintball Team[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

An unremarkable paintball team which has not been the subject of coverage by reliable sources. Apart from one press release, all of the references in the article are from unreliable sources. I had previously tagged the article for speedy deletion under A7, and the article was deleted, but now it's back. This time, I'm sending this to AfD because the writing of the article and the reference nevertheless make claims to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The magazine articles check out. I have updated the titles of the two articles that were missing, I revised one of the notations for an entirely different magazine that was buried in the links. I also uncovered two additional magazines that featured the team and I have added the citation for that to the article. For any editors who have already voted, please look at the revised list of publications that have run feature articles on the team. Lest we get lost in the weeds too-what's at issue in this AfD is the concept of notability to justify the article and these publications address that issue directly. As to the other links regarding tertiary information, not every link is required to show notability, the concept of citations is to show evidence of, and lend credence to, the preceding sentence. What makes Wikipedia unique, and separates it from a stagnant printed encyclopedia, is that it is an organic online collection of information written amidst a world that is changing its methods of information delivery more rapidly then any previous time in history, with articles often running contemporaneous with the subject matter, as is the case here.

Bottom line, eight separate published magazine articles, one of which had a readership in more than 30 countries worldwide.216.14.180.132 (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 216.14.180.132 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Always nice to see a healthy dialogue on a afd. Keep crowd-thank you for your thoughtful and courteous responses. The issue of multiple magazine publications with features on the team seems well pled on notability. But, keep those articles coming if you can, we prefer to see a more robust list of published sources to support a article. Also, you got dinged by the bot for self published articles, get those cleaned up as quickly as you can.

Team delete- Thank you for offering your personal opinions, but your responses have failed to address the issue of the multiple magazine articles that have spotlighted the team.

Caeciliusinhorto thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. It looks like the timestamps show that the magazine articles were added after your most recent entry, the discussion would benefit from your feedback on whether that flips the switch for you?

FeelTheBernBaby- no matter how this turns out, I wanted to commend you on very well written first article. Welcome to the community, we hope you stick around. New blood helps make the page what it is. Thank you for your responses, keep up the great work! 74.93.25.125 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 74.93.25.125 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, a whole bunch of references have been added since I last looked at this discussion. Mostly,I think they are no good whatsoever from an AfD perspective, but there are a few which might be useful: namely, the articles in Paintball 2Xtremes and Paintball Games International. Unfortunately, I can't find out much about these magazines, and I don't have access to any of the articles in question, which makes it hard for me to evaluate whether or not the articles help establish notability. If there's no way of getting access to these articles for anyone, then that might end up being a problem due to wikipedia's verifiability policies, even if the articles would if available establish notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Supporting links have expanded by over 70% since article first appeared. At least some have been verified, giving basis for leeway w/ the other links. The notability issue is settled via the publications; they have appeared in five different issues of national publications and one international publication (satisfying reliable and independent needs).
Keep, 100%. The pattern shown suggests additional support will likely yet be added, further cementing the case for this page to be permanently kept. AuribusTeneoLupum (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC) — AuribusTeneoLupum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. It's been a while since I have looked at the editor's side of this page, but it certainly has changed a lot since I was last here. For a first-time article, this is more than sufficient to allow the article to grow. Looking at the many "stub" articles that are still left on the site and the innumerable articles with far less support, I was very surprised to see the suggestion that this page be deleted. This seems to directly go against the "don't bite" policy with which we welcome first-time users to our community. That said, I wanted to provide a different perspective. I am a former pro shop owner in the sport of paintball and am very familiar with the team the article discusses. Within the paintball community, there is no question as to their achievements, the fact that they were able to get a commissioned team gun design from Planet Eclipse is absolutely unheard of on the scenario side, and that alone justifies their page (and is proof by itself of the notable place that this team holds within the community of paintball). It is clear from some of the comments that many of the editors are completely unfamiliar with paintball. That's fine, but no basis for deletion. I will look through publications to see if I can add links to some of the awards that the team has earned and add those into the citations. No question that this page should be kept, it hasn't even been up for 24 hours yet. I'm a little sad if this is the direction the editor Community is taking now. CoachKBar (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC) CoachKBar (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Update-- Since this deletion was first proposed, the author has offered a counterpoint and added several links to multiple published, non-trivial sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The first publication appears to check out as multiple chat rooms and discussion boards congratulate the team on the magazine feature and the player on the cover (who is apparently one of the founders of the team).

While I was unable to find an accessible version of the second two publications referenced, multiple searches did link the team's name to those issues, so the reference appears credible.

We may be spoiled when researching articles that are related to academia, because of the ease of cross-referencing and readily available, catalogued search results. While that is not the case here, taken as a whole, the page entry does display notability sufficient to meet Wikipedia standards.

With regard to the negative point that "two [citations] are to the blog of some guy who sells paintball accessories," that is an incorrect micharacterization. The blog is an authorized account from the paintball manufacturer, objectively, one of the largest in the world. It is owned and exclusively operated by the foreign company and was entirely independent of the team until the sponsorship agreement.

While this does appear to be a more difficult area, as it pertains to citations, due to the fact that books, scholarly articles and the JSTOR database contains nothing about them, that appears a difficulty inherent to the entire genre of paintball. Held to that strict criteria Wikipedia would be entirely devoid of anything on the topic.

Given that background, the team's own website notwithstanding, the listed citations do appear intellectually independent and independent of the subject.

One final point in favor of keeping the page. My research suggests that the author correctly points out that the sport began in 1981. For sake of equivalency, this would be as examining the news coverage of baseball teams in 1874 (with baseball's commonly accepted invention date being in 1839).

This page should be kept. English Prof Wizard (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC) English Prof Wizard (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sport of paintball was only just created in 1981, so it is one of the most recently developed sports in the world. Scenario style tournaments are just in their infancy compared to other sports. Given that, the sport of paintball, especially scenario competitions, hardly receive any citable media coverage. In the case of the team in question, of the national articles covering the team, they were in print publications that do not have online mirrors, so an online link is not possible (one such article has been added). Complicating the matter further, all three of the national magazines that wrote about this team have since gone out of business, and accordingly, do not maintain a web presence or accessible database.

In total, I researched for over a week to compile the sources that I was able to find. One additional challenge is that paintball websites routinely purge older records, or archive them after a period of time, so even online articles written about the team are not available 24 months after being shared online. More challenging still, coverage of events and awards earned often are replaced on the hosting field’s websites in a matter of weeks following the event, as the sites are hosted by small businesses with a limited space for data on their websites (this was even the case for the international website for paintball manufacturer Valken, as mentioned). Finding remaining online links to awards that this team previously earned is extremely challenging. It is understandable, given how new the sport of paintball is, if one is unfamiliar with the sport, to see the verifiability of the page in question, but, Planet Eclipse is an international company (makers of the best-selling high-end guns in the world), located in England, and they selected that team for full sponsorship. Most notably, they partnered with the team to create the first scenario-team edition paintball marker in the world. That first is enormous and extremely notable to the sport, all of which are verified through the links, including the company’s official blog and account.

That said, please look at this as a developing article, one that will be further fortified to more clearly demonstrate the importance of its subject matter and support the existence of the page. Leaving the page up as a developing page will additionally offer the chance for many other Wikipedia editors to add content as they uncover it, further enriching the page. FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: FeelTheBernBaby (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

I was able to finally track down the specific issues from at least three of the publications that featured the team and I added those, in proper citation format, to the page. They provide information that is independent, reliable, and that provided significant coverage of the article's subject.FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The team was featured in four national magazine articles and in the only international paintball magazine to date. In closely examining the notability guidelines, "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself...have actually considered the [group] notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." The four magazines issues that featured the team were circulated throughout North America and had no affiliation with the team in any way. The International magazine that featured them was circulated throughout Europe, Russia, Asia, and North America and also did not have any affiliation with the team. These alone satisfy the specified Wikipedia standards with regard to Notability. FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the list of publications has grown, but I continue to research other publications as well. I have done my best to monitor the page and make all requested changes. Regarding the self-published citation issue, there's a ton that's been added by others that I have yet to get through. Wherever possible, I will try to find links that comply, but, from the sample I have looked at, they relate to trivial matters. Taking the team's schedule, for example, the link does run to their website, but the basis is not to show notability but to abbreviate the article and keep it clean (allowing a reader to consult the referenced schedule if they wish). I will continue to work through the citations, but I will need the weekend to get through them all, so I appreciate your understanding and patience as I do so.FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was well written, especially compared against the majority of new articles. Definitely seems premature to delete the page entirely, could be one to watch and see what links are added. It's not the type of subject matter that receives coverage by the typical reliable sources. On weight, the article is more credible than not, it should not be deleted. English Prof Wizard (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC) English Prof Wizard (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. None of the sources in the article seem to be all three of independent, reliable, and providing significant coverage, and I can't find any better searching the web myself. Of seventeen references, three are to the team's own website, one is to reddit, three to web forums, one to Facebook, one to youtube, and one does not even mention the team. Of the remainder, two are to the blog of some guy who sells paintball accessories, one is a press release which simply lists events, one more is an event listing, two are just galleries of photographs, and one is about a competition which according to the article the team were involved in – but the source itself doesn't mention them... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More sources have been added, but I still do not see that they meet the notability guidelines. The argument that some of those arguing to keep the article have made, that "It's not the type of subject matter that receives coverage by the typical reliable sources" could be a reason to suggest a change to wikipedia's policy on what constitutes a reliable source, but it's not a particularly good reason to keep the article under the current policies, I am afraid. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing that establishes notability in all the plethora of references provided. "Voting" by SPA's also doesn't give any confidence to arguments to retain Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a no-brainer; once I finished removing all of the sources that didn't meet WP:RS, there's nothing left. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious reasons--this could have been tagged as A7. Not notable, etc. 207.93.13.145 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per the above posts. The obvious campaign to save this article by people (or just the one person?) with no prior interest in Wikipedia is also a good reason to delete what's a clearly problematic article given it indicates that the article was created for promotional purposes. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Among the many links provided as references, I find none that leads to reliable sources. Article creator has visited my talk page suggesting he would find offline sources to verify notability, but I doubt that articles in Paintball 2Xtremes, Paintball Games International, and Action Pursuit Games would do. Fails WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:09, 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 21:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no reliable sources, google searches come up with nothing. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Among the *many* links provided as references, none seem to be notable. Dubious. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the author of this article and this is my first experience on the editor side of Wikipedia. In total, I have spent in excess of 47 hours researching, writing, and learning the very basics of this process. While there are many rules in play, the most often repeated in articles addressing new writers is to "be bold." I am going to take that advice. WP:SOURCEACCESS states that "[s]ome reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." A brief search of Google without results is not controlling, according to the guidelines. With regard to the requirements established in WP:RS, it says that the basis of Wikipedia articles should be reliable, published sources.

What forms the foundation of the article, and establishes the notability required, are eight magazine issues that feature the team. Three issues of Paintball 2Xtremes, two issues of Action Pursuit Games, one issue of Facefull, one issue of Jungle, and one issue of Paintball Games International. I am in the process of reaching out individually, to each of the remaining contact avenues listed for all of these publications, asking for the full details of the magazines, as well as where and how to best access them now. While I await word, my supplemental research reveals the following:

Paintball 2Xtremes had an average monthly circulation of 59,000 over the course of its publication and was sold worldwide.
Action Pursuit Games had an annual subscriber base of $105,000,000 per year, and at its peak, produced more than 50,000 copies per issue, was sold worldwide, and was voted as the most recognizable name in paintball.
Facefull ran for 11 years, and became the 17th best-selling sports magazine in the United States; it was sold worldwide.
Jungle was also sold worldwide and had a circulation that averaged 34,000.
Paintball Games International was based out of the United Kingdom, and had a circulation that peaked at roughly 71,000 and had the highest readership of any paintball publication in both Europe and Russia.

I compiled this information by starting with online searches, then meeting with librarians, visiting college libraries and accessing their databases, and even meeting with a manager at Barnes and Noble, who shared with me historical sales data and listing information.

In examining the standards of WP:RS, these publications wholly satisfy the conditions presented.FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had to think about this one, as the subject is obviously not as notable as we would normally like, but I had to ask myself this, would Wikipedia be better off if we keep or delete this article. If we delete it, we risk driving away a new editor who has spent a great deal of time researching and writing this article and would therefore be less inclined to write any more, and if we keep it, are we keeping a low quality article in the mainspace? To the last question, I don't think this is a low quality article and I don't think that keeping it in anyway degrades the overall quality of Wikipedia. So I propose we be bold and ignore all rules and keep it, and for those that need to stick with policy, I propose that the various paintball magazines that have covered this team passes the bar as far as reliable sources go. Robman94 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HARMLESS. Sorry "FeelTheBernBaby", but by the nature of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the most appropriate articles don't always get submitted. Maybe some of this information can be added to the teams website or a "paintball community" website? Wickypedoia (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the needed solid independent notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think most of the "delete" opinions above have neglected the point that specialist sources are acceptable in establishing notability. In my opinion, the independent sources cited on the article and referred to in this AfD add up to meet WP:GNG. I also agree with Robman94 above that most "delete" opinions in this discussion have basically been biting the newcomer - I find Nick-D's comment particularly worrying. Der yck C. 16:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI clerk note: I've made a finding of meatpuppetry of certain participants here, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FeelTheBernBaby. Unless the determination is overruled by an admin, the closer should disregard duplicate !votes. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:08, 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. Sandstein 09:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scars Souls[edit]

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

PROD removed. Band does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Possible WP:GARAGE and COI since the article's creator and main contributor is the band's drummer. Most of the sources cited are not reliable (band's own website, blogs) or merely state that the band exists (record label website, last.fm). XXX antiuser ^eh? 17:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for keeping the article up and running:
Yes, I am indeed the drummer, however, the band no longer exists. So the intention isn't promote the band or something like that, the idea behind to create the Wikipedia article is because Scars Souls is part of the Heavy Metal history in Brazil. The band played at the main concert venues in Brazil during its existence, it has three album (with label record - Masque Records ("Gravadora Masque Records". masquerecords.com.), beside that, it was invited to participate of 4 collections, one of them was released by Garage Art Cult, called Garage Voices. Garage Art Cult was stage of bands like: Agnostic Front, Angra, Madball, Planet Hemp, Los Hermanos, Exodus, Dorsal Atlântica and many others.
So please, don't erase part of Heavy Metal history in Brazil.
PS: During 90' and 00' the Internet was not so popular in Brazil, as it is today, because of that you cannot see a lot of articles about the band, but all Rock Magazines from that time has published articles about all three albums.
Acaj77 14:50, 27 April 2016 (GMT -3)
- @Acaj77: that is not the point. All those bands you mentioned were extensively covered by independent reliable sources. The sources cited in the article being discussed here are either not considered reliable by Wikipedia policy, or merely state that the band exists. By Wikipedia policy, existence does not prove notability. The article as it stands simply does not meet any of the guidelines of WP:MUSIC and borders on WP:LIPSTICK. XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as made by drummer, WP:GARAGE applies, not notable. Written like an advertisement.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Acaj77: if the band was reviewed in Brazilian rock magazines of the time then the onus is on you to provide citations to those magazines (date, issue, page number) as reliable sources, not link to your own web pages as "proof" of your importance. Richard3120 (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Acaj77's comment: Hello guys, I added several citations from various magazines, some of them I could find some links, but again, since it is too old, it isn't detailed, please check it out if it is Okay now or if you need anything else. If necessary I can share scanned pages from these magazines. Thank you @Richard3120: and @Antiuser: for your support.
Comment Well, this is the usual blizzard of links provided by a new editor and/or SPA. I don't know now, my feeling is to WP:TNT the article and write it without User:Acaj77 having any input due to COI. But that's if it's notable, which I'm doubtful about.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the links to the band's webiste, the links to Acaj77's own website, the links to the record company/graphic designer websites, and the hyperlinks to articles that don't exist online all need to be removed, plus the POV statements such as "After the excellent response to Troia..." – after that maybe we can see what's left. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. It's not just being wary in terms of the questionable offline citations and the unreliable online sources. We seem to have a case where a band maybe had a semi-significant role in a particular musical scene, maybe, but that's it. The group, as its own thing outside of that context, doesn't even begin to appear notable. This is not what one builds a good article on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it's a bit rich to call non-WWW sources "questionable" when many of them are dated 1993 and 1994. The editor has provided citations with publication, dateline, byline, title, and even exact page number in most cases. If a criticism of the reliability and provenance of a source is nothing more than "It's not on-line.", as it has been in this discussion since the editor provided these citations, then that reflects more on the editors making the criticisms than on the source itself. And it does not reflect well. The onus is now on the people questioning the sources to provide an explanation of why they are not reliable, independent, or in-depth coverage. We have been given exact details of what to look at. Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 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 redirect to 2016 in the United Kingdom. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK 2016[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kvng with no ping (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD) and the following rationale "WP:DEPROD consider merge to World Esperanto Congress". I would have supported the merge but the target article doesn't really have room for detailed discussion of the individual conferences, not that there is much to say, through I do have to say this one tries - it discusses things like the logo design, etc. Unfortunately, the sources fail our requirements: they mention the event in passing, or fail RS due to being primary/self-published. Most individual conferences are not notable; their series are more likely to be so - and nobody is suggesting that World Esperanto Congress should go. It's individual sessions, however, are not notable. I don't see an Esperanto wikia, perhaps fans of the language should consider starting one for such entries. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for now perhaps and if not, it can be deleted later or merged however needed. This could be kept but it's still questionable for solidity at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 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 08:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to World Esperanto Congress. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such a generic title certainly shouldn't lead to either an article about or a redirect to an article about Esperanto, so, whatever the notability or otherwise of the subject it needs to be covered under a different title. I very much doubt that more than a tiny percentage of readers typing in "UK 2016" would be looking for information about an Esperanto conference. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make a reasonable argument for delete here. ~Kvng (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I would suggest that after deletion this title should be redirected to 2016 in the United Kingdom. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like that too though that that would technically be a redirect request. I'm going to leave my !vote as it is. This can be handled by the normal editorial process once the AfD discussion is complete. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that this discussion is about this article, which should be deleted. My observation about creating a redirect afterwards was more in the way of a reminder to myself to do so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Charmed as I am to discover that there still is a World Esperanto Congress, I can find no indication of notability. The list of the locations of annual meetings at the main article suffices. No redirect is necessary since the World Esperanto Congress is a sturdy search term for any one interested in the subject, even though all such persons really ought to be googling in Esperanto, not English.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 18:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No obvious indication of lasting notability, nothing that can be merged and make sense in an existing article, and a highly unlikely redirect target. I would not object to its being redirected to 2016 in the United Kingdom, but people looking for "UK 2016" are unlikely to be looking for anything to do with Esperanto. Kahastok talk 20:52, 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 01:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Educators for World Peace[edit]

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

It is not verifiable, the article is used to provide an "authority" about a so called Ghandi Prize awarded to Woo Myung by IAEWP, I fear leaving a page of wich links are clearly from the same person, will just give that person as much credibility as if that price was awarded by some important institution like World Health Organization, wich is in reality not. There is no Media speaking about IAEP. Also it is important to note that there is MUCH "literature" on the web about Woo Myung wich is being reported by much people to be a cult leader, just search about maum meditation guys. If that meditation cult is really a good thing, then why the only sites speaking of it are the sites from cultist theirselves? RationalWiki (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for International Association of Educators for World Peace

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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that you've done your due diligence. You are right in that after this was created as a tiny stuby by Orlady someone added a huge amount of text to this. You're wrong about the media coverage as there are quite a few newss articles about awards it has made.[9] Google books shows up a number of mentions although most have just brief mentions, eg[10]. This book[11] calls it the third most important organisation in the development of peace education. It's affiliated with UNESCO in some way - the NGO Liaison Committee. I can't see any indication it ever gave out an award called the Gahndi Peace Prize, but this might help.[12]

Forgot - I blocked this editor due to their username, Hopefully they'll create a new one and come back here. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, I created this article as a stub 5-1/2 years ago after encountering statements in which a variety of people and organizations claimed credentials (I don't remember the particulars -- it probably included awards, academic degrees, and certificates of exemplary character and laudable service to mankind) from the International Association of Educators for World Peace. The article was a short stub because it contained all of the third-party-sourced information I could find about the organization that appeared reasonably likely to be reliably sourced. There wasn't much decent information, but I thought there was enough to (1) substantiate the existence of the organization, (2) indicate that independent observers perceive it to be a peace organization of some importance, and (3) indicate what it isn't (it is not a university, it does not have a high profile, etc.). Notability was marginal, and it still is marginal, as near as I can tell. However, it's clear that affiliates of this organization have taken over the article and filled it with unsourced self-promotion. The article should not be retained in its present form. Either edit it back to a stub or delete it. I could argue for either result. Orlady (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have found nothing particularly better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 18:11, 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AOA Black[edit]

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

Not notable for a separate article as they have only one release with the information covered in the history section of the article AOA. Rockysmile11^(talk) 03:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. They only have one release so far and there isn't enough information for a separate article. This isn't like Girls' Generation-TTS, who have multiple very successful releases. Random86 (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting better for the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this article have to keep. AOA is famous in korea and also famous k-pop singer. so each member of AOA has notability for Wikipedia. it is also AOA unit : AOA Black, AOA Cream, and AOA White.--Berlinuno (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berlinuno, notability is not inherited. That's why Youkyung and Chanmi don't have articles, even though they are members of AOA. Random86 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is stated in Wikipedia:Notability (music) that a band needs to have a single or album on any country's national music chart. With their debut single, Moya, hitting the Gaon Music Chart and Korea K-Pop Hot 100, they're worthy enough to be called "notable" and have their own article.Igetitcrackinlikebagbag (talk) 13:23, 6 May,2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with parent group AOA article. This subgroup doesn't appear notable enough to warrant a page on its own, and like its "sister" subgroup AOA Cream, it would benefit the reader more if they weren't looking through 3 different pages about what is essentially the same group of musicians. DeviantAttitude (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with only one release, and no talk of a future one, it not only seems unnecessary to give aoablack a separate article, but it also seems like people will just forget the sub unit ever existed if it's not put on the group's main page.Peachywink (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reluctantly re-listing this for a third time: further debate would be beneficial for this AfD discussion. st170e^talk 17:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly Keep. The most sensible thing is to merge all "sub-units" on the same page. But it would be inconsistent to leave the other one and delete this one, if they had a single on the charts. Someone could go ahead and merge them all, after this discussion closes, though it will probably get reverted by whomever it is that's being paid to promote them. How many times can a band have a "comeback" in one year? What is a "single album"? I don't get it. -- IamNotU (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IamNotU, I doubt anyone is being paid here. The page creator is a K-pop fan who has created many articles, some on non-notable topics, and all unreferenced. A single album is a CD single and all promoted releases are called comebacks in South Korea. Random86 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The K-pop industry is a legendary promotional machine, and I'd be surprised if they didn't have some paid editors on here. But I don't have any evidence that any are involved in this article, so it probably wasn't an appropriate comment. Some of the language in the AOA articles does sound a little promotional and advertising-like though. I supposed it's to be expected, given the subject. -- IamNotU (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Igetitcrackinlikebagbag comment. Donottroll (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per previous comments. I don't think AOA Cream merits its own article either; they're essentially one-single project groups. Yannaynay (talk) 21:47, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inflow (company)[edit]

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

An article about an online marketing company, created by a (nearly) single-purpose account. While the article looks professionally-made (which is to be expected from a marketing company), I doubt the notability of this company. "Among the 5000 fastest growing companies in the US" in one year hardly qualified. Srittau (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 17:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 17:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems to be that the main purpose of the article is to promote it by giving off the image that it is a well-known, notable 'fast-growing' company. I've checked online and can't find any news articles or anything of the like that would back up notability for this company so I doubt the notability of the company. The references attached to this article are varied and from different sources, which would seem to signify independent coverage, but it seems that a lot of these are only trivial mentions. The company may well be notable but there aren't sufficient claims to this on the article. st170e^talk 18:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. While there is some coverage, I don't see any real claim to notability. -- Irn (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per rationale, some crucial information (promotional) are self referencing and/or blogs. -- H^akan·IST 20:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have found nothing better and the current article also contains nothing solidly convincing, only expected coverage. Certainly enough consensus here, SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 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 merge to Pretty Boy Floyd. Having been up 3 weeks and not much discussion happening it's pointless waiting 3 extra days when it may aswell be merged now so closing as such. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristy Majors[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, searches came up with very little. None of the songs that the band he was in made charted in the top 100. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Pretty Boy Floyd, nothing suggesting his own improved article, seems best known for that group. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 18:51, 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 17:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Pretty Boy Floyd – fails WP:MUSICBIO as a solo artist, his business exploits are unverified, and the majority of the text in the article is COPYVIO from the artist's own website. Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 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. Consensus is that this is not notable and promotional. I've not placed much weight on the remaining 'keep' argument as I cannot be sure it is made in good faith owing to the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GPX Global Systems Inc.[edit]

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

Non notable and promotional; the creator removed the speedy tag several times, it was reinserted, but later removed by an ip account. Numerous references, almost all of which are press releases, a very common technique for promotional articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I first reviewed this, tagged it for deletion, with which it was removed several times and other attempts of deletion were removed with absolutely no explanations. Nothing at all suggests better and I especially still confirm my PROD. I thank DGG for finally nominating as I myself was planning to boldly go. Also notifying tagged Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merely promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The article has notable references, not just mere press releases. Please re-check. Moreover, it is aimed for and by the students, not for the company's promotion. Asthana Ankit (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has been created on the basis of notable references form information collected on articles published from notable references. The afd tag was accidentally removed while making the edits. Steps have been ensured to remove press releases. Not for promotions but purely in lines with encyclopaedic pursuits. Arnab2803 (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this coverage isn't convincing apart from the Reuters article. Blythwood (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been from the start a promotional piece for the company. No notabilty exists at all. Attempts to remove the promotional sections have been fruitless. Other editors keep adding promotion material back in. The article only exists as is to promote the company and its services. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am an MBA student and as a part of my curriculum I am doing research on data centers. I have been an avid reader of Wikipedia and when I found pages on other companies, I think this company should also have a page because it has got sufficient media coverage notable enough to be on Wikipedia.
Other wiki pages on data centers like Equinix, Ctrl S and Netmagic that I went through, lack encyclopedic content but still they are on Wikipedia. Keeping that in mind, and respecting wikipedia please see that so many technical terms are linked to other wiki pages to make it encyclopedic rather than an advertisement.
Moreover, please see that the article has notable and independant references, they are not mere promotional press releases:
Daily News Egypt is a notable newspaper

The Times of India is a notable newspaper

Data Quest is a notable magazine

Infotech Lead is a notable News Portal

Voice and Data is a notable magazine

Reuters is a notable news agency

CIO Outlook is a notable magazine

Economic Times is a notable newspaper whose award has been given to the organisation

Amazon website is notable independant website which has listed its partnership with the company.

Uptime Institute is a notable organisation who has listed GPX as their certified data center.

Data Center dynamics is a notable media and publishing organisation

Telecom Paper is a notable news and research organisation

~~14.97.206.206 (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC) — 14.97.206.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Without prejudice towards the article itself, I've opened an SPI here. GAB^Hello! 21:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Delete - Promotional article for a non-notable subject. GAB^Hello! 00:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the reference quality is poor-- or as my grandma used to say, "disreputable".HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Heger[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Article tries to assert notability by association, but no reliable, independent sources seem to exist asserting that Heger himself is notable. The bulk of the article has been copied from Heger's Facebook page, neither an independent nor a reliable source. ubiquity (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should this be speedied as a copyvio? Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it was already speedied for that, plus spam & lack of significance, on May 3 by CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs). I didn't see the original so I don't know how close this one is. The text is not an exact copy of the Facebook page, but it's an obvious cut and paste. ubiquity (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case it'll have to be AFD. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The earlier version of this article had a very high overlap when I checked it with earwig's copyvio tool, so I deleted primarily on that basis. After you pinged me I went and checked the current version against the Facebook page. While there is still a bit of duplicated text, it's not the total copy and paste that the earlier version was. However, right now the search engine function on the earwig tool is borked, so unless you have a specific website to compare it with, the best chance at finding other pages it could have been copied from in addition to Facebook would be to put sections into google and see what comes up. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 04:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 19:10, 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 17:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated the previous version as a speedy on ground of notability and I see no difference here. This looks like self publicity for a non-notable actor. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:00, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joy-Ann Biscette[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although has won pagent, fails WP:NMODEL. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It just needs improvement. I readily found four references to add, she's won a number of titles in addition to Miss Saint Lucia Universe in 2011.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 19:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Miss Universe contestants probably the most notable of any of the beauty contest contestants out there. Article needs work, though. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know notability is not inherited. The Banner talk 17:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a national-level winner who participated in one of the Big Four international competition. As for the earlier suggestion that the subject fails to meet WP:NMODEL, it isn't clear why that would be a relevant criterion for assessing someone who participates in an international competition. Also, the nomination was based on a lack of sources, but sources have been found and now appear in the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:01, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Gifford Stower[edit]

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

After a discussion of notability on Talk:John Gifford Stower, I am sadly still convinced the subject is not notable. A participant of a notable event and included on List of Allied airmen from the Great Escape, as notability is not inherited he still needs to pass WP:BIO, and he does not. There is no in-depth coverage except few sentences which more or less make the current article as long as it will ever be, and he also does not seem to be notable from the military angle (no decorations, insufficient rank). "He was one of the 76 men who took part in the "Great Escape"", but that is not enough to be in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator. I set out my arguments for retention in Talk:John Gifford Stower, and doubt I will have anything to add. I agree that Stower does not appear to be notable for anything other than his part in the Great Escape. Narky Blert (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a new citation I found by accident - from the Ottawa Journal of 20 May 1944. Narky Blert (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to the talk page discussion 41 of the victims of the Great Escape have articles on wikipedia. The book sources listed on the article are RS and probably enough for this article to be retained as a well written stub, there is nothing wrong with well written stubs and the most experienced editors often create them. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited, if 41 other escapees are notable, so be it. This one has to be considered based on his own merits, or rather, those of the sources, none of which has been shown to have more then 2-3 sentences on the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best - Still questionable for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 19:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a classic WP:BIO1E. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:14, 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 17:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 22:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO1E. EricSerge (talk) 02:53, 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 and redirect to Blessed (Flavour N'abania album). MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Oku[edit]

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained independent coverage in reliable source. WP:NSONG states that "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." The sources in the article all point to a review of the album and not the song. I redirected the article to its parent article per WP:NSONG, but User:Stanleytux decided to revert my redirect. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Apparently fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. As redirecting has been disputed with a call for this consensus driven debate, article should be deleted and title then redirected as {{R from song}} to the album article Blessed (Flavour N'abania album) per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:37, 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 17:29, 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 Blessed (Flavour N'abania album). MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shake (Flavour N'abania song)[edit]

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained independent coverage in reliable source. WP:NSONG states that "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." The sources in the article all point to a review of the album and not the song. I redirected the article to its parent article per WP:NSONG, but User:Stanleytux decided to revert my redirect. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Apparently fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. As redirecting has been disputed with a call for this consensus driven debate, article should be deleted and title then redirected as {{R from song}} to the album article Blessed (Flavour N'abania album) per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:37, 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 17:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect, not at all independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 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 and redirect to Blessed (Flavour N'abania album). MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinny Baby[edit]

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained independent coverage in reliable source. WP:NSONG states that "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." The sources in the article all point to a review of the album and not the song. I redirected the article to its parent article per WP:NSONG, but User:Stanleytux decided to revert my redirect Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Apparently fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. As redirecting has been disputed with a call for this consensus driven debate, article should be deleted and title then redirected as {{R from song}} to the album article Blessed (Flavour N'abania album) per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:35, 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 17:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Justice[edit]

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

This noticeably troubled article is still questionable for all applicable notability with my searches also finding nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Comes very close to a speeedy deletion as promotionalism , under criterion G11. FWIW, the mostlikely Google search is "Barbara Justice" "Harlem Hospital" but there was nothing substantial. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching under "Barbara J. Justice" finds other sources, especially in Google Books. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't delete articles because they are "troublesome" to fix. I removed a lot of the promotional material. I also went ahead and did some research and added several RS to the article. Justice is significant in the fight against AIDs for black patients in the 1990s. Her method of treatment wasn't effective, however, but the fact that she was involved and vocal about black patients with AIDs at an early stage is significant. Passes GNG with multiple RS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable sources now, obviously notable. Great job by Megalibrarygirl. —Prhart com♥ 14:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Certainly does not pass WP:Prof, but may pass WP:GNG as a notable eccentric and contrarian. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This article subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and thereby passes WP:GNG. Some of the sources are as follows:
McKinney-Whetstone, Diane; Cain, Joy Duckett (December 1996). "Our Beauty Our Strength". Essence 27 (8):
"Barbara J. Justice, MD, ABPN, ABFP". Elite American Physicians. 10 January 2014
English, Merle (Feb 7, 1990). "BROOKLYN NEIGHBORHOODS". Newsday. p. 21.
Fiske, John; Hancock, Black Hawk (2016). Media Matters: Race & Gender in the U.S. Politics (2nd ed.). Routledge. ISBN 9781317498520.
Jones, James H. (1993). Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (New and expanded ed.). New York: The Free Press. p. 235. ISBN 9780029166765.
"Racism Charged as AIDS Drug is Challenged". Santa Cruz Sentinel. 2 September 1990.
Wittes, Benjamin (29 October 2007). "Miracle Worker?". Washington City Paper.
"The Angry Politics of Kemron". Newsweek. 3 January 1993.
"AIDS Work at a Nation of Islam Clinic Is Questioned". The New York Times. 4 March 1994.
"The History Of Kemron Clinical Trials". Washington Informer. 14 May 1997.
Nattrass, Niccoli (2012). The AIDS Conspiracy: Science Fights Back. Columbia University Press. p. 59. ISBN 9780231520256.
"Newsmakers". Aiken Standard. 1 March 1996. Retrieved 17 May 2016 – via Newspaper Archive.
Carmichael, Stokely; Thewlwell, Ekwueme Michael (2003). Ready for Revolution: The Life and Struggles of Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture). New York: Scribner. p. 736. ISBN 9780684850030.
Rice, John (26 May 1996). "Pan-African Crusader Still Ready for Revolution". Los Angeles Times.
"Wounded Rap Artist Avoids Jail, for Now". The New York Times. 15 December 1994.

With all these reliable sources such as newspapers, books, articles and magazines, and the significant coverage within their pages the subject has well crossed the threshold oh notability WP:N and passes WP:GNG. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 19:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian propaganda[edit]

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

An extremely badly written article with poor English and severe WP:POV and WP:RS problems (all the references within the article are Ukrainian websites of dubious credibility). The topic of "Propaganda in Russia" may be notable per se (as is Propaganda in the United States or Propaganda in the Soviet Union), but I believe this article is a case of WP:BLOWITUP. --Buzz105 (talk) 16:36, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is certainly notable -- see Putin's Propaganda Machine: Soft Power and Russian Foreign Policy or Russian propaganda over Crimea and the Ukraine: how does it work?, for example. WP:BLOWITUP is not policy; not even close. Our actual policy is to preserve and improve such content. Andrew D. (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the topic is notable, although the content in its current form definitely could be improved particularly in relation to neutral point of view and sourcing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beyond BLOWITUP not even being policy, it's not a rationale of which I personally believe makes any sense -- deleting an article and then re-doing it is a very superficial action. We could be improving it, right here, right now, but instead one has to take it to AfD and make things a distraction. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 07:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I cleaned up the article a bit; a lot of the sourcing was OR or SYNTH. I would support the move of this article to Propaganda in Russia, as "Russian propaganda" brings up a lot of Cold-war era sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a notable subject; however, it does need work as pointed out above and agree it should be moved "Propaganda in Russia". Kierzek (talk) 13:22, 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 to delete This debate had valid opinions on both sides. There does not appear to be a consensus to delete this article. That being said it is generally agreed that the article needs significant improvement. If these improvements are not made in a reasonable time then another AfD may be justified in the future. HighInBC 16:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black supremacy[edit]

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

As has been pointed out by myself and others above (and apparently pointed out over the years too) this article is a disaster and totally out of whack with Wikipedia policy...A. The lead section is an original research/opinion essay that cites absolutely nothing whatsoever. B. The lead section and the body of the article have absolutely nothing to do with each other..the lead in no way summarizes what is in the body of the article (this was pointed out above by another editor in the preceding TALK section). C. the topic "Black Supremacy" doesn't appear to exist in the real world...there don't appear to be any notable sources that cite/refer to "Black Supremacy" as a notable phenomenon/movement. It appears someone decided on their own to gather together a bunch of groups and decided on their own to label these groups "Black Supremacy" (ie basically invent the term) in order to create a Wikipedia article. I'm likely going to initiate a AfD for this...any thoughts first?68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC) created from talk outage comment after request at afd talk. -- GB fan 13:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 14:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above statement is mine, moved over from the talk page with the assistance of GBfan..His moving it over should not be considered an endorsement of what is contained within the statement.68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but pare back to what can be reliably sourced. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

really not sure this would ever actually be done nor if it's even possible (ie not sure what if anything could remain)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep but a major revamp is definitely needed. Jdcomix (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to DRAFT?: this is another possibility, I do believe..the keeps above have even acknowledged how poor the article is...still don't know if the topic even really exists in any notable sense though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral I endorse everything said by Malik Shabazz and the drastic need for a major revamp mentioned by Jdcomix, but the subject is article-worthy, even if the current article isn't WP-worthy. Pincrete (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you'd add a bit more in regards to your research as to whether the term "Black Supremacy" is even a thing in the real world of any notability that can be sourced...ie that there is a notable phenomenon in the real world being referred to as "Black Supremacy"..what do you suggest as far as the article not being currently "WP-worthy"?? Should it be put into DRAFT space? what might a proper article even look like based on the research you've done (as you've described in the RfC going on there now??)68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that is, you agreed that the article teeters on being a hoax article, and that you can't find sources to suggest the topic even exists...but then you vote to keep it without even mentioning the research you've done? what gives??68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a 'hoax' article in the WP sense of wholly 'non-existent', simply very bad at present. My research was cursory, but sufficient to persuade me that the implied connections to named organisations in the article, are mostly SYNTH, OR, dubious or not properly given context. That cursory research also persuaded me that the term has been used by RS of certain individuals, theories and 'wings' of some organisations. Even the Yeti has an article, part of its job is to establish to what extent the Yeti IS real. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as anyone who clicks the source links above will quickly see, there is plenty of evidence of notability, which is the only rationale that would justify outright deletion in the nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll have to look more closely..there's just some superficial uses of the phrase "black supremacy"...there's nothing to suggest there's an existing coherent movement or phenomenon known as "black supremacy" as this article tries to suggest...in contrast with "black power"/"black separatism" etc etc.68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't claim there's a unified black supremacy movement. Unaffiliated sources such as SPLC have used the term to describe the beliefs of groups such as the New Black Panther Party. clpo13_(talk) 18:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article's very existence suggests it's a coherent, existing phenomenon that's out there in the real world...it's true that splc used the phrase 'black supremacy' in referring to some of the beliefs of some of the people associated with this one particular group...I suppose that could be used in the article about that group then...but this article as it stands now is entirely original research and synth...at least move it to DRAFT or something??68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really, does it, any more than the existence of the Yeti article suggests that yetis are out there in the real world? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article is WP:OR and SYNTH and should be deleted in its current form. There may be room for an article on Black supremacy term (as the White pride article does), but no on the "ideology". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There would actually be no need for a 'rename', merely a re-focus to describe how the term has been used, about whom/what, by whom, when etc. Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was "...in its current form". A new article with the same name can always be created. As the article stands now, it's nothing but OR and SYNTH, and is not adding any value to Wikipedia. I therefore support the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your assessment of the present article .... It's a disgrace to WP. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, with the understanding that if anyone wants to re-create a neutral and properly sourced version of this page, they are welcome to do so. Article as it stands has had chronic sourcing and POV issues, which have been known about for several years with no one stepping up to actually clean up the article and ensure that it is verifiable and NPOV - I think in large part because there are very few sources that discuss the topic in any significant depth. I'm happy to change my vote to keep if/when the article actually gets cleaned up and somebody finds enough RS to hang a well-referenced article on, but I'm not holding my breath - and until that happens, we're better off with no page (or maybe a redirect to Black nationalism?) than the current page, which is not reliably sourced and not NPOV. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything I would say has been said by Pincrete and Fyddlestix. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jdcomix. --Laber□^T 09:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although there are quite a number of sources using the term in passing, and describing people and ideas as 'Black supremacist'. I could not see any defining the term or describing or studying the 'ideology' or phenomenon in any depth (as Fyddlestix says above). Pincrete (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Pettersburg, Orbach, Hamilton, Ture have all made claims about black supremacy in the past. It would be interesting to add their viewpoints as well. The rest of the article is pretty good too. BrxBrx (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pretty good? nothing in the article is inline with policy for a Wikipedia article..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would appear that the original editor who proposed this for deletion has been blocked for canvassing for votes for the deletion of this page. I for one, am now less inclined to believe his/her claims about this page, and the rationale for its deletion. BrxBrx (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somehwat confused, BrxBrx- GB fan doesn't seem to have been blocked. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PeterTheFourth, no, I meant 68.48.241.158. GB fan just copied his/her comments from the talk page to this afd discussion page. BrxBrx (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You now view 68.48.241.158's delete rationale in a worse light because they were sanctioned: what do you think of all the other delete votes and their rationale? Similarly tarred? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

68.48.241.158's block expired and is now unblocked and has been so for almost 4 hours. I agree with PeterTheFourth's sentiment, being sanctioned for canvassing should have no bearing on the validity of their argument. -- GB fan 11:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was blocked for "canvassing" for alerting Pincrete to this so Pincrete could discuss the research he had done into the sources on this topic and which he had already explained in the RfC (to be helpful to others with the goal of improving the encyclopedia...note even the "keeps" mostly agree the article is a disaster...so would think this would really be a "vote" to perhaps move it into DRAFT space or something?)..the idea is to get something done to improve the encyclopedia..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I don't consider myself 'canvassed' in the least. I had advised IP 158 about AfD procedure on the article talk page on the same day as he opened this AfD and contacted me on my talk. The link to this AfD was posted publicly on article talk by 158 and as I was watching both article and talk, I would have found out immediately anyway. A bit naive about practice perhaps, but nothing sinister about IP 158's actions. Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia to cover. I don't see any problems (as described above) that can't be handled better through editing than by just deleting the article. Deli nk (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how about moving it to draft until if/when it's improved to be displayed to the public...most everyone agrees it sheds a bad light on Wikipedia as it stands...and no one has come forth to improve it in years (as it may be difficult/impossible to do so)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may need to be cleaned up some, however the subject is notable, there are a number of sources to show this, and the topic as stated above is appropriate to cover. To add, the article should NOT be moved to a draft, as this page can indeed be worked on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it shouldn't be moved to draft because it can be worked on?? the point is that is where it should be worked on as it's not ready for public display currently..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can be cleaned up while still in the mainspace. There's enough in the article to keep it there, while improving it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nothing in the article is in line with Wikipedia article policy, it would seem....you'd have to look into that carefully yourself or defer to the people above who have looked into it..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

158, friendly advice, responding to everyone's comments, without adding anything new, isn't encouraged on AfD, it just 'clutters' the discussion. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

understand, I've mostly tried to get clarification from KEEP votes, to see if putting this back into a draft would be agreeable to them...because most of them state keep but then agree the article is terrible vis a vis article policy...but most of them don't follow up..so hopefully the closer will discount their votes or realize they're supportive of putting into draft or something...but I won't reply to posts again...but only wait to the end to again suggest how this all should be interpreted by the closer..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to tell the closer how to interpret the discussion. Whomever decides to close it needs to read the discussion and decide if there is a consensus to do anything. -- GB fan 19:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not to like tell them what to do but suggest a possible interpretation for them to consider is all I meant..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person who closes this will know how to close AFDs and doesn't need more advice from any of the editors who participated in the discussion. You have said your piece and responded to others. If someone add something and you can bring up something new then respond otherwise leave it alone. -- GB fan 19:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources that can be used to indicate notability. DimensionQualm (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such as?? Fyddlestix (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search shows these.[13][14]] More can also be found upon a deeper search, plus the ones already present in the article. DimensionQualm (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Briebart isn't a RS, and the SPLC source mentions black supremacy only once, in passing. Neither demonstrates notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT - While it's possible or perhaps even likely that a new article could be written on this topic, the current content should either be deleted, immediately stubbed or moved back into draft. It's not suitable as-is and a terrible, poorly-sourced and unrepresentative article is not better than no article at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Black separatism. The current article is total garbage and isn't likely to ever be able to improve. The only potentially reliable sources that exist regarding this topic refer to a fringe subculture within Black separatism/nationalism, but of which little is known precisely because there are so few of them. Laval (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to Black separatism; Laval has a point. Anything which might be seen as worth saving, which is not redundant, can be moved to the "Black separatism" article or made a sub-section therein. Kierzek (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the only reason to delete this article is WP:TNT. Wikipedia isn't here to protect peoples feelings, and this... "phenomenon" is notable enough to warrant an article. Seeing as the subject seems to be becoming more and more prominent, it would be better to create an acceptable article now rather than deal with the inevitable trash heep that would get made in its place.142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense: A. TNT is all that is required for justification, though there is plenty more B. whose feelings are being protected? and who has suggested anybody cares about anybody's feelings? C. no one has yet demonstrated notability D. any potential future article couldn't possibly be worse than the current one..(please forgive, won't respond again to this particular user but can't standby and let posts like this just go unchallenged)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any opinion about the substantive issue of whether we should keep or delete this article, but must note that the statement that WP:TNT is all that is required for justification is completely wrong. WP:TNT is an essay that runs counter to our policies and guidelines, by which an article can be rewritten at any time by anybody without requiring the prior deletion of the article history. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all of the other reasons too then..sure, stub it, put it into draft, whatever...just get this article in its current state from being seen by the public (and your opinion that the essay runs counter to guidelines is just that, an opinion)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, your statement that the TNT essay is all that is required for justification is not just an opinion but undisputed fact. If you think that my opinion is wrong then cite a policy or guideline that says that an article can't be rewritten without prior deletion of the article history. That would prove me wrong. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what are you even talking about? read my last response again..I'm done responding to you..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:59, 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

30 Foot Fall[edit]

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

I could find some info on them, but don't believe it adds up to WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Boleyn (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NBAND #5 (Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels) - two releases via Fearless Records and Nitro Records). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination my error, I didn't think they were on significant labels. Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Doc James, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holst Project[edit]

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

Non-notable "Art Reproduction Shop". I am unable to find coverage in any reliable secondary sources. Kolbasz (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Jdcomix (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Text copied from https://holstshop.com/ so deleted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 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 Move back to userspace. Move to User:Yohant1981/The Vandon Arms

Given the noted process issues, leaving in user space is preferred by policy (e.g., WP:ATD), and no argument was advanced that the content is so in appropriate as to warrant removal from user space. joe decker ^talk 15:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Vandon Arms[edit]

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

Article, with some advertorial overtones, about a band with no strong reliable source coverage to support a credible claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC: the sourcing here is almost entirely to dead links of event listings on pub websites, Facebook and user-generated content sites, with the closest thing to a reliable source being the "track listing only, no review" Allmusic page of a single compilation album on which they placed one song. That's not enough to get a band into Wikipedia in and of itself, and the quality of sourcing doesn't pass WP:GNG. Delete (or restore to userspace per Godsy?) Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to userspace, move this content back to User:Yohant1981/The Vandon Arms - @Bearcat: This content was moved from User:Yohant1981/The Vandon Arms on May 1 of this year with the move summary "stale draft found" by a user other than that whose userspace in which it resided. This should not be done if the content isn't suitable for the mainspace. There is also overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring in section B4 for this action (which is in the process of being closed).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that would be an acceptable resolution too. I've revised my nomination statement accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No improvement to the weak references. Recording and releasing their own music; getting a track or two played on satellite radio; appearing on the same bill that includes acts that are notable — these are the achievements of countless bands of no particular distinction. I add it all up and I just don't see any criteria where this band meets an encyclopedic level of notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: I don't dispute any of what you've stated. However, due to the process issues I've described above, the outcome of this AfD could be challenged. This should be returned to User:Yohant1981/The Vandon Arms, deletion can be sought at MfD, if desired.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:19, 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. A clear consensus to delete. A redirect can be made as part of the normal editing process. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Dunlap[edit]

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

No source verifies that she is the second oldest American, and no explanation on why would that be notable anyway. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. There isn't enough significant reliable source coverage to sustain a separate article. Reliable sources confirm the subject's age, but they don't acknowledge her as the second oldest living American. The best I could find was a passing mention of her in coverage about Goldie Michelson, the oldest living American. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Clear failure of WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage. Apart from the one sentence mention in the above response, the only other sources are routine birthday articles. The latest I could find is from 2014. Guidelines at WP:WOP wikiproject tell us an article such as this belongs on a list, not a standalone article. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete Nothing in this to even justify a redirect. Fails GNG and WP:PERMASTUB. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This, this (which verifies second oldest in America), and this justifies redirecting to the list of supercentenarians, in my opinion, but it falls short of GNG. ~ Rob^Talk 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (too early in the morning to decide which). Another article supported by just one gee-whiz source discussing whether or not oatmeal is the key to living forever. E Eng 10:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep EEng's remarks above make it clear he's determined to belittle longevity as a whole, and the second-oldest person in the US - and the oldest EVER from New Jersey - is certainly worth noting. 104.56.23.57 (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I see -- and the reason everyone else is recommending deletion/redirection? E Eng 01:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best this person is a case of a long living person born under a situation with clear records, but the article lacks good sources even at that and says nothing of substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Wikipedia should have articles about people only if their biography is notable, which on Wikipedia means covered in multiple, independent reliable sources. This article fails that test. This argument: "...the second-oldest person in the US - and the oldest EVER from New Jersey - is certainly worth noting," sincerely heartfelt though it may be, is not grounded in the logic of our general notability guideline. David in DC (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as nothing convincing for an actual notable own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge to list and redirect': Not enough for a standalone, but really, someone could have just boldly moved it to the list. Keep a redirect so that we don't have it recreated. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A move would not have succeeded given the editing history of at least one of the users involved in the creation/maintenance of this article. See this, for instance. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of the type of sourcing that would satisfy the requirements at WP:N. Canadian Paul 20:22, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 18:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruzawi School[edit]

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

Attempted to redirect this to the community, but it was reverted, so here we are. Not one single independent reference on the article. Do any exist? Don't know...l don't speak the language. I see no claim for any notability In the article sufficient that we should abandon the long term practice set forth in SCHOOLOUTCOMES that we keep high schools and redirect lower schools. John from Idegon (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 14:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 14:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 14:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This school has a substantial amount of sources writing about it, and in English since that was the official language in Rhodesia and continues to be one the the official languages in Zimbabwe, e.g.

Publication ... of the Rhodesia Africana Society. 20-22. Rhodesia Africana Society. 1969. pp. 88–. The Ruzawi School is fortunate that its early days have been so well documented. ... It starts with the erection of Ruzawi Inn, built on twenty acres of land offered by Cecil Rhodes to anyone willing to establish a coach stop and provide shelter ...
Winter Cricket: The Spirit of Wedza : a Collection of Biographies, Articles, Memories, and Recollections. S. Macdonald. 1 January 2003. pp. 91–. ISBN 978-0-7974-2721-1. ... He came to Rhodesia shortly after the Great War and served for a while with the British South Africa Company at ... On 2nd July 1955 he laid the foundation stone at the dedication of the Ruzawi School Chapel.
Rotary Club, Marandellas, Southern Rhodesia. Marandellas: diamond jubilee, 1913-1973. pp. 51–. Robert Grinham and Maurice Carver, opened Ruzawi School using the buildings of the old Ruzawi Inn, 4 miles from the ... the bar became the library, a nursing home (built in 1924-5) was adapted as a dormitory, and an old stable 50 yards ...{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
George Henry Tanser; Phillippa Berlyn (1967). Rhodesian panorama. G. H. Tanser and P. Christie. pp. 136–. Sir Henry Birchenough of the Beit Trust came to the rescue and the school was bought out by a company — Ruzawi ... New buildings were put up in 1937 to create proper boarding facilities for the ninety pupils, but these were still not enough. ... Intervention of the Second World War halted the drive of the country's progress, but did little to remove the numbers off the long waiting list for Ruzawi School.
Richard Hodder-Williams (25 November 1983). White Farmers in Rhodesia, 1890–1965: A History of the Marandellas District. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 100–. ISBN 978-1-349-04895-3.
Rhodesiana. Vol. 39. Rhodesia Africana Society. 1978. pp. 75–. In 1928 two young men, the Reverend Robert Grinham — who is still a well loved and highly respected citizen of this district — and Maurice Carver opened our present Ruzawi School using the buildings of the old Ruzawi Inn. One can ...
Henry St. John Tomlinson Evans (1945). The Church in Southern Rhodesia. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. pp. 60–.
Seventy Five Proud Years: Pioneers and Progress of Rhodesia. H.C.P. Andersen. 1965. pp. 96–. RUZAWI SCHOOL, MARANDELLAS Rhodesia is fortunate in having a number of her schools situated in lovely surroundings far from the hustle of crowded centres, and often accommodated in attractive and beautiful buildings. Such a school is Ruzawi School ...
David McDermott Hughes (12 April 2010). Whiteness in Zimbabwe: Race, Landscape, and the Problem of Belonging. Springer. pp. 78–. ISBN 978-0-230-10633-8. In 1928, two ex-missionaries founded the Anglican Ruzawi School for whites outside Marondera because, as they later wrote, the area boasted a "climate as nearly perfect as could be found" (Carver and Grinham n.d.:25). Farmers, however ...
Geoffrey Gibbon (1973). Paget of Rhodesia: A Memoir of Edward, 5th Bishop of Mashonaland. Africana Book Society. pp. 39–. ISBN 978-0-949973-05-4. ... the Diocese should lend them £800 to get the school started, and that it should buy Cedric with its 30 or 40 acres as a site for a senior school. In February 1928 Ruzawi School opened with 19 boys. Looked at in one way it was a harebrained ...

There is no problem in this case of meeting GNG, and the school is apparently also frequently mentioned in memoirs. @John from Idegon: have a look again. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This secondary school meets WP:GNG, as shown by the sources above. AusLondonder (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources, and even if the depth of coverage in each of these is not particularly strong, there is sufficient breadth for me to consider the coverage significant. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 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) 19:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E/16[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable sector. and the only given reference translates as "View the list of cities in Islamabad" Theroadislong (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It,s a new sector at northern islamabad. You can search it on Google earth. Sectors are not much notables, there are many other sectors lik I/10, E/17 ,G sectors.

Do not teach me about my own city, where i,m living.--Yes ji (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I,m searching for good sources, but now my network was not working properly.--Yes ji (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea to find sources before writing an article, Yes ji. Can I suggest using Wikipedia:Articles for creation next time you want to start an article? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing the appearance of sources that show that the sector is notable (not merely that it exists). WP:GEOLAND is the relevant guideline here; it discusses "populated, legally recognized places" which are usually considered to be notable, versus "populated places without legal recognition" which are usually not notable. Examples of the latter include "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments" and it seems reasonable to include the letter-number subregions of Islamabad (discussed here) in the category of "subdivisions". Now, if there were several independent reliable sources discussing E-16 in some kind of detail, it would be different - but not even the Wikipedia article itself claims any notability for this sector, it only mentions that it exists and that it is on the Grand Trunk Road. --bonadea contributions talk 14:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is the area we're talking about, and as explained by Bonadea, this small sub-division of Islamabad does not meet the relevant notability criteria. It could pass WP:GNG if sources could be found, but I can't find any that discuss the sector in any depth. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok-, I don,t want to discuss it much,--Yes ji (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Area is not notable and developed enough for it to warrant its own article for now. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 14:03, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Aragaki[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Ref search comes up with very little. Created by same editor who has been promoting doctor's residency programs; this article subject is a director of one of these non-notable programs. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing outstanding about this subject to set it apart from any other physiatrist who is not on Wikipedia. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 06:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sufficient, reliable, secondary sources that could be referenced in order to support notability per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG were not found. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the director of a residency program is not default notable, no other stated claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Swetoha[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria for automatic notability outlined in WP:NBASKETBALL Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, because he was the president of a WNBA franchise for six years and received substantial news coverage for his work in that post, making a reasonable case for his passing WP:GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as still questionable for better signs of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:26, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Byrt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG – no significant coverage in independent sources. Although the companies he has been associated with may be independently notable, Byrt himself has received only tangential coverage. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these sources are actually about him. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be plenty of reliable third party coverage of Byrt, his sustainable business ideas, and his role as executive chairman of Papyrus Australia, see Bloomberg, ABC Rural, and Sustainability matters. Johnfos (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Bloomberg link doesn't work, and article itself is poorly sourced with citations that are either connected to or make little to no mention at all of the subject. No third-party links were found, with a search turning up mainly an insurance agent with the same name. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and clarification. I think you need to search a little more deeply, and not get distracted by someone else with a similar name. This is part of what the Bloomberg link says about Byrt:

"Mr. Edward Michael Byrt, also known as Ted, LLB serves as a Senior Partner of Norman Waterhouse. Over a decade, Mr. Byrt has been appointed to a number of private and public corporation boards to which he has general commercial legal skills and a diversity of experience from his legal and business background. He serves as an Executive Director of Papyrus Australia Limited. He serves as a company director and legal consultant. For 35 years, he was a Partner of Norman Waterhouse Lawyers, where he provided strategic commercial advice to industry, commerce and government enterprises. In his professional career He has advised many companies undertaking business in Australia and overseas markets, as well as foreign companies operating in Australia. He has a particular interest in promoting Australia-China business. He has been Chairman of Papyrus Australia Limited since July 2009 and has been its Director since December 2004. He has been an Independent Non-Executive Director of Treyo Leisure and Entertainment Ltd. since October 28, 2008. He serves as a Director of Business SA. He served as an Independent Non-Executive Director of China JXY Food Limited from April 2011 to July 10, 2012. He serves as the Chairman of the South Australian China Cluster and served as National Vice-President/National Director of the Australia China Business Council. He served as Director of Papyrus Australia Ltd. Mr. Byrt received his LLB from Adelaide University." Johnfos (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC Rural link says:

"Executive chairman Ted Byrt hopes the product will reduce the use of plastic in the industry. This is the first time that banana fibre has been used for this sort of product, so we had a lot of due diligence that was expected of us, including taking Australian banana fibre that we processed up in Queensland to China and having it processed through their paper maché machinery to prove that it works. Mr Byrt says the initial order is for five million trays a year to transport fruits like apples and pears. Papyrus Limited has headquarters in Adelaide, but its main processing plant is in the farm north Queensland town of Walkamin, where it also sources material from plantations in the Atherton Tablelands. Mr Byrt says more jobs will be created at its plant, although he didn't say how many. Once the company has proven the product, Mr Byrt hopes other industries, like hospitality, will also be interested."

Yes, the article needs considerable work, but there really does appear to be some useful source material around, which establishes notability. Johnfos (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't they being added in the name of saving the article as we speak, then? Aside from the (nonexistent) Bloomberg link, there's no third-party sources cementing his notability outside Australian niche environmental sites. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject is quoted in sources talking about ventures he's responsible for. None of these sources actually have significant coverage about the subject himself. Not notable. ~Kvng (talk) 13:58, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nay Nay[edit]

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

Tagged it for notability a few days ago. When the tag was removed today without any improvements on establishing notability, decided to see if I could find any sourcing. Couldn't. Now, the commonality of the expression this rapper chose for his stage name made research difficult, but I couldn't find a single in-depth reference from an independent, reliable source on any of the search engines: News, Newspapers, Books, Highbeam, (and I did do Scholar - just in case). Even when adding "Rapper" to the search, no results. Based on the info in the article, he doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Based on the username of the editor who created the article, this might be an autobiography. The single review currently in the article is from a site which I am not sure passes as a reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only four hits on google for "nay nay rapper" or "rapper nay nay", none of them reliable sources, everything else comes up blank. Utterly fails WP:MUSICBIO in every possible way. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nay Nay passes WP:MUSICBIO criteria #7 (Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city). I see multiple independent secondary sources relating to him, but due to the commonality of his stage name, more specific keywords should be used to better find results. For example, he is currently featured on WNVZ's Shaggfest website, which is promoting a music festival performed at the biggest venue in the state of Virginia (Veterans United Home Loans Amphitheater), alongside other notable artists such as Diplo, Travis Scott, Pusha T, Lil Dicky, Daya, Rotimi, and Eric Stanley (violinist). "#Shaggfest" was a topic trending worldwide on twitter with Nay Nay on the lineup. His collaborative works with Funk Volume artists Hopsin and SwizZz also passes WP:MUSICBIO criteria #10 (Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.) to my understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrs1994 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Nrs1994 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - The WNVZ is not an independent reference, being a promotional site for the festival. Regarding #7, there's no indication this is an accurate statement, that this artist is one of the most prominent representatives, and even if that assertion could be proved, you leave out the second half of that criteria, which states: "note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." This artist clearly doesn't meet those standards. Regarding #10, nothing to indicate this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing actually suggesting solidly better, the listed coverage is especially simply not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing how the subject comes close to passing WP:MUSICBIO. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:MUSICBIO to my understanding. I just read an article about him here (http://soundspurple.com/up-coming-artist-nay-nay/). I would also consider his songs with Hopsin and SwizZz as qualifications for WP:MUSICBIO criteria #10 as they are well known by Funk Volume fans. I've also seen that he has performed live with Hopsin and opened for Funk Volume member Dizzy Wright, both well known acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basostak (talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Basostak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep The subject passes WP:MUSICBIO. The subject is notable and the page is informative and unbiased, meeting Wikipedia´s standards. BeachGirl757 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— BeachGirl757 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I looked at the sources covering this subject and it appears to satisfy WP:MUSBIO in sections 1 and 7. Though some significant work would need to be done, to find more sources, I say keep. Lovermusicr28 19:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Lovermusicr28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - you didn't address any of the issues regarding either #1 or #7. Simply saying something is true doesn't make it true. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've yet to see one reliable source commenting on him, rather than merely being mentioned in various blogs. I'd also like to note my alarm at the article using Last.fm as a source of information (rather than just an external link or whatever), speaking as a habitual user of it myself. For goodness sake, anyone can write anything on Last.fm and the odds of editorial oversight are slim to none. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm also yet to see reliable sources mentioning him, rather than merely being mentioned in various blogs. Vinay089 (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Outside of the various blogs (that not only mention the subject, but rather go into much detail about him), I have found both newspaper and television news reports on the subject, as well as information about the subject on other platforms, including (but not limited to) a major radio station website and main live event websites. There most definitely are reliable sources on this subject. Nrs1994 (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, this AfD for a non-notable rapper has been flooded with SPA's. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "We need to find good sources" argument doesn't work, because there are no good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are the sources that I found:

http://www.thedominioncollective.com/2015/03/18/virginia-beach-independent-rapper-nay-nay-and-singer-songwriter-bryan-mahon-to-perform-shaggfest-2015-this-summer/ - not an RS, is a WP:MILL piece about a local performance.
- A couple news articles about an unrelated female rapper

And that's it. This article will almost certainly not survive with its current sources, no RS's, most WP:MILL or very local. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because you ignore the fact that there are other sources does not mean that the other sources do not exist. For example, here is a newspaper article from just the other day about the subject: http://www.dailypress.com/entertainment/dp-fea-shaggfest-0520-20160519-story.html. He was on the televised news literally yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8BeQKYs8YI. There certainly are reliable sources about this subject, just look a little harder for them. Nrs1994 (Talk) 10:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Youtube is not a reliable source. I also doubt that the daily press is. Also, all of these seem to be WP:MILL sources, coverage which is normally expected for a person, read WP:RS. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple of YouTube videos and some routine press coverage don't warrant an article on the subject. Fails GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 04:09, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expressions of Social Justice Festival[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a minor local film festival, which hasn't been substantively updated since 2009. An event like this certainly qualifies for a Wikipedia article if reliable sourcing about it is present, but does not get an automatic freebie just because it existed -- but I can't find any quality sourcing to salvage this with, nor indeed any indication that it's ever run again since 2009. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be honest, I can't find any evidence to show that this even had a 2009 festival and any sort of content about the 2007 festival is extremely sparse. This was the only thing I could even pull up. I kind of doubt that the 2009 festival actually happened, to be honest, given that there's zip out there that isn't a mirror of the Wikipedia article, and it's likely defunct at this point. Either way, this festival doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find sourcing that establishes notability. Edgeweyes (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, I can't find any reliable sources on the topic. Clearly fails to meet WP:GNG. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:49, 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 keep. Consensus is to keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Jaykar[edit]

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

Still questionable for the applicable notability as although there's a large list of works, my searches have only found expected news and mentions at Books (barely one), News, Highbeam and WP:INDAFD. Notifying 1st AfDers JzG, MaxSem and Eluchil404. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a well-known Maranthi Bollywood actress. She passes WP:NACTOR #1. I've added sources to her roles and she does, actually appear in non-routine coverage in the news in India. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR [15][16][17]- Managerarc™^talk 08:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as significant coverage in reliable sources have been shown above and sources added to the article so WP:BASIC is passed as well as WP:NACTOR for prominent roles in notable productions. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Experience Manager[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB with mostly primary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 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 02:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused - this article is about a piece of software, but you're listing it for deletion because it's not a notable website? I don't know if there are specific notability guidelines for software; if so, they should be consulted. If it's not considered notable enough for its own article, I would suggest merging a summary of the information into the appropriate section of Adobe Marketing Cloud. - IMSoP (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no merge or anything of the sort it seems because my searches have found only a few several links and several of them simply being actual press releases, nothing at all to suggest there's the needed sourcing for notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Webber (poet)[edit]

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

After trying to copyedit and improve the article, a cursory google search does not turn up anything recommending the subject is notable. Fails WP:GNG -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this is basically a BLPPROD now as there's also nothing for any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recaldent[edit]

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

The advice on my other submission on my other Article for Deletion, suggested another listing for this specific page, so i have. My reasons for nominating this article are that, it is a blatant advertisement article, promotes named brand all over the place without giving actual scientific evidence or effectiveness for its claims.--RuleTheWiki (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate and remove the brand name, which is currently the title and mentioned in the lead. Once this is done it can be properly evaluated for com0liance with the WP:MEDRS standards. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom: it is an advertisement without proper secondary source references. DeVerm (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it really that bad? The brand name appears only in the title and one mention in the lead. The references are a bunch of scientific journal articles (normally regarded as the best type of sources) I'm not so sure they can be dismissed so casually. At the very least the sources should be indivudually evaluated per MEDRS. As a chemical substance that has been described in scientific literature it is notable, regardless of considerations such as usefulness. Chemical substances, much like living species, are notable merely for having been confirmed to exist and properly described. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thing is there is already a page about Amorphous Calcium Phosphate which includes a section on its combination with Casein Phosphopeptide, so this page doesn't really have any purpose to that effect, this article could just as easily slide into Amorphous calcium phosphate or Remineralisation of teeth, either way, a blatant advertisement article, with mediocre sources and even a Trademark Icon on it, this page needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuleTheWiki (talk • contribs) 13:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:01, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhu Guptara[edit]

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

No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. The subject appears to have a successful career as a business consultant, but his most notable appointment appears to be as a board member of a UBS subsidiary. The main editors of the article are the WP:SPAs Weinfelden (talk · contribs) and 83.189.162.226 (talk · contribs), so it appears autobiographical. – Fayenatic London 07:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also nominated the rest of the articles about his family at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guptara. – Fayenatic London 20:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any non-trivial mentions in independent, third-party sources. Most of the references are dead links, most of the Google search results are either Wikipedia mirrors or non-independent. utcursch | talk 02:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've yet to see reliable sources commenting on him. Vinay089 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article never actually lists any easily comprehensible information to suggest basic and minimal acceptance of notability, there's simply nothing here convincing overall. SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 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. Consensus to delete the articles following which I'll speedy delete the Guptara page as an obviously unnecessary disambiguation/surname page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guptara[edit]

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

No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. The page Guptara was created as a family history for Prabhu Guptara's family; I have nominated his biography separately (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prabhu Guptara). The main editors of the article are the WP:SPAs Weinfelden (talk · contribs) and Bigdaddysmama (talk · contribs), so it appears autobiographical. In 2007 Utcursch reduced it to a dab page linking the three family members who have articles.

I am also nominating the following related pages created by the same editors, as non-notable twin teenage authors and their books:

Guptara Twins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) {last full version before redirecting: [18])

Also this page created by a fan which is now a redirect:

– Fayenatic London 07:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it stands, this is a surname page as useful as most other surname pages, wrongly categorised as a dab. If the linked articles are deleted, then this would be empty and could be speedied. I'm not convinced these should be bundled. Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boleyn: this is all one family, as I have now made clear on the page Guptara, whose name was invented by their grandfather; see previous version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guptara&oldid=130854142. There will be nothing left to disambiguate if the articles on the twins are deleted. – Fayenatic London 12:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that there's no need for a surname page if these articles are deleted, but htat any decision on the dab should be made only if they are deleted. Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unable to find any evidence of notability. Ignorning Wikipedia mirrors, there are no non-trivial mentions in reliable, independent sources.
- Conspiracy of Calaspia and Insanity Saga: Fail WP:NBOOK
- Jyoti Guptara and Suresh Guptara: Fail WP:NAUTHOR
- Guptara Twins and Guptara: Redirects / disambig page -- useless after the above 4 articles are deleted. I reduced Guptara to a disambig page in 2007, because the content was unsourced and/or promotional. utcursch | talk 16:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of this tedious puffery. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I've yet to see reliable sources commenting on them, complete PR. Vinay089 (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: though it would have been procedurally tidier to delete the person and book pages first and then CSD the dab page as having nothing to disambiguate. PamD 07:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as there's no particular need for this as it's not actually an expected disambiguation we're aware of (only lists him and his sons), no independence at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 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 01:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State Highway 7 (Andhra Pradesh)[edit]

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

No reference on its existence found. The present listing route is State Highway 42 of Andhra Pradesh Vin09 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing currently suggesting its own independently notable article and there's unlikely anything to suggest this since it's only a local state highway. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Doherty (coach)[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. Also, with the exception of the first reference, none of the others mentions Doherty. Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not seeing an establishment of notability or the sources to pass GNG. Wizardman 01:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously? "Coaching Resume"? "Offensive Quality Control Coach"? Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Considering the username of the editor who created the article and the fact that they are a SPA it also smacks of WP:SELFPROMOTION. The article also exists here User:Pato2486/sandbox but I can't remember if a deletion of the mainspace article also applies to that. MarnetteD|Talk 15:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sandbox dupe is a very stale draft, and promotional to boot, so it should be MfDed as well. Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete as there's sufficient consensus here, nothing currently suggesting his own independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 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 01:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Presson[edit]

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

No evidence of Notability per WP:NBASKETBALL Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 00:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person does not appear to have held an executive position at a club in a major league, however NBASKETBALL does not apply to the board of a club, would you apply NFOOTBALL to Manchester united's owners the Glazier family? No is the answer. Seasider91 (talk) 12:12, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Lubarov[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST, and violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. While sources do exist, they seem to be either promotional, first-party, or unreliable, thus not fulfilling WP:RS or the general notability guideline. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 00:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing particularly convincing for the applicable notability, including minimally. SwisterTwister talk
Delete - fails WP:ARTIST. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:33, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hobbs[edit]

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

Player has never played at a fully-professional league, only at university level and in the Regionalliga which are not considered fully-professional. No indication that player meets WP:GNG either. Calistemon (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Calistemon (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've yet to see reliable sources commenting on him. This page requires more notability. Vinay089 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL Seasider91 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing for any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 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 Bay Ward. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 19:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Heights[edit]

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

While individual neighbourhoods within larger cities are certainly permitted standalone articles if they can be properly sourced as independently notable in their own right, they are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND, or to an exemption from having to be properly sourced, just because they exist. This, however, has been tagged as unreferenced for a full decade without ever seeing a single valid reference added. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody's actually willing to finally put some real work into it -- but if it's just going to keep lingering around in this state then it needs to be redirected to Ottawa. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think being individual neighbourhood doesn't mean that it should be added to encyclopaedia. Vinay089 (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I can find reliable sources to make an article on "Crime in Michele Heights" (or a section within Crime in Ottawa), but little else in terms of an independent claim to notability. An article could probably be made, but would offer little value outside of a broader page on Ottawa. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A redirect to Ottawa does not look sensible, as that article does not currently mention Michele Heights, and the article does not contain anything trying to be an exhaustive list of neighbourhoods. List of neighbourhoods in Ottawa and Bay Ward both do at least mention Michele Heights (though no more, and both as "Michelle Heights"), so a redirect to one or other of these might be better - though far from ideal. But there might be nothing better to do, as outright deletion would also not be a good idea - names of neighbourhoods like this are entirely reasonble search terms. PWilkinson (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 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.