Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 September 8 September >

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 Userfy to User:Kirez. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Weiner[edit]

Keith Weiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia's Notability Criteria Rap7910 (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet notability criteria: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Seems only to be a marketing vehicle for the subject's non-notable blog writings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rap7910 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete promotional, unconvincing as to personal (versus company) notability, and Zero Hedge is not quite a BLP-suitable RS - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original page creator 'kirez' today unilaterally deleted the delete suggestion, without comment. Isn't that against Wiki policies? Rap7910 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he may not know that (though it is explained on the notice). I have put the appropriate warning {{uw-afd1}} on his talk page inviting him to comment here. JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He just did it again. Rap7910 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you checking the wiki links to news on Keith Weiner? Can you tell me which references, specifically, do not meet Wikipedia's standards?
Ryan, I appreciate your work, but you are unilaterally marking a page for deletion without justifying this judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirez (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kirez, the burden of proof is on you to justify that the article meets Wikipedia's "notability" criteria. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) I don't see that the subject meets any of these 3 criteria, for example: "1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. 3.The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." The only articles you provide suggest that the subject started and sold a company, and that he testified once before a committee of the Arizona state legislature. Those are not notable. The rest of the articles are not "intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", since they are written by the subject. Rap7910 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kirez, it also appears you may be violating Wikipedia's "Conflict of Interest" policies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. You appear to have a business or financial relationship with the subject. On your User page you write: "I study monetary metals (Gold, Silver) and am preparing to take an exam as a Private Equity Primary Market Broker (Series 82 license through FINRA), which will enable me to help investors protect their wealth from bank default and market risk by buying gold that earns a return. This market is being created by the Economics work, and Gold Standard advocacy, of Dr. Keith Weiner." Rap7910 (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to "Can you tell me which references, specifically, do not meet Wikipedia's standards":
  • Those currently numbered 1,2,11,12,13 are written by the subject, and therefore not independent
  • 3 is a press release--Kirez (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 does not mention the subject, and so cannot support his notability
  • 5,7,8,9 may be acceptable as references in support of the statements they follow, but do not include significant discussion of the subject
  • 6,10 are the same video. I don't have the patience to sit through all 90 minutes of it, but I suspect it fails on the same grounds as 5,7,8,9.
That's all of them. Maproom (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, now that I've worked my way through the references and found no evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Maproom's assessment of the sources now in the article. I made a good faith search for better sources and was unable to find anything that would establish notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if you gentlemen will please help me to better present the references, I would appreciate it very much.
  • Bloomberg, Capitalism Magazine, The Globe and Mail, The Arizona Republic, Capital Accounts (Financial commentary show), Larry Park Show, Investing.com... how can I better represent these sources?
  • Three years as a committee member, and testifying subject matter expert, for both Texas and Arizona Houses of Representatives. (The video of the AZ Committee meeting, Dr. Weiner is the primary, centerpiece speaker. It's unmistakable to anyone who watches the video; or to anyone who understands these committee meetings.)
  • Is there any place for papers and articles translated into multiple languages and published abroad? I'm curious. E.g. paper for Greek PM Tsipras, published in multiple European countries.
  • Let's agree that I'm the wrong person to be writing this article. I have no problem with that. But I do know this field, and the significance of Keith Weiner's work. Can you please give me some support in presenting the material in a way which meets Wikipedia standards? I apologize for any clumsiness I've shown in this process, and I appreciate your feedback and guidance. --Kirez (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Kirez, I think we all recall our days learning about Wikipedia's extensive guidelines, and I'm sure there are people willing to help in matters of presenting things better. But that isn't really the issue here - the issue is whether there are sufficient independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth. Note that all three of those aspects are important: the references must be independent (especially not something written by the subject or from his company), reliable (preferably with a robust editorial process) and they must devote substantial space to discussing Keith Weiner (not just mention him in passing). So to help progress this, please tell us all: which two or three references do you think are the strongest (considering these three criteria)?
  • Question I have understood the spirit of Wikipedia to BE BOLD... and I don't think a contributor is normally alone in writing, much less completing, an article. Won't it make sense to let some experienced wikipedia editors contribute to this page, before you delete it? Can you help me to understand your motivation, and your haste to delete this work? I've been enjoying this process, and being a contribution to Wikipedia. I understand it to be an Open Source, collaborative effort (am I wrong?). --Kirez (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Kirez, people here are making good-faith efforts to help you out, searching the web for evidence that would support the subject's notability, and not finding anything. It's great that you are a fan of the subject's work. But the issue is: has the wider world 'taken note', has he made any impact, as proven by significant coverage in secondary sources.Rap7910 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acknowledgment This is a helpful article [1]. Thankfully, I am not alone in my admiration of Keith Weiner's work! (I do wonder whether there are systematically neglected fields, niches and subject matter experts throughout Wikipedia, for demographic and career orientation reasons.) --Kirez (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_amount_of_editing_can_overcome_a_lack_of_notability
  • Delete - no actual claim of notability in the article, which also suffers from a certain amount of non-neutral writing - the latter can be overcome by rewriting the article, but as pointed out above, lack of notability is a content issue, not a question of how the article is written. I, too, fail to find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 10:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting Acknowledgment References include Forbes, The Arizona Republic, The Globe and Mail; media talk shows include 'Capital Account' hosted by Lauren Lyster; The Larry Parks show; video documentation includes Dr. Weiner speaking for the Arizona House of Representatives Committee on Gold Bonds; Dr. Weiner on panel of Austrian Economists at FreedomFest 2016 addressing the question of Whether financial collapse is imminent. I can point to wikipedia biographical articles of living persons with less notability, in the same categories. --Kirez (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. There are other bad articles in Wikipedia, but this is why we have a deletion process - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't really an "other stuff exists" argument: He's saying a bunch of newspapers have written about Keith Weiner. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was responding to the last bit. But to answer the rest, tangential sources are tangential, and "Forbes" as a source, when it's that he just writes a blog there, shows a lack of understanding of WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kirez, Maproom, above, already gave feedback on many of your sources. Globe and Mail doesn't count toward notability, since does not name the subject. Forbes articles are written by the subject, so not independent. Etc. Re the Larry Parks show: Larry Parks himself does not appear to be notable, so I don't think appearing on his show can count. Ditto the "Arizona House of Representatives Committee on Gold Bonds" - not notable. Ditto FreedomFest. I assume that if a media source is itself not notable, then the subject's appearance in it cannot count toward the subject's notability (more experienced wiki editors, please correct me if I'm wrong.) Rap7910 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Max Browser (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Everyone, for your time and tutelage. I have two proposals:
  1. If I scale back the scope of the article, and
  2. Put the article in the "Proposed Articles" queue, proposing that I can contribute modest particulars, in a collective effort, and
  3. Add material in various topically related articles (For example, an article by Keith Weiner on Market Monetarists gives a fantastic critique that would improve the current Wikipedia article on Market Monetarism).
  • Will this be a more successful approach? Assuming, of course, that more media sources become available on Keith's work. --Kirez (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kirez. If the article is deleted, you can request userfication which will allow you to work on a draft article in your user space. As for whether an article by Weiner is appropriate as a reference in Market monetarism, that would be up to the consensus of editors interested in that article. Your comment "fantastic critique" hints that you may have problems with the neutral point of view when it comes to Weiner and his work. Wikipedia is not a forum to promote your pet causes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cullen. Is there a difference between Userfication and Proposed Articles? --Kirez (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn as a user offered to take me up on the "if somebody actually does the work" proviso. But this can and will be renominated accordingly if after a reasonable amount of time there still hasn't been at least partial improvement. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Canada: A[edit]

List of places in Canada: A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of places in Canada: B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. These two lists are the isolated remnants of a project that was begun by an editor in 2006, but abandoned before he even finished Ba, let alone the rest of B or any letter after B -- and for the entire ten years since, they've stood isolated and unexpanded since nobody else has ever taken on the project (not once since 2006 has anybody ever edited either of these articles to add any community that wasn't already in them in 2006; all of the edits since have been for pure style or maintenance issues.) Many lists of populated places in Canada already exist on much more specific criteria such as by province or by type, so deleting these would not be removing list-navigability from the Canadian geography tree. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody is actually prepared to take on getting the lists completed from A to Z, but if that's not going to happen then there's no value in maintaining lists for just A and B which aren't even complete for those letters. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey V. Arzhanukhin[edit]

Sergey V. Arzhanukhin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable philosopher. Only non-english sources. Nothing to indicate significance. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Russian sources (which are not an argument for deletion, see WP:RSUE) include entries in two reliable encyclopaedias, which meets the GNG in my book. The article itself obviously needs work. Joe Roe (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources in the article, as explained by Joe. I would urge the nominator to slow down, take notice of what other people say, and think before nominating articles for deletion. Several editors have already mentioned the invalid rationales, such as "only non-English sources", that accompany many of that editor's deletion nominations. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that the sources are in Russian is not a valid argument for deletion. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "non-Englishness" of the sources are not grounds for deletion and I think Joe Roe makes a good argument for notability in the above comments. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice to recreation as a redirect. postdlf (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada[edit]

List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Brand new list of very little real necessity. This was created by a user who seems to be under the erroneous impression that any wolf attack that has ever happened at all is automatically an appropriate topic for a standalone Wikipedia article even if it can only be single-sourced and has no significant enduring impacts, directly alongside the creation of most of the listed articles -- and all of those other articles are up for AFD as not having the sourcing or substance needed to qualify as notable in their own right. We already have Coyote attacks on humans and Wolf attacks on humans -- we don't need a separate spinoff just for Canadian incidents with little to no independent notability of their own. The existing articles can already accommodate any content about these, without needing this to coexist as a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of wolf attacks in North America and leave it to that talk page whether to include the extremely small number of coyote attacks in that list (only one on the nominated list, two in that category). The only cited source in the article is specifically about wolves, and we have an existing, pretty well sourced list that covers all of North America. Doesn't seem like a necessary fork. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unnecessary Fork of the two above-mentioned articles, Coyote attacks on humans and Wolf attacks on humans. There is really nothing that demonstrates why attacks in Canada specifically are notable enough on their own that it requires a list separate from the already existing, and perfectly adequate, lists of attacks. The scant few entries here can be added to those respective articles if they are not included already. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bathing of Cattle[edit]

Bathing of Cattle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable poem. reddogsix (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No argument presented for deletion. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Beall[edit]

Jeffrey Beall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Beall is only mentioned in journals with a conflict of interest because of his views against open access (normal journal's main competitors). He does not meet any of the other qualities necessary for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) --Gihiw (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Gihiw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beall is only mentioned in journals with a conflict of interest because of his views against open access (conventional journal's main competitors). He does not meet any of the other qualities necessary for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) -- specifically:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

-- many citations are not in the peer reviewed literature and many are negative.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

no

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

no

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

no

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

no

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

no -only assoc prof

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

no

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

no - only a blog

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

not relevant Gihiw (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep This is not a policy-based nomination and will result in a torrent of "keeps" and a WP:SNOW close, if some admin doesn't shut it down sooner. He is a librarian who has made a huge impact inside and outside of academia on how open access journals are considered as part of the body of scholarly work that librarians curate. This is shown clearly by the sources in the article. The nomination also misrepresents the sources in the article which range from NPR to Chronicle of Higher Education to tripleC (an open access journal) to yes, Nature. User:Gihiw please review WP:DELETION which is policy (that you have violated pretty badly) and consider withdrawing this nomination Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (ec) Beall is most noteworthy specifically as a commentator on open-access (OA) publishing (and a generally-respected critic of some OA publishing models, and of predatory publishers of OA journals). His noteworthiness in that particular role is well-established by multiple authorships and coverage in both the scientific and lay press.
    Incidentally, this AfD appears to be a retaliatory filing by Gihiw, in response to an observation at WP:COIN that his only contributions to Wikipedia were about a particular author who habitually publishes in predatory OA journals. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oh, so the nomination is WP:POINTy. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. This is a bizarre nomination. Beall has published in both open access and subscription journals (not "normal" – a very large proportion of journals are open access these days). Regardless, there is no "conflict of interest" in scholarly journals publishing articles about scholarly publishing. Where else would that discussion happen? He is a very notable scholar, particularly in his work on predatory publishers (WP:PROF#C1 and #C7). Joe Roe (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable. --doncram 21:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Tons of snow here and a trout for the nom. Notability crystal clear. Someone please close this already. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Black Panther Party#1977–82. She is already mentioned there, and I added more information and a reference. MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Davis[edit]

Regina Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a not notable person; she was an administrator of a school that isn't even named, and she was beaten. That's not a biography. I would say it's WP:BLP1E, but I don't even see that she is even notable for one event. Is there a WP:BLP0E? --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject lacks any kind of notability. Meatsgains (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an appropriate narrative on the Huey P. Newton page. I reread WP:VICTIM before commenting just to dust off the cobwebs, and I think she qualifies, because as GRuban points out, her career itself seems unnotable. If the attack itself is deemed notable, I think that would work perfectly fine on the attacker's page until it goes so large it needs to be split off - at which point, an event page for a crime would likely be more appropriate. Yvarta (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Half the content is about Elaine Brown, not the subject. This is definitely a case of BLP1E, the assault on her by the Black Panthers. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Shame to lose the info. Maybe merge it with Huey Newton, Black Panthers and/or Elaine Brown article.JaneSwifty (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is horribly written. Notable - absolutely. Needs cleanup, expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Black Panther Party#1977–82, where I just added Davis's significance to the history of that subject (so, sort of, Merge). Given it was the reason Brown left, and Brown's significance in the history of the organization, it seemed good to include there. I looked for more to justify a stand-alone article but just don't see it. I see statements that she was a leader in the BP's Oakland school, but very little detail. Mostly it's just the tragedy of her being beaten and how that affected Brown. Even if there's a weak case for WP:BIO (though it would be very weak), it seems WP:VICTIM and WP:NOPAGE would apply. WP:VICTIM because while she clearly did a lot more, that's what we have sources about. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' or merge to Huey Newton or Elain Brown. I tried to make this article longer and insert facts, but all the mentions are passing mentions. Her beating is notable for the black panther party but subject isn't notable herself. BlackAmerican (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Advance Publications. MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1010data[edit]

1010data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been around for more than eight years but it is still only a badly referenced stub. Presumably only notable within the narrow world of its class of users. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A contributor has just greatly extended the article, need to do another reference check - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirm !vote per WP:PROMO, the article is overly promotional, with content such as

References

  1. ^ "Customers". www.1010data.com. Retrieved 2016-08-31.
  2. ^ Groenfeldt, Tom. "NYSE Delivers Analyzed Data To Clients". Retrieved 2016-08-30.
  3. ^ "NYSE is Refining its Data Services - Wall Street & Technology". Retrieved 2016-08-30.
Some of this is cited to the company's website or uncited. There's a lot of "product brochure" content with buzzwords such as "tightly integrated" etc. Rather than waste volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of this article, I suggest delete & redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel that 1010data is notable for a number of reasons, among them: being one of the most successful modern exponents of the Iversonian array-programming paradigm; being the "gold standard" for analysis in mortgage-backed securities (virtually every firm that trades MBS/ABS uses them for loan-level analysis); having played a significant role in the analytics that led to Paulson & Co.'s huge bet against the subprime housing market; being one of the first cloud-based big-data platforms (long before either of those terms was current). I am the original author of the article and am trying to expand on it in my spare time (full disclosure: I am Chief Scientist at 1010data, and am particularly interested in 1010data's role in the historically important, but today mostly vanished array-programming world, but I am most assuredly not being paid or in any way encouraged to edit this article -- the company's attitude towards the existence of a Wikipedia article about them has essentially been "huh? what's that?") I am trying very hard to avoid buzzwords; a term like "highly integrated" was not meant to be a buzzword at all (the platform "is", well, highly integrated) but I can see that it might sound that way and will change it. I am doing my best to avoid even the appearance of puffery and keep the article purely factual, neutral and objective, and I appreciate this and any other suggestions for improving the article (or edits that improve it, should they be deemed worth the effort). As I am sure most editors are aware, it can be difficult to find satisfying references outside of the business-press echo chamber for almost any software product or company. Almost all of the 20 citations currently in the article, however, are independent, with a number of books and academic articles among them. The customer list is an exception, citing as it does the company's own website. I have been trying to avoid the press-release-driven "business press" as much as possible, but it is also the case that a list of customers is often hard to reference outside of such press. I looked at numerous other software company websites and when there is a customer list, typically it is uncited, or cites the company website or the business press. I will attempt to augment this section with business press citations. In summary, I realize that, as (essentially) the only contributor so far to this article, my vote is going to be considered biased, but I would ask the members of the discussion to consider whether it would not be worth instead allowing it to remain and be improved through efforts of interested volunteers -- myself and, I hope at some point, others. I particularly ask this because modern representatives of the art of array programming (as hugely influential as it was after Iverson's original publication of A Programming Language in 1974) are few and far between, and I believe that the fact that 1010data (as well as Kx systems) has achieved significant commercial success with this approach is in itself worthy of some notice. Someday an archaeologist tracing the history of array computing from APL in 1974 to ???? in ???? will want to fill in the gaps and an article about 1010data might be an important lead. Kiscica (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kiscica: you stated that as the original author of this article you are trying to expand it in your spare time. This does not seem to be true because this has been a stub for eight years according to the AfD nominator. And, I can see for myself this has been stub from December 2007 until it was prodded in August 2016. Also, to me you hardly "sound" like a Chief Scientist and more like a speculator, such as on the stock market, or perhaps, more likely involved with public relations for this company. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steve Quinn: I did create the original article eight years ago. There wasn't all that much to say then -- 1010data was a very small, though interesting company and I didn't know all that much about it yet! It is true that I have refrained from editing the article since then. I would have far preferred if someone else (preferably someone not involved with the company) had done so. However, no one has, and I feel that 1010data is unquestionably notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I meant that I am undertaking to expand it in my free time (what there is of it) now, at least until someone better-qualified to do so takes over. I do not know how to persuade you that I am neither a "speculator on the stock market" nor "involved with public relations," but I can assure you that I am Chief Scientist for the firm. My name is Adam Jacobs and there is a fair amount of evidence on the web that should make it clear that I am who I say I am. I write the code, not the PR. Kiscica (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if anyone is interested in the history of this article, it was actually created in December 2007 and request for speedy was posted on that same day [1]. Speedy was declined [2], and no editing occurred on this article until January 2008 [3] (1 year and one month later) - but this "editing" was a request for speedy (as can be seen). Then it was declined [4]. A small amount of content was added that month, but actually nothing more until August 2016. Editors can thumb through the history. People added categories, came through with AWB, fixed the ifobox, added a "See Also" section, but no real editing was done on this article until May 2011, when content was removed [5], [6]. More content would not be added until 29 August 2016, two or three days after being tagged for AfD. It was requested for speedy for the third time on 26 August 2016 [7]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- still reads as a WP:PROMO with sections such as "Products" and "Customers". WP:WEBHOST applies as this information can be found on the company's web site and does not add value to the encyclopedia. I'm not changing my "redirect" vote and suggest delete then redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @K.e.coffman: I modeled the "Products" and "Customers" sections off other software company pages on Wikipedia. If having such information made a page WP:PROMO, we would have to delete most articles about software companies. If you feel that they are detrimental to the article, why not just delete those sections instead of recommending the deletion of the entire article? The fact that 1010data happens to have a product and customers does not fundamentally impact its notability and I feel strongly, for reasons that I've already outlined, that 1010data is notable. Kiscica (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not hopeful about the added sources. Two books are generally about Big Data, but that is not this company, it is nomenclature "for data sets that are so large or complex that traditional data processing applications are inadequate," and we have a Wikipedia article on it (see wiki link in previous sentence). I noticed this company received barely passing mention in one book [8]. This indicates a lack of significant coverage. Except the wording in that book comes across as overly promotional - so, is it really an independent reliable source? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete and redirect. Article is clearly promotional. Anything that includes two *ssS buzzwords and calls itself a "platform" seems questionable to me. Advance Publications could certainly use more prose instead of being mostly bullet lists too. There probably could be enough sources to construct a neutral narrative. W Nowicki (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @W Nowicki: I added the *aaS buzzwords because there are extensive, well-developed Wikipedia articles about them and they describe what 1010data does quite well. I don't even believe 1010data's marketing actually uses these terms although I don't really know. 1010data does call its software a "platform" but, seriously, that is what the industry calls software that is used for developing and deploying applications, which is exactly what 1010data's software is for. Again, if you believe there are better terms and that these nothing but are empty "buzzwords," wouldn't it be better to give the article the benefit of the doubt and change them to more appropriate terminology rather than simply delete it? Kiscica (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, there is an article on platform as a service and one on software as a service. This is supposed to be English Wikipedia, not acronym Wikipedia. And yes, I know what a "platform" means in this context since I have been in the industry for many years. But articles are supposed to be readable by those who do not already know the jargon. As for your last question, that indeed is the debate we are having. The argument below also has merits too, so rewriting this into an article following the guidelines (if there are enough sources) would also be a reasonable outcome. That would probably require work on both articles in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think merging with Advance Publications is a sensible solution. Advance has acquired 1010data and is its parent company, but Advance is not a software or technology company (1010data is essentially its first and, to my knowledge, only acquisition so far in this space) and discussion appropriate to a software company would be out of place in a more general page about the parent company. 1010data has had several close competitors over the years that were acquired by larger companies, for example Vertica (by Hewlett Packard), Greenplum (by EMC Corporation), Netezza (by IBM), ParAccel (by Actian) and Aster Data Systems (by Teradata) and all of these have retained their own articles, despite the fact that in those cases the parent company essentially absorbed the smaller company; 1010data in contrast is an independent subsidiary. Kiscica (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ADC Bioscientific[edit]

ADC Bioscientific (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A small, specialist company. I'm unable to find any substantial coverage whatsoever to suggest that WP:CORP is met. Brief mentions in scientific journals are insufficient. SmartSE (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above, I also see no substantial coverage on this firm that meets the WP:CORP notability criteria. - Brianhe (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. Turns out someone requested speedy deletion at the same time I wrote this AfD. Since the speedy was completed, this AfD is now moot. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin H. Ende[edit]

Kevin H. Ende (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. All the sources I found are either primary or unreliable. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of reservation in India[edit]

Consequences of reservation in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be a POV fork of Reservation in India. I would recommend a merge except that this article contains little factual content that is not already sufficiently covered in the other. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All I see there is ref bombing and OR, very little content exists that adheres to Wiki standard. Anup [Talk] 16:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly POV article. Makes many unverifiable claims ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has POV fork written all over it, with a little core of WP:SOAP. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Said the Sky[edit]

Said the Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability unable to be established. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything to distinguish this artists from thousands of others. At the moment the page is basically a list of music releases. That belongs elsewhere, say at a website like discogs.com, but not here. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shiftchange: Said the Sky has worked with Skrillex before. He also collaborated multiple times with Illenium and Seven Lions. He also has a verified Facebook page. Facebook do not verify pages of random musicians. Illenium has had songs on charts before as well as official remixes for other notable producers like The Chainsmokers, Galantis and Kaskade. I just added a ref. - Rizzal Hopper (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to prove that one of these criteria has been met? - Shiftchange (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 7 has been met - "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" - Rizzal Hopper (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for proof. What reliable source supports that claim? Which music style? Dubstep - that article doesn't mention Said the Sky, therefore he can't be that prominent. There is still no reason given for this article to stay. Notability has not been established. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a link to a reliable source (Billboard) which stated that Said the Sky supported another artist and usually only notable artists could support other artists. Ref 22 on the article. - Rizzal Hopper (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience that wouldn't be enough to survive deletion. You stated that criterion 7 has been met but provided no reliable source which supports that claim. We can't take your word for it, that isn't the way it works here. Then you claim he must be notable because he has worked with another artist. I cannot see that on the list of criteria. Your best bet would be to find multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician. Without that or any other criteria being met its unlikely to be here for long. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's wise if you let EDM-expert editors to take your place on this discussion (because you said on another page that you don't know well about music articles) as I think he is notable enough and has worked with one of the greatest dubstep musicians of all-time, Skrillex. I already cited a reliable source to him being notable so that concludes this dispute, unless you want to have a 3rd party opinion on this. - Rizzal Hopper (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is the references as it stands are actually terrible - if I were to comment on this AFD it would be "delete as it stands" and "WP:TNT, it reads like a puffed-up press release". I'm willing to be convinced but it'd have to be convincing - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to have received coverage from reliable sources, and at this early stage in his career the other criteria of WP:NMUSIC are not likely to be satisfied. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Billboard, Dancing Astronaut, YOURedm are reliable sources. Dubstep fans know he's one of the most notable figures in this style so that meets one of the criteria. - Rizzal Hopper (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Billboard and Dancing Astronaut references are passing mentions and not WP:significant coverage. A single interview with an emerging artist is not sufficient and that is the only source that is credible. noq (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a list of media coverage for Said the Sky, given by his manager[1] - Rizzal Hopper (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ...given David Gerard and DGG's continuing Keep comments (non-admin closure) Lourdes 15:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Economics Association[edit]

World Economics Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Handelsblatt article is more of an interview, with information about the organization being provided by the interviewees (I mean, how can the newspaper check the statement that 3600 people joined in the first 10 days). The article (opinion piece?) in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience is written by one of the founders and therefore not independent. All other sources are either primary or not independent. No indication of meeting WP:ORG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Handelsblatt article is based on an interview with a number of people including Edward Fulbrook and Robert Johnson. Johnson is the Executive Director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. He is a member of the WEA, but he is not a founder. The Handelsblatt article does not attribute the number of WEA members to Fulbrook, as stated in an edit to the Wikipedia page - he only comments on it (this also implies that Handelsblatt does not check its sources). The article should therefore stand as an independent, reliable source.
The article in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience is indeed written by one of the founders, but was published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal. They presumably did not see it as a biased opinion piece, as implied here.Sjm3 (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the intended implication - but it's still not a third-party source - David Gerard (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say anything about it being biased. It's just that it's not a subject that normally is covered in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, so I suspect it's more like an opinion piece or editorial than a research article. Given that it was published in a special collection (and the continuous doubts about the quality of the Frontiers Media peer-review process make it anybody's guess what kind of peer review it underwent. Whatever may be the case, however, it is not independent. As for the Handelsblatt, the only way they could have gotten that information would be from the WEA themselves, without any independent way to verify those figures. --Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the question about number of WEA members, the Wikipedia page could be modified to say that the numbers came from WEA (the article does not cite Fulbrook in particular). However, I assume the reason the page is up for deletion is because the Handelsblatt article is not considered a reliable source. I find it hard to understand how a Handelsblatt article, with multiple sources quoted (yes one is a founder but he isn't the only one), does not qualify as a reliable source which independently establishes the importance of the WEA. Any article on the subject is likely to quote a founder, but that doesn't make it invalid. In fact the writer of this article makes an effort to speak also with critics of the organization.Sjm3 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A single source probably isn't enough to swing notability for an organisation. I have nothing against the organisation (it strikes me as a good idea, reading about it), but I'm also familiar with how Wikipedia works when I say all this. It might just be too soon for an article, that happens a lot. Is there anything else third-party in the organisational press clippings file? - David Gerard (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a reference to a post from Positive Money which cites (and reproduces) an article from the WEA newsletter. But a number of citations remain flagged "non-primary source needed" even though I have added the Handelsblatt article to each applicable case (and I think Handelsblatt would be surprised to learn they don't qualify as a reliable independent source).
  • I have also added a reference to a 2016 book from Oxford University Press which discusses the "good pluralistic practice of pluralistic bodies like ... the 10,000-strong World Economics Association." The book also cites one of the WEA conferences.
  • For the description of the WEA manifesto, I cite the manifesto, but again this is flagged. I am new to this process, so maybe I’m missing something, but this doesn’t seem to make sense - if I want to quote an author, I cite his works, not a secondary source. So in a sentence beginning “According to its manifesto” surely it is appropriate to cite the manifesto, and refer directly to the organization’s material?
  • Another flags says the article “may contain improper references to self-published sources”. Not sure what this means exactly. If it is because the article cites WEA material, of course it needs to, but it is transparent about it and backs it up with other sources.
  • A reference to a UNDP post is flagged as a “possible user-generated source”. I see the point the editor is making, because it is based on a press release, but the UNDP does not publicise every press release it comes across, and doing so helps establish the notability of the organization. It was certainly not a user-generated source, if by “user” the editor means me.
  • An associated page on the WEA journal Economic Thought is also up for deletion. It does not seem to have a debate page, but since it is linked to this WEA page (and will presumably go if this one does) I will bring it up here. The notice claims there are “no independent sources”. Again, I cannot understand how a Handelsblatt article is not an independent source. A list of notable contributors was also deleted with the explanation that it was “unsourced name-dropping” and needs independent sources discussing the importance of these people for the journal. Providing a list of contributors is not name-dropping, it is relevant information that is useful for readers and helps to establish notability. It is used in other pages, e.g. the economics journal Revue économique. Are standards being applied equally across the board? And why exclude this information anyway? Also, given that a list of contributors is trivial to check directly (the papers are online), why require a secondary source?
  • The WEA article now cites a number of independent sources including Handelsblatt, Positive Money, UNDP, and a new book from Oxford University Press. Steve Keen is on the board so is not independent but his article should help establish notability. The Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience article may not be independent but it is peer-reviewed and is an appropriate source for the description of the review system. The WEA journals (including Economic Thought) have been running now for several years and have published articles from well-known contributors. Given all of this, and the fact that the WEA claims to have 13,500 members and is “the world’s second largest organisation for professional economists” (just their website, but in line with Handelsblatt piece), I believe the page under discussion should qualify to belong in Wikipedia's list of Economics organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Economics_organizations). So keep. Sjm3 (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just do not see the basis for claiming that the Handelsblatt article is somehow not independent RS-coverage. The nominator is just handwaving about what he sees as deficiencies in the article (heavens! information about the organization being provided by the interviewees!!) but this has no relation to any Wikipedia policy. The Handelsblatt piece is textbook demonstration of notability according to the general notability guideline.
RS-coverage is otherwise thin here and wouldn't support notability on its own. But the Handelsblatt profile is pretty clearly enough to justify an article per policy. Keep
The nom has also prod-ded Economic Thought and real-world economics review – which I think is plausible, but these articles should properly be merged into the WEA article (on the assumption that it will be kept) rather than deleted outright. TiC (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it stands - there's more than one RS talking about it, and it's got prominent people involved. The sourcing is still very primary and is not great, but I think it passes prima facie notability - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have one source that is about the association (the Handelsblatt article). The rest of the sources are either not independent, press releases, or a book review of a book published by the association (which is only listed as publisher, nothing else). None of the journals published by the association meets WP:NJournals either. Whatever notability there is is very tenuous at best, one source is not enough for WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is sufficient information for a relatively major organization. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although there is possibly a very week 'keep' based on strength of arguments, I'm closing this as 'no consensus' (which defaults to 'keep') because the nominator clearly proposed 'merging'. Hence this is the wrong venue for a discussion on this issue. I recommend starting a merge discussion per: WP:MERGE. (see also Template:Merge Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Masters (snooker)[edit]

European Masters (snooker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging this content to European Open (snooker) and redirecting this page to that article, since evidence points to the fact that the "European Masters" is simply a rebranded entry in the European open series.

World Snooker has a history of rebranding tournaments as can be seen at List of snooker tournaments. For example, the European Open itself was branded as the "Malta Cup" while hosted in Malta. In this particular case there is plenty of evidence suggesting that the European Masters is just a revised instance of the European Open.

It appears obvious to me that the European Masters is just a branding for the European Open and I don't think it is necessary to have a completely separate article for it. In fact, I think it is counter-productive because it splits the lineage over more than one article which is at odds with how the snooker tournament articles document rebranded versions of the same event. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Against the deletion Why... It's only a supposition that it's the former European Open! Your supposition. Previously it had this URL http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-open-2016/ but since then it has this URL http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-championship-2016/. It was called European Championship first, then European Masters. European Masters is the official name now and until they don't say it is the former European Open which died 8 years ago under rebranding (Malta Cup), we should have a separated article. NOWHERE, BUT NOWHERE on the internet it's written that European Masters is the former European Open. Just a URL we have, and this URL is now European Championship. Why wouldn't have they use the European Open if you think you are right? Why European Masters instead of European Open? Because it was subsequently rebranded into Malta Cup. Romania/Bucharest doesn't want to use this name, therefore it would have been used that European Open title. I don't think it's the old European Open since there is no declaration about this. I suggest to leave this way, separated page, and if we have a clear source about this to redirect it. Wikipedia is not about suppositions. MOREOVER, according to http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-championship-2016/, this event didn't have before a champion. Current champions: NONE. Shaun Murphy was the last winner of the European Open: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Open_(snooker). So clearly, the European Masters isn't the former European Open. Leave it this way until we get an official statement. Creepy pasta (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am worried about your real intentions since that calendar is old. The tournament is not anymore hosted by Cluj-Napoca, but by Bucharest. http://www.worldsnooker.com/full-calendar/ It says EUROPEAN MASTERS. Creepy pasta (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously not a supposition when World Snooker use the terms "European Championship" and "European Open" on their own calendar (published at the start of the current season incidentally) to describe the event which is now called the European Masters (currently hosted at a url which references it as the European Championship). All you've actually established is that the name has changed, not that it's an entirely different event, and it still has the same promoters and is in the same country. Furthermore, it is World Snooker and not me who uses the url http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-open-2016/ to link to the article about the event. It is clear that World Snooker use the names as synonyms for the event, without any supposition on my part. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Imo how can you link to the European Open without any declaration? Without anything written on the site? It's your supposition. Wikipedia shouldn't offer false info. Practically you are giving false info, the people will believe it, and after then if you find out it isn't the European Open you accept the mistake by correct it. You should leave this way, do not link it to the European Open. There is no source on the internet USING THE WORD REBRANDED EUROPEAN OPEN. You simply invented it. FOR GOD'S SAKE, WHAT HAS EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP TO DO WITH EUROPEAN OPEN? You said it! We have World Snooker Championship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Snooker_Championship and World Open https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_World_Open_(snooker). Two different competitions, but we also have Masters: Shanghai Masters, Riga Masters. It's only your supposition. That European Open URL was used, now it's European Championship. It seems they didn't agree with the name. In the end, it was European Masters, not even European Championship. That URL is also wrong. There is nothing written that this is part of the European Open lineage. Nothing. Just old URL and old calendar with mistakes. Nothing really official doesn't say that. Only European Championship URL and European Masters written on the calendar. Creepy pasta (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is is that World Snooker don't use the World Championship and the World Open as synonyms on their calendar. Neither does the link for the World Open take you to the page about the world championship. Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is complete crap. Can you guarantee this is the European Open? Are you 100% sure? Please be fair. Show us a source where they say Malta Cup (ex-known as the European Open) is called now the European Masters. We should have different pages, and please leave it "defunct" the European Open. Until it's proved. I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU AT ALL! We shouldn't speculate. Leave my article alone. Do no say Malta Cup/European Open is back after 8 years when we have no announcement. I don't agree to link it, because you could offer false info to the visitors of Wikipedia. Creepy pasta (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there was an announcement. All the early press referred to the event as the "European Open". Even Mark Selby (the world number 1) has it listed as the European Open on his own personal calendar: http://www.mark-selby.cz/index.php?nid=4549&lid=cs&oid=4928547. It is only recently the name has changed to the "European Masters", but it still occupies the same slot, is still being held in the same country and is still being promoted by the same people. Since I am not affiliated to World Snooker I cannot guarantee it is a rebranding of the event any more than you can guarantee it is not. But World Snooker's own calendar and web page titling indicate that this is a rebranding (most likely precipiated by sponsorship) rather than a completely new event. But as it stands I believe the evidence favors my position; if it turns out to be an incorrect poistion then it is easy enough to split the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There is no proposal to delete anything here, but a suggestion of how our content should be organised. That needs to be thrashed out on article talk pages or at the snooker wikiproject, not discussed here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will cease to exist as an article. This isn't just a case of moving a bit of content across a couple of articles. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You proposed merging this article with another one and redirecting. That doesn't need an admin to press the "delete" button, so no AfD discussion is needed. I'm not commenting here on the rights or wrongs of your position, but simply pointing out that this is an issue that should be decided elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even assuming this tournament is not a straight rebranding of the European Open, there is still absolutely no point in having a separate article, since they are the only ranking tournaments so far containing the word "European" in their names, and are very similar overall. Vinitsky14 (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The contract signed for three years. [9] The event will be promoted by McCann/Thiess for the next three years. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument is not relevant to the point of the discussion. The sponsorship of the tournament does not necesserily determine whether it is the continuation/rebranding of the previous ones. Vinitsky14 (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's still not enough substantial information, let alone coverage, to suggest we can currently accept this as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Casablanca[edit]

Emanuel Casablanca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are WP:PRIMARY Marvellous Spider-Man 17:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This appears worthy of speedy deletion as blatant promotion, so I will tag it accordingly. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl Uche[edit]

Raúl Uche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS77 ✉ 17:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article seems to lack notability. The article does not have a single reference that is written entirely about the athlete. Furthermore, the referenced material therein does not provide any "significant coverage" of the athlete, which is a requirement for meeting Wikipedia's GNG. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. SEE WG:GNG. Recommend delete.Rniterjr (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Has not yet played in a WP:FPL, and I see nothing besides WP:ROUTINE coverage. WP:CRYSTAL — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:35, 8 September 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) 14:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Articles about this person have been repeatedly deleted; articles under other spellings have been salted so I will salt this one also. MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MckeezyK[edit]

MckeezyK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

subject hasn't been discussed in any secondary source thereby failing WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Comment this topic has been deleted twice per this archive[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The article meets criterias 8, and 11 of WP:MUSICBIO. Per the aforementioned criteria, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Since MckeezyK meets two criterias of MUSICBIO, he is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pertuniatalane (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Pertuniatalane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability

This artist is notable because he meets two requirements of WP:ANYBIO. 1.) The person has produced for well-known musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moralepimpstar (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article meets criterias 8, and 11 of WP:MUSICBIO. Per the aforementioned criteria, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Since MckeezyK meets two criterias of MUSICBIO, he is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pertuniatalane (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Comment: To tell you the truth, I don't know this producer, but for him to have produced all these major hits(more than one hit), he deserves to have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgotsomashego (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remain neutral on this for now. Some of the sources provided in the article may be reliable and prove that this artist passes WP:GNG, but I'm not 100% sure on that. I'll wait for more input. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This has constantly been deleted and recreated all under different titles, Could be wrong but I'm convinced this has already been deleted three times, Clearly fails NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Yin[edit]

Kay Yin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

College student who wrote blogs... How is this person notable? It should also be noted that this was a single-author article that was written by an author who pretty much wrote just this article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Of the sources provided, most are not reliable third party. Of the remainder, I see two in foreign languages (a quick scan of the German one reveals no mention of the subject), and a trivial passing mention. Certainly not enough to pass GNG yet. Killer Moff (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. MB 22:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMO; external links in the article's copy (among other things) suggests that this article is intended as a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nitish Sahni[edit]

Nitish Sahni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:COI and unsourced Marvellous Spider-Man 14:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Neither of the offered reasons are reasons for deletion: autobiography is discouraged but not forbidden, and the sourcing question is whether references can be found. In this case, I have added a couple of Indian newspaper articles as article references. However, on the presumption that the nomination concerns notability, while the subject's activity which led to the Pramerica Spirit of Community Award is laudable, I don't think the award is notable in its own right, and insufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability, so I would say this is WP:TOOSOON at best. AllyD (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone promoting themselves and their work by creating their own Wikipedia page is indeed a reason for deletion. I'm sure it's possible for someone to successfully write an autobiography on Wikipedia, but I don't think this is an example of that. I would agree notability is questionable here as well. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly.me[edit]

Frankly.me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. Media coverage is mostly PR. ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands, very little good sourcing, mostly a publicity push when they launched - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial and the fact that it flopped does not change the nature of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject meets WP:NFOOTY Fenix down (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Pérez (footballer, born 1990)[edit]

Christian Pérez (footballer, born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP article. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 14:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De Rosee Sa[edit]

De Rosee Sa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the links in article are of PR nature. Not notable architecture firm Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've taken the basic information from the RIBA website and the AJ Buildings Library as referenced. The additional articles are interesting because they go into more detail on some of the key facts about the buildings. The practice was one of eight across Europe shortlisted for this years Young Architect of the Year Award which is a significant accolade in architectural circles - particularly because the profession is associated with more well established, older practices. Architecturalhistorian (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Architecturalhistorian[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning to delete something smells off about this article, I'm concerned there's a conflict of interest or single purpose account at play here. Article was previously speedied after creation by a one time account and now has been recreated by another one time account. Hiding T 20:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See also history and logs of Max de Rosee. Hiding T 20:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete without vastly more convincing sources - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I did find some sources in at least semi-reputable sources, so currently undecided. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON, perhaps a case of just barely. [10], [11], [12]. Yvarta (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My aim is to add as much architectural stuff to Wikipedia as possible - not just about well established practices and people but young ones that are also interesting and relevant. I have only had time to do these so far but will be doing more - so it is not a "one off". A lot of architectural pages on Wikipedia reference news articles and the architects own website (==Zaha Hadid==) - just because it is a news item surely does not mean it is not a reputable source. Surely each should be judged individually. In my experience the Architects' Journal, Dezeen etc are the go to for architectural news and information. Thanks for considering 80.71.4.139 (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Architecturalhistorian[reply]

  • delete fundamentally promotional, trying to scrape a WP presence from some scraps. TOOSOON it is. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicomedes dela Cruz Jr.[edit]

Nicomedes dela Cruz Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was previously speedily deleted, and now recreated in the exact same format. Fails WP:POLITICIAN; article is just promotional fluff, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. And a major copy-paste copyright violation on top of that. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mayor of a municipality with 30,000 people. NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; minimally sourced article, with significant résumé overtones, about the mayor of a town not large enough to WP:NPOL its mayors. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jack (human modeling). (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (CAD software)[edit]

Jack (CAD software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an older and less useful entry. Jack_(human_modeling) is better suited duncan.lithgow (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Jack (CAD software)" was created in 2008, two years after "Jack_(human_modeling)". I wonder how this one could survive for so long. Pavlor (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jack_(human_modeling). I would have said to merge, since the target article is more about the "old" software and this one about the "new", but this smells of copyrighted material - I could not find a match on the web, but there is a very slight promotional tone, and (The University of Pennsylvania, 2001; EDS, 2003a) might be an unclear reference to some publication. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion. North America1000 01:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Katy[edit]

Jade Katy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Winner of a non-notable contest, no reliable independent sources cite. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added a template to the Talk page and you think that qualifies for inclusion? Novel. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable model. Refs mainly just prove she exists and she only has one trivial award. Searching just brings up more "she exists" refs and social media profiles. Neiltonks (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. She was also 67th in a Jetset Magazine cover model contest.[13] That's really unremarkable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Girik Khosla[edit]

Girik Khosla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not confirm this person is indeed the captain of the Mumbai F.C. team, but at any rate he falls well short of WP:NFOOT. There is some routine coverage in sport news about his days at the other teams, not enough for WP:GNG. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It could probably be speedied or prodded (I can't remember which) for having absolutely nothing that is any type of source at all. However the article makes no claim that is even remotely a claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdus Samad Abdul Wahid Golandaz[edit]

Abdus Samad Abdul Wahid Golandaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I really am uncertain whether or not this person is notable.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 10:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 10:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: The only claim of notability is that the subject was awarded the George Cross, but even that is unsourced. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 11:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Keep: I don't know what I was thinking or reading when I voted here. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 17:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The George Cross (or the Empire Gallantry Medal, which is what he was originally awarded) is the highest decoration awarded by Britain for a gallant action out of combat. It's the non-combat equivalent of the Victoria Cross. It is the second highest decoration (after the VC) awarded by Britain, higher than any knighthood. It passes WP:ANYBIO #1 with its eyes closed. As for being "unsourced", did any of you actually bother reading the article, with its link to a citation in the official British Government gazette? I ask you... -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp Nick-D (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Febuary (artist)[edit]

Febuary (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed WP:MUSBIO and WP:GNG. The author removed the prod template from the article by adding some possibly non-reliable sources. My Google search found nothing better hope someone from South Africa can do. GSS (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator is only proposing a merge. North America1000 10:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns and controversies at the 42nd Chess Olympiad[edit]

Concerns and controversies at the 42nd Chess Olympiad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article should be merged with 42nd Chess Olympiad. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I was initially planning to include all relevant information into one article but it seemed impossible as there is too much that would make it rather long. The existence of an article about the concerns and controversies is useful and easily justified with the existence of similar articles related to other sport events such like the 2016 Summer Olympics, the 2014 Winter Olympics, the UEFA Euro 2012, the 2010 Commonwealth Games or the 2014 Asian Games. Of course, the article would have not been created had the content been short enough to fit within a single article. I put considerable efforts on this article along with the other articles related to the 42nd Chess Olympiad, because my main idea is to set a standard for documenting the future Chess Olympiads so that our readers could be able to find all relevant information in a neatly organised group of articles like we usually do on Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Western Regional Cup[edit]

Western Regional Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was nominated for deletion because it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for sports and athletics. This page was tagged for this reason in 2014 and has not improved, in which case this article was tagged for deletion. --RexPatricius (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable youth tournament. Fenix down (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability concerns weren't addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Suzhou Office[edit]

Microsoft Suzhou Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. No sources are given to indicate how this office is notable itself. First attempt to create this article was speedy deleted as A10 as copied from the Microsoft article; not an outright copy this time, but still no sources given that indicate notability. The few sources given only establish definitions. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Suzhou Office is a new building which was opened at Aug. 2016, it is part of Microsoft Corporation. We will add more materials to this page, but please keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExtractionFresh (talk • contribs) 09:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ExtractionFresh: Who is "we"? Please note that accounts cannot be shared or represent a group. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is this building or office notable on its own? 331dot (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I will take another picture which has chinese name on the building to replace existing one. And HR department will update this page with more descriptions.
@ExtractionFresh: Do you represent Microsoft, either generally or this particular office? It is a severe conflict of interest for someone associated with Microsoft to be editing any page about its office or offices. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Along with there being no apparent references, there seems to be a conflict of interest with the primary editor. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable regional office of a corporation. Wikipedia is not a recruitment site. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Neutralitytalk 05:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of vampire video games[edit]

List of vampire video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Vampire video game" is not a proper video game genre. Video game genres are based on the gameplay of the game (i.e. roleplaying, shooter, etc), not the narrative. There is no given definition of what makes a video game a "vampire video game" and this may also fall under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The list has a clear definition in the lead on what should be included as a "vampire video game." While I agree that vampire video games aren't really a genre, it does have merit as a list on Wikipedia. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I also don't see how this article is in violation of WP:SYNTH. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @MorbidEntree: I checked a few of the references (many of them are dead due to allgames being defunct) and none of them referred to the game as a "vampire game" or "vampire video game"; some said they have "vampire themes" and some say nothing at all, except mentioning that there are vampires in the game. WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:LISTN may apply. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE; the article is little more than a laundry list of video games in which vampire characters feature. Additionally, Category:Vampire video games exists, and is already far more comprehensive and complete (note that INDISCRIMINATE does not apply to categories). Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ghost video games (2nd nomination) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hjälp![edit]

Hjälp! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is just a list of actors and characters in non-notable a Swedish TV show with no claim of notability. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - There were articles in some of the major Swedish dailies, such as Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet, before the series started. The Svenska Dagbladet article [14] in particular is a full-length piece about the filming and content of the series. Once it had started it didn't garner a lot of notice and apparently it sank into obscurity after a couple of seasons, but I do think the coverage just barely meets WP:GNG. It's also relevant that the programme was reported to the government agency that regulates the content of Swedish radio and TV programming, for ridiculing and harassing a group of people with disabilities. (All this is now present in the article - it wasn't before.) --bonadea contributions talk 11:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I wish I could !vote delete because it seems like the kind of show that, in my personal view, ought to be buried very deep and forgotten... but sadly, although I'd never heard of it before, the sources were not hard to find. (I still don't think the sourcing is particularly strong, though. Nobody seems to have written much about it after the first season.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per bonadea. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - yes the article is bad and definitely needs references. but that is not a reason for deletion. the programme is well noted and has been referred to in noted media such mentioned above. BabbaQ (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Series broadcast for three seasons on a nation-wide TV Channel, watched by 1.5 million people in a population of 9. Lots of locally very famous Swedish actors and an internationally famous guest star (Chevy Chase). /FredrikT (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nice rescue work by User:Coolabahapple. Also it should be noted that the nominator did not offer a valid reason for deletion. MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles-Edouard Levillain[edit]

Charles-Edouard Levillain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creator of article has created an article about himself. Can be clearly seen from his Userpage and Username. If he thinks he is notable he can request an article or ask someone to write on for him! The article is also not written according to MoS guidelines (but that doesn't matter) VarunFEB2003 06:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify; I agree with ME, the author should work on the article and then submit through AfC. There is possible notability for the subject and letting the author work on it in draft space is a good idea. Also, I would not be opposed to a delete closure. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Article now clearly shows notability due to good work from a couple of editors. Keep per Coolabahapple. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drafitify or Delete I support both though the first one gains more preferance as per nom VarunFEB2003 12:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have left a Twinkle COI warning on Celevillain's talk page, as nobody seems to have informed in that writing an autobiography was against policy. It might have been an idea to explain that and ask him to draftify the article before using up volunteer time with an AfD. Joe Roe (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO as having received a well-known and significant award, Levillain received a Académie française Guizot Prize in 2011 for his book Vaincre Louis XIV : Angleterre - Hollande - France, histoire d'une relation triangulaire 1665-1688 - Prix Guozot Lauréats, also here are some book reviews - of Vaincre Louis XIV by The English Historical Review - "The present volume offers an original perspective on what might seem the familar themes of Anglo-Dutch, Anglo-French and Franco-Dutch rivalries, hostilities and co-operation from the 1660s into the 1680s."[15], also reviewed by The American Historical Review[16], and BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review - "This is an important book that provides a new interpretation of French foreign policy and strategic interests from the perspective of two of France’s rivals, England and Holland. .. For this reviewer, the importance of this book is how it should impact on historians of early modern British history, albeit it has an anglocentric focus."[17] (with an award and 3 reviews this meets WP:NBOOK and could have its own article).
There are also reviews of Un glaive pour un royaume : la querelle de la milice dans l'Angleterre du XVIIe siècle by The American Historical Review - "Levillain’s exposition on the debate over the militia in the seemingly endless turmoil from 1603 to 1702 is both welcome and latitudinous. .. Such a thoroughly researched and meticulously conceived monograph deserves a wide audience."[18], of Cultural transfers France and Britain in the long eighteenth century (that contains La correspondance diplomatique dans l'Europe moderne (c.1550-c.1750): tentative de définition et problèmes de méthode) by Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century - "This multidisciplinary book moves beyond the classic concern with ‘influences’ of one author or culture on another. It presents a new understanding of the hidden international networks that sustained the Republic of Letters and of the synthesis that emerged through contacts and interaction between French and British culture."[19], of Vísperas de sucesión : Europa y la monarquía de Carlos II that contains La ruta de Flandes : el exilio bruselense del duque de York y la crisis de Exclusión (1679) by Hungarian Historical Review - "However, despite the importance of the political and strategical struggle for power, the War of Spanish Succession is not as well-known as other conflicts .. The volume under review attempts to fill this gap. The studies examine hidden processes of political decision-making .. The book offers an interdisciplinary introduction to the years of international political unrest between the Austrian Habsburgs and the Bourbons, two great dynasties opposed by their sense of honor and their pursuit of hegemony. Published by the Carlos de Amberes Foundation, the volume contains essays which are the fruit of several international research projects undertaken in collaboration with sixteen renowned scholars from Spain and other countries, such as Luis Ribot, Alfredo Floristán, Sánchez Belén and Joaquim Albareda from Spain and Davide Maffi from Italy and Charles-Édouard Levillain from France. .. In short, this book is noteworthy, as it constitutes a substantial contribution to the secondary literature on the last phase of Spanish Habsburgs, casting new light on this important moment in the emergence of modern Europe"[20], of Fear, Exclusion and Revolution: Roger Morrice and Britain in the 1680s that contains London Besieged? The City’s Vulnerability during the Glorious Revolution by The Scriblerian and the Kit-Kats[21], oh, and also meets WP:GNG, i do acknowledge though, that the article needs work. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMPORTANT I wrote this article. But I used his name for the userpage&username... Sorry. I didn't know the standard for wikipedia pages, I changed the look and feel, hope this is ok now... Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianegd (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per WP:PROF#C1. The reviews of his monographs that Coolabahapple has provided show substantial impact in his field. Joe Roe (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me intruding on this as a Wikipedia amateur though a professional historian (University of St Andrews). I had cause to look up M. Levillain for correspondence with him about coming to the Continent next year, and found the disputed Wikipedia webpage. I do not quite understand your protocols, but I felt the need to join Wikipedia so I could contribute to this matter given it has taken a serious turn. As Professor of History at St Andrews specializing in a similar field to M. Levillain, I am very familiar with his work. I would like to confirm in the strongest possible terms that the contents of his webpage biography are truthful and scrupulous, and that M. Levillain is a historian who is highly respected in the UK, USA, Netherlands, France and Germany for his original scholarship and international engagement. In my judgment he is indeed worthy of a Wikipedia page. If I had been asked to write the biography of him, I could not have done a better job myself. I hope this satisfies the concerns held by some of the contributors to this debate. Guy Rowlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrhist (talk • contribs) 09:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am not clear whether it was written by him, or by another editor who incorrectly thought it was appropriate to edit under the subject's user name. But in any case, he meets WP:PROF on the basis of his publications and awards, The only things still needing fixing in the article is the addition of the book reviews -(best done as references to his books), and, probably removal of the list of articles. notable as an historian is almost always on the basis of the published books, and articles should be included only if especially significant. Even in fields such as the sciences where notability is on the basis of the articles and the citation to them, we usually include only a list of the 4 or 5 most cited articles, unless we're dealing with someone truly world-famous, not just notable in hte ordinary way of a subject for a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After the relisting, the consensus is obviously keep. Note that the nominator voted to keep, too. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Klingmann[edit]

Anna Klingmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly promotional article; largely unreferenced, what refs there are are self-references. No evidence of meeting notability requirements. Has been tagged for almost three years without action. Even if she were prima facie notable, this article does not meet WP:BLP as there are zero RSes even to form a culled stub from. News searches mostly find other people called Anna Klingmann. Links to the book are mostly primary. I'm willing to be convinced ... David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inappropriate promotional bio with negligible sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • delete full of uncited claims bordering on self promotion. LibStar (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although her book is reasonably highly cited, her academic career appears to consist of a series of short-term teaching posts and she fails WP:PROF, and there's no indication that she meets the GNG as an architect. If you removed the unsourced and promotional claims then there would quite literally be nothing left. Joe Roe (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a lack of independent reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:GNG. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We generally require that someone should be an enduring part of the historical record that warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. Some of the sources seem to be local press (one of them is about a school field trip (!?)), press releases, and other low-quality sources. As an academic, the relevant guideline is WP:PROF, and I do not see a pass of any of the criteria listed there. In particular, the basic test is to look at citation counts. While her book gets a few hundred citations, this is the only relatively high-impact publication that she has to her name. So, I don't see a pass of C1, and the sources that have recently been added do not apparently meet the remaining criteria listed there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources are about school field trips, or local press. Considering that she has a whole body of work and is cited about her work with a particular aspect of architecture (branding), She merits inclusion in Wiki. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, in the sources provided, I do not see evidence of a pass under WP:PROF. Some of the sources do indeed seem like local press (e.g., https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-383619897.html, https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-400854633.html). Away from access at the moment, but one of these is indeed about a field trip. So, rather trivial ephemera, and not the kind of person noteworthy for an encyclopedia article. E.g., winning major architecture awards, a substantial body of work that appears in reliable secondary sources like books on architecture. See WP:CREATIVE. Those are the kinds of sources that are required to establish notability of a living person. Sławomir
Biały 01:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused: neither of those article are about a field trip. Arab News is about the the proposal to create an artistic/historic heritage project in Asir. So is this article. Is it possible you have a different definition of "field trip" than I do? In America, we take school-aged students on "field trips" to visit various places. This does not come up in any of the articles I cited. So I am very confused by your criticism. In addition, we do have critical reception and non-trivial coverage of Klingmann in Building Design, Architectural Record and the Futurist. Her concepts (brandism and brandscape) are referenced and discussed in several books, a few of which I cited in the article. Also, I'm not saying she passes PROF or CREATIVE. I'm saying she passes the GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk)
Several comments: (1) Just because something verifiably exists does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. As a creative professional (or an academic), we have guidelines to ascertain whether an article about that person is appropriate in an encyclopedia. Those guidelines are WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROF, respectively. (2) Most of the cited sources are primary sources, like news media and press releases, rather than secondary sources, like peer-reviewed literature discussing the subject's architectural work and/or contributions to academia. WP:GNG explicitly requires reliable secondary sources. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP for an indication of the kind of sources that are generally acceptable for use in an encyclopedia. Typically good secondary sources are peer-reviewed, and indexed by Google Scholar. I do not see any evidence of such sources. If you want to argue WP:GNG, you need much better sources than these. (3) Finally, the intention of WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROF is that these are supposed to be a weaker bar than GNG. Failing these, but somehow "passing" GNG should set off alarm bells. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs cleanup, but everyone who !voted Delete, in my opinion did not do a thorough WP:BEFORE. She is the chair of the architectural program at Dar Al-Hekma University. She is written up in Architectural Record March 2008, Arab News, Again, Arab News, in Building Design, review of her work in the Futurist, she's in non-English language news and a Google Book search turns up her name. I'll see if I can work on the article later. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • At present it has literally 0 RSes, so feel free to start it from yours up :-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I rewrote the article using the sources I found, David Gerard, if you'd like to take another look. :) I wasn't able to use any of the German language sources... I couldn't decipher them with Google Translate and I'm worried they may be talking about another Klingmann entirely. I think the sources I provide in the article establish notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess new sources Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to good work from Megalibrarygirl. They look like RSs to me. I do note that I can't access some due to subscription requirements. Many of the sources I can access are in-depth enough to make this person meet WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now, nice one Megalibrarygirl - everyone else happy with the new version? The old material is now on talk if anyone can find sources for claims - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG (and demonstrates that). Thincat (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Per Megalibrarygirl and her excellent work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG, article reflects this, thanks to Megalibrarygirl. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is this a "speedy keep" now that the nominator, David Gerard, has apparently withdrawn their nomination? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably better to have it assessed as being the consensus - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 21:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WackoWiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WackoWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional tone, one passing mention in an RS, no other third-party references since creation in 2004, tagged since 2013. Two AFDs (both at that page), one a delete, the second a keep; but not up to scratch in 2016. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WakkaWiki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikkaWiki - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WackoWiki is a fork of WakkaWiki. Considering that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WakkaWiki closes as delete, it is hard to believe that this is notable. I am unable to find any reliable sources discussing the software except for this which btw is simply a mention that WackoWiki was used. As there is very little third party coverage and I cannot see any indication that the software is popular or widely used, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WakkaWiki. Does not meet individual notability requirements. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable for the same reasons as WakkaWiki; Promotional piece with no evidence of notability. Kierzek (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhd Asyraf Azan[edit]

Muhd Asyraf Azan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources for this article are very weak. Beyond this, there is no clear indication that Azan has made any contribution to squash that is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Squashinfo profile linked from the article says that he has taken part in world championships. WP:NSPORT doesn't have a section for squash, but for most other sports taking part in world championships is considered to imply notability. Is there any reason to treat squash differently? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gonna look more later, but there is some coverage available. [22], [23]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:39, 22 August 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, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the absence of any good reason why squash players should be treated differently from those in most other sports this should be kept as passing WP:SPORTCRIT by virtue of the subject participating in world championships. The only racquet sport with a world championship that has a specific guideline in WP:NSPORT is badminton, so it seems sensible to set the bar for squash players at a similar level. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis needed Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) Convention[edit]

Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This disambiguation page has two articles, both stubs, neither obviously primary. Since the titles of the two conventions contain parenthesis, though, the page has been tagged as an incomplete DAB twice, in 2011 and again in 2013. The page seems unnecessary to me. Cnilep (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since there will be a need for this article eventually, I will userfy it on request. MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 F4 British Championship season[edit]

2017 F4 British Championship season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Too soon. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These articles should not be created until there is actually something to write about the championship. The fact that it is scheduled to happen next year isn't enough to sustain an article. QueenCake (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Sineath[edit]

Christian Sineath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor, promotion from shills. She has had some decent roles wit Dicapo Opera but none of these individual productions are notable. She is mentioned in some local reviews but their is nothing indepth about her. She lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, have added womens project so that participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quasicrystal Research[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Quasicrystal Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable student film on inhouse research. Award it recieved from Oregon Independent Film Festival is not major. There is no sign of any reviews. The film lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 19:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Fenix down (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Hui-shan[edit]

Chen Hui-shan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless there is some reason that the international competitions she has participated in do not meet WP:FOOTBALL. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Very clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. The article needs improvement. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans Memorial Stadium (Quincy)[edit]

Veterans Memorial Stadium (Quincy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing more than an old high school stadium. No extensive coverage of it, as opposed to games played in it. Being built by the WPA is interesting and potentially a source of future notability. However, the WPA built scads of high school sports facilities nationwide. If someday it gets put on a historical registry because of that, then it will be notable. Now, it's TOOSOON. Fails GNG. John from Idegon (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 02:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1) mainly because it turns out that this stadium served as a major league stadium for the NASL Boston Minutemen [25][26] and (2) also because sources suggest this is an important piece of public infrastructure for the city of Quincy, which recently spent a lot of money to fix it up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above as the former home stadium of a club in a fully-professional league. Smartyllama (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above reasons, and IMHO any stadium is pretty much a wp:GEOFEAT. --doncram 21:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Jamieson (actor)[edit]

Ethan Jamieson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP, substub. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 02:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the moment this is an entirely unsourced article about a living person and thus deletable under WP:BLPPROD. I also looked and I didn't turn up any substantive coverage of this actor in a reliable source. (The closest I came was a Google entry for some sort of video interview at eonline.com, but even that doubtful source turned out to be a deadlink. [27])--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Playing the male Tribute from District 4 isn't going to satisfy WP:NACTOR. The odds are not in this actor's favor. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wolf man (disambiguation). MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WolfMan[edit]

The WolfMan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced substub, might be a hoax. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NBOOK. What this article lacks in sources, it doesn't make up for in anything else. Although this article is about a book (or a supposed book), it doesn't even identify the book's writer. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - simple Google found notable author. Have improved article, might do more when not on mobile. PamD 07:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even after being improved, there are still problems with the article. Jonathan Maberry did not write a novelization of The Wolf Man (1941 film); he wrote a novelization of The Wolfman (2010 film). Furthermore, his novelization was titled The Wolfman, not The WolfMan. [28] And everything in this article could preferably be summarized in The Wolfman (2010 film) by saying "The film's novelization was written by Jonathan Maberry" instead of needing a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has changed yet again since my last comment. It may change even further before this AfD is done. Thus, the reasons I have provided for deletion may not always be in sync with the content of the article at any given time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Film novelizations typically don't require a separate article for them unless there has been a substantial amount of coverage and/or the book differs greatly from the final work. I'll see what I can find, but offhand I'm not finding much. This might be best off as a redirect to Wolf man (disambiguation), given that we have at least two different books with similar titles - not to mention a few others in the print media section of the disambiguation page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 02:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 11:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Writer[edit]

Adil Writer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP. May be promotional. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are some references: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. The problem is the articles itself, which need to be reworked. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article is sourced now, easily passes GNG, added cats, external inks, still might be an orphan though. Could probably use some copyediting/expansion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 02:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some WP:BEFORE may have assisted. I am not criticizing the nominator, but a simple Google News search throws up sources like New Indian Express and The Hindu, apart from many others. Lourdes 04:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 19:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the nomination, the article has now been sufficiently referenced, with more available on this page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Travel Bug. Consensus is to Merge and Redirect, I'm not seeing any reason to delete so to preserve the article (in the history) i'm closing as Merge. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Burrett[edit]

Morgan Burrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with only 1 source. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 02:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only two explicit delete !votes (nominator and John Pack Lambert), but the other two comments are also heavily sceptical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Bermúdez Ardila[edit]

Fernando Bermúdez Ardila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. The single source in the article is unreliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The statement "nominated by DET NORSKE NOBEL INSTITUTT, for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010" raises red flags. Firstly the Norwegian Nobel Institute does not nominate people for Nobel prizes but receives nominations from others, and secondly the names of nominees are not released until 50 years later. The fact that such a blatantly false and unverifiable claim is made in the first paragraph casts doubt over the rest of the content. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is weak and lacks adequate sourcing. Some of its text shouts out that the subject is unnotable, or at least the writer(s) of the article don't know what they are saying. It mentions "33 unpublished works". If they literally mean that Bermúdez has 33 works sitting around in his house or in a file somewhere that are unknown to the public, than this not only is trivial but can not add to notability. A work needs to be made public, that is published, to positively effect ones notability. However, the method of making such works public varries. 14 works for a historian and writer is very low. Jay H. Buckley, a professor I had at BYU who head's the Native American Studies program at that university, and who I have debated creating an article on, but am holding back until his Comparative history of 19th-century American andSouth Africa, his book on interpreting Native American languages and A Fur Trade History of the Great Plains and Canadian Prairies come out. The last of those three is the only one he has identified a press that is publishing it. Buckley lists 96 publications on his curriculum vitae, not counting in progress works. He only got his Ph.D. in 2001, and graduated from high school in 1988 (he included that date on his vitae). I think he turned 35 in 2004 (that is when I had him as a professor). That all works together. So he is almost 47, so is probably near the start of his scholarly life. A good portion of those 96 publications are book reviews, but that is still published works. 14 is a workable amount if they are impactful, but I see no evidence that they are in Bermúdez's case. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wondered about putting this up for deletion when I came across it to tag it with WikiProjects. You'd have thought that if someone really had "over 250 national and international award nominations" that there'd be mention of at least a few of them on the internet... Richard3120 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lore m. dickey[edit]

Lore m. dickey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional cv , fails WP:PROF. . As even the article says in its lede sentence, an " early career American psychologist". Early career is just what be mean by Not Yet Notable, and the article pretty much proves it: No significant citations: citations of his work: 26, 10, 7, 3, 3, 2. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Very self-promotional text and tone. Even if fixed, not seeing what in the content would meet PROF or GNG. — James Cantor (talk) 13:22, 9 September 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 September 7. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete psychologists whose work does not rise to the level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page for an "an early career American psychologist". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List_of_Hellsing_characters#Seras_Victoria . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K. T. Gray[edit]

K. T. Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found no significant coverage in RS. —swpbT 13:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Nothing to show individual notability, only one major VA role. Esw01407 (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per SK4 - No objections to renomination by any well respected & trusted editors. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Seezy[edit]

DJ Seezy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I completed a quick web search query utilizing the Google Search engine and most of the ref to this person were social media, I did not see anything that would make him meet our notability standards. --VVikingTalkEdits 13:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Killjoy Club (group)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Killjoy Club (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability as a band. Sources are almost entirely to a forum site; the one minor RS doesn't mention the article subject. Tagged for bad sourcing for over a year now. Was AFDed previously unanimously; I suggest it be salted this time. David Gerard (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shafie Ayar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shafie Ayar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No RS that I can find in searches or in the references. I removed the most eggregious non-RS, but don't see how a self-published book makes someone notable; plus one passing mention in a newspaper. Usterday (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 European Touring Car Cup[edit]

2017 European Touring Car Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Too soon Corvus tristis (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom, there's just nothing to write at present. QueenCake (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Youth Day 2019[edit]

World Youth Day 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub, PROD tag says "WP:Too soon". KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' as original prodder. Its 3 years out, and the level of coverage about the topics seems way, way lower than it needs to be to be encyclopedic -- its all going to be speculation and/or promises from the political types. Sadads (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official stated by Pope Francis.--Spacejam2 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- WE have articles on about 10 past ones, so that we will presumably want one on this in due course. However, it all seems too distant, a classic case of WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Official stated by Pope Francis and official confirmed by the President Of Panama State.--Spacejam2 (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sindoori Reddy[edit]

Sindoori Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written in promotional tone, notability has not been demonstrated, seems to fail at WP:BIO Hitro talk 15:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA biography whose prose is riddled with promotion. The subject has a position in the family firm and any media coverage has been in that context of that 7 member family council for running the business. Insufficient for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kind of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Loves Frances[edit]

Renee Loves Frances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NasssaNser 02:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CT-20[edit]

CT-20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Poorly sourced article about a radio program. As a syndicated show that aired across an ad hoc network of stations rather than in a single market, this would pass WP:NMEDIA if it were properly sourced -- but the only source cited here is an archived version of its own primary source web page about itself, which is not a source that can confer notability. No strong media coverage is locatable on either Google or ProQuest, either. As always, a radio show is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because its own website verifies that it existed; an article has to rest on media coverage about the show to become keepable. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Radha Krishna Mandir, Jansath[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shri Radha Krishna Mandir, Jansath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Has no claim to notability. Google search did not revel anything. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Quite improbable to reliably source this article. There is nothing but a website about this supposedly thousands year old temple on web. Anup [Talk] 17:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Carlo (vodka)[edit]

Monte Carlo (vodka) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an advert added by a COI. None of the references are, in my view, reliable sources; they're indistinguishable from advetorial. I can find no reliable sources. Tagishsimon (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete major COI problems and lack of reliable sources. MKFI (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kind of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Morton[edit]

Gregory Morton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: does not meet threshold for notability as an actor. Quis separabit? 02:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sadly no refererences here to indicate notability. 80.193.74.158 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kind of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newid[edit]

Newid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly promotional article for proposed political party. Literally one third-party reference, to a local paper noting they existed as a group. Nothing since 2011. Part of a promotional cluster surrounding the founder, the others are PRODed. I'm willing to be convinced, but ... David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As well as being unreliably sourced, taking a look at it, it claims to establish notability by being "the world's first popular movement for demarchy". Not a valid claim for notability IMO. Minima© (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two redirects without additional input, I don't think we are going to reach consensus here. MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Delaplaine[edit]

Andrew Delaplaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable: one nomination for an award in a non-notable film festival (Milan), one entry in IMDb, and something for another film festival (Berkeley) on a link which my browser advises against opening. PROD was removed on the incorrect basis that "Since there are some references it can't be PROD" by an editor apparently confusing PROD with BLP PROD. PamD 14:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by nominator: a NYT ref has now been added, but the entire coverage there is The screenplay is credited to three writers (Andrew Kole, Andrew Delaplaine and Scott Kasdin), which may account for the inconsistencies in tone. An independent reliable source but hardly "Significant coverage". PamD 15:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment by nominator: a redirect to the film Meeting Spencer might be a sensible outcome. PamD 15:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: here's a [[Los Angeles Times review of a 1-act play he wrote (PLUMBING THE UNHOLY HOOPLA OF THE POPE'S VISIT: [Home Edition] Sullivan, Dan. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Los Angeles, Calif] 12 Sep 1987: 9 [34]]; An article about a 27 minute file he wrote (A STRANGER'S PAST, Smith, Craig. The Santa Fe New Mexican [Santa Fe, N.M] 26 Nov 2004: P-44. [35] Title of fils:The Male Nude, producer David Leddick). And here: "Andrew Delaplaine has launched Shallow Beach Entertainment, a company that helps develop literary properties focusing on Miami and South Florida for broadcast, cable television and feature films. Delaplaine was the founder and former publisher of South Beach's weekly newspaper, Wire, and the spin-off cable television show, Live Wire." lifted from (ADVERTISING & MARKETING NOTES: [Broward Metro Edition]
Compiled by Jeffery D. Zbar. South Florida Sun - Sentinel [Fort Lauderdale, Fla] 06 Aug 2001: 12. ) A number of other articles in Florida newspapers cover his activities as a publisher, and there are quite a number of articles articles in Florida papers covering "Andrew Delaplaine" as part of a number of projects to promote/attract businesses to South Florida. I think probably keep and hope someone takes the time to expand and source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are quite a lot of harcovers by him in Amazon, published by independent publishers in addition to a screenplay. More sources need to be added, right, but I feel that keep is fair enoughArthistorian1977 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a bunch of travel guides and some self-published collections of quotes are a credible claim to notability... Joe Roe (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The books I see in Amazon are not self published. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Delaplaine appears to be something of a dilettante, so his name crops up here and there, but I can't find enough substantial coverage for him to be considered notable as a writer, businessman, filmmaker or politician. Joe Roe (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only keep argument is not addressing the deletion reason. Seems like a redirect already exists and people think no more are needed, thus deleting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Pirena'[edit]

'Pirena' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability per WP:GNG. A fictional character from a notable TV series. Pirena, the correct title, is already a redirect to Encantadia (see also Pirena revision history and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirena). Whether or not this character merits a separate article, the incorrect title with extraneous quotation marks should probably not remain. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Encantadia per nom. Hiding T 14:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. A redirect would not be useful in this case for obvious reasons. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Dex[edit]

Famous Dex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks WP:BIO; no proof of reliable sources within coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO; although it features a discography, there is no source of reference. Lacks WP:MUSICBIO. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – I find this article to be simply alright and almost cited with references. It still needs more improvement. DBrown SPS (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Agreeing with above. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This Biography of a living person is referenced primarily to Discogs, which is a crowdsourced website and therefore not a reliable source. None of the rest of the sources are reliable except possibly MTV and that is one brief, highly promotional paragraph. The person is not notable unless he has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepCalling[edit]

KeepCalling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Challenged PROD. The PROD reason was: "Advertorial with examinations finding the listed sources to be nothing but PR or PR-like "coverage", the author moved it themselves after having it repeatedly declined, and not actually listening to my concerns listed. This is likely even a secretly paid contributed article considering the author was so avid to fluff this with PR and move it themselves." I concur, this is blatant advertising. I conducted a source check myself and was deeply unimpressed. An IP removed the PROD saying "Reliable sources available in other languages", but note that the article doesn't even have an article in those other languages. David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO -- blatant advertisement and dodgy (likely COI) behaviour. Perhaps salt, so that volunteer editors' time is not wasted again. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent reliable sources found in English. Most of the sources in the article are Romanian and I can't fully evaluate them, but they are probably press releases and other trivial mentions as there is nothing in the US for this US based company. I also note that the article was created by an SPA who has only edited this article an another promotional, declined draft. MB 02:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with both of you. Not enough to assert WP:ORG. Translated the sources. Roughly 70% are advertorial of some kind. The others discuss the company sponsoring 30 university students, paying fees for the first year. Scope creep (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are weak. Pyrusca (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Klypso[edit]

DJ Klypso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. DJ Klypso has produced a few songs but none of them have charted or otherwise become notable. He has not been the subject of multiple, in-depth, third party writings. Binksternet (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nawayug Academy[edit]

Nawayug Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient information/content. Hell walker guy (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus on secondary schools. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crazeclown[edit]

Crazeclown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this article was speedy deleted with the name Emmanuel Iwueke 'Dr Craze. It fails WP:GNG as nothing establishes notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability Cotton2 (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep doesnt fail notabilty, sources are verifiable and independent of the subject.Kelvinsage1 (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelvinsage1:, can you provide 5 independent sources to back your vote? I doubt. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ask too, that, is it the number of sources that matter, or the quality of those sources? besides, i believe you know who crazeclown is, his nationwide coverage and star status as well as his international coverage makes him a notable person.Kelvinsage1 (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The coverage is almost exclusively on blogs (WP:SPS) or social media. There is literally nothing in the way of reliable independent sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hidemi Anzai[edit]

Hidemi Anzai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing any notability for this voice actress. ANN shows a bunch of guest roles and no lead roles in major productions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article states enough information to show her own characters were not even significant or major, and I'll also note there's then not even anything close to actually establishing any substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CHOZ-FM. "Soft redirect" given the low input despite two relistings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF2321[edit]

VF2321 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Single-sourced article which claims that its topic is a community radio station, but whose only sourced programming history is as a rebroadcaster of another station. But WP:NMEDIA does not grant rebroadcasters standalone notability as a separate topic from their programming source; while it's certainly possible that the station later switched to originating its own programming as claimed, it's unsourced and unsourceable as to whether that actually happened; and VF stations are now exempt from having to have a CRTC license at all, which means the lack of a license renewal "as of 2012" proves nothing either way about whether this is actually still operating or not. A station like this is not a suitable topic for a standalone article, if we can't properly source whether it ever met NMEDIA's condition about original programming or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to CHOZ-FM; the carriage of that station's programming, which may or may not have ended, is the only programming on the station that we have a source for. VF stations don't really have the presumption of notability for broadcast stations in general; rebroadcasters with no other known programming history definitely don't get that presumption. There doesn't seem to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline — and if those sources existed, there might actually be more to say as to what VF2321 is actually airing these days. This article actually was a redirect to CHOZ-FM when it was created in 2009, and only became a separate article in 2012; since rebroadcasting CHOZ is VF2321's only truly known programming, that is why I've been leaning to the restoration of the redirect, but I wouldn't object to deletion either. There is definitely no reason for this not-really-notable station to have a standalone article that will only ever be a permastub. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renames can be discussed on the talk page, but this topic appears to be notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudu (restaurant)[edit]

Kudu (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability issues since 2012. PROD removed. I looked hard for English sources for this Saudi restaurant and found but two credible ones which I added. Nominating for further input as the article still may not meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Problem may be the lack of English sources rather than the notability of the company. Wiser heads than mine can weigh in. Geoff | Who, me? 18:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • A better news search than the one automatically provided above is this, but, as I am also linguistically challenged here, there are probably many more potential sources in Arabic. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep; this is an example of WP:WORLDVIEW. The restaurant chain has hundreds of locations throughout Saudi Arabia, where here in the United States a chain will have an article if it has just 5 locations. Here are some sources:

MB298 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an article on this has been happily on the arabic wikipedia since 2007 - كودو(Kudo), unfortunately it is not well referenced (drat). Coolabahapple (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 2 sources in the article together with the ones provided by MB298 are clearly enough to establish notability. Some other sources I found are [39] and [40]. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable per the sources already mentioned, and worthy of an article, especially in light of our concerns to combat systemic geographic bias. I would like to see more about the history of the chain--just how (and by whom) was this business started and grown so successfully?--but as short as it is now the article demonstrates notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the referencing above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K-LEE Radio[edit]

K-LEE Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Community radio station within the CRTC's license-exempt class of broadcasting endeavours, which thus does not get a presumption of notability under WP:NMEDIA (where notability is dependent on having a broadcast license.) The only "source" here is a local resident's own self-published personal webpage, which means WP:GNG has not been met either. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herculean Effort Productions[edit]

Herculean Effort Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines in WP:WEB Wasabi,the,one (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while I am not sure WP:WEB is the relevant guideline, the only hits on online search are WP mirrors and reloaded.org (a download site). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They are a game studio. But they have only made 4 small games, some point and click adventures which are freeware. One has its own wiki-page: Apprentice. They made these games with a game-engine called Adventure Game Studio. Looks like some students were messing around with a game-creating framework. There is almost 0 reception for their games in the internet, aside from a few download links here and there. The same is for their company (I somehow doubt it is an actual registered company btw). They also apparently havn't created anything since years, their last game is from 2007 ("Super Jazz"). Their homepage is not reachable as for now, you must use wayback machine. They seem to be defunct. They fail WP:NCORP in all points and also WP:GNG in general, as there is nothing about them in reliable sources. This page should be deleted therefore. Their games also fail WP:NVIDEOGAMES, so the the WP Page for Apprentice should probably also deleted.Dead Mary (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per notability claims provided, which seem to have convinced people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jump5[edit]

Jump5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability as per WP:MUSIC of any chart entries, national headlining tour or substantial sources. The group disbanded in 2007. Karst (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Page only has one reference and not much else out there establishing notability. Meatsgains (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I note all their albums have articles as well. Are you in favour of keeping them? StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just - two charting albums, All the Time in the World (Jump5 album) and Accelerate (Jump5 album) not only Top 10 in the Christian charts, but bothered the lower reaches of the Top 200. Dreaming in Color made the Christian charts. This article cluster needs some serious cleaning up, though. But they pass prima facie notability - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I removed the PROD I suggested that Karst do WP:BEFORE. Here's what I found when I searched Google:
Mainstream press
Specific Christian press
And I have not looked at print material, notably magazine articles. Not impressed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Gerard and Walter Görlitz. StAnselm (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the references that have been uncovered during this AfD prove notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamecock Jesus[edit]

Gamecock Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable pseudo mascot. Speedy was declined, but i would have accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, barring a flurry of excellent sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable game mascot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no indications of notability or importance; has the appearance of being a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Francis Kirby[edit]

Jeffrey Francis Kirby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Majority of sources are either primary sources or self-published. -- HighKing++ 18:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Maybe not notable on an international scale, but very notable within the Diocese of Charleston and the state of South Carolina and throughout the private school system within the state. Has published multiple books, appeared on numerous radio and television programs, has a large social media presence with 10,000+ followers, and was recently nominated for the Order of the Palmetto by Governor Nikki Haley, the highest civilian honor in the state of SC. Many of the sources on his page are from various newspapers around the state of SC (including those in Greenville, Aiken, Columbia, Myrtle Beach, and Charleston) or are YouTube recordings of his interviews or appearances on various local and national radio and TV programs. I believe the article should remain and NOT be deleted. Boyarty (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately of the 113 references in the article, not one meets the criteria for arms length reporting. I asked on the article Talk page the following to which you did not respond, so we can only assume that you are unable to point to a single reference that assists us in evaluating whether Kirby meets the criteria for notability:
Hi Boyarty, there's currently 113 "references" for this article - far too many and it makes the article unwieldly. 39 are YouTube links or references to interviews. A further 12 are articles by Kirby himself. Some references do not show notability - for example, the Post and Courier "Diocese ordains 6 prients" or "Catholic diocese implements robust new strategy to recruit priests" or "Religious liberty: The church-state debate over women's health". Most articles seem to be Kirby providing a quote. Can you point to a particular reference that you believe shows notability? Be aware of policy that states the sources must be reliable *secondary* sources.
You state that Kirby has published multiple books. The books are self-published through "[www.signopress.com signo press]". The newspaper articles are, without a single exception, parochial stories that feature an interview with Kirby on events such as "Reverend to roam Rome for a year", "Father Kirby discusses books at St. Mary in Aiken" or "Father Kirby Farewell". In fact, looking at the URLs you've placed in the article, it appears you have scoured the internet for every mention of Kirby - and there still doesn't appear to be a reference that assists in establishing notability. -- HighKing++ 13:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I am not an expert Wikipedia editor by any stretch of the imagination and I clearly do not have the expertise as you do with regards to the lingo and the rules of Wikipedia (also, I don't log in very often, hence my delay replying to your posts), but I feel stuck in an impossible situation. If I did not include enough sources or a source for all the details on the page, aggressive editors would come in and paste "Citation Needed" all over the place and recommend that the article be deleted. So I instead was cautious and included substantial sources for every little fact on the page, but now I get accused of including too many sources, many of them trivial (because the facts they were sourcing are, themselves, trivial). I'm not sure how I (or other non-"professional" Wiki authors/editors in other situations) am supposed to win here? The linking to YouTube is the best I could do as most of the television and radio programs do not provide archived video of their broadcasts, podcasts, or shows, but even though they are hosted on the subject's personal YouTube channel they are still excerpts from state and national programs. As I mentioned, I have sources from numerous newspapers around the state and dozens of different TV and radio stations/programs. How much more do I need for it to qualify as notable? Within the state of SC and the Catholic community in the Diocese of Charleston, this guy is a pretty big name (plus his parish study guide on Pope Francis's Year of Mercy was used by hundreds of dioceses around the world) and it feels like his article is being targeted by people who haven't heard of him because they are not part of that community rather arbitrarily. In five minutes of searching I could find dozens of Wikipedia pages on less notable people that need to be deleted far more urgently than this page. Boyarty (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Classic example of a puff piece. The subject may well be on the way to notability, but isn't there yet. StAnselm (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a man who has managed to get himself in the Catholic press a good deal and has written a number of articles, and possibly a few booklets. However, I have significant doubts as to whether he has done enough to be WP-notable. Nevertheless, I do not feel strongly enough to vote delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, but I know Fr. Kirby and his career closely. As the Vice President of Media for Fr. Kirby's publishing team at Saint Benedict Press & TAN Books - for whom he has written 4 published books and hosted 4 major Catholic video study programs for three different imprints: Saint Benedict Press, Catholic Courses, Catholic Scripture Study International - of course I am voting to keep this article. We began working with Fr. Kirby precisely because he is notable in the US Catholic market. We have continued to work with him precisely because he is notable and is requested by our customers. Fr. Kirby's materials published through our various imprints have reached more than 25,000 customers in the past 18 months. Two of Father Kirby’s Saint Benedict Press products would be Wall Street Journal bestsellers, and possibly New York Times bestsellers if they were sold through the channels that those publishers track as opposed to directly to Catholic parishes across the nation. Our companies have been in business for more than 45 years, we have hundreds of authors and Fr. Kirby is one of the most notable over the past several years. There are more Wikipedia articles than I could ever count that are not notable to me because they cover people or events in other countries, states or cities. But this is no "puff piece". Fr. Kirby is not just a self-published author and journalist. He is a national name in the Catholic market, with particular notability in the Southeastern US, and the Carolinas specifically. Here are our sites with info on his products: Links Removed per Request --Mkgallagher1 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Just to point out that you've declared a conflict of interest just now that you are financially rewarded through selling books written by Kirby. It also appears from your total of 3 edits that you've created your account for the sole purpose of !voting to keep the article. Finally, please remove your advertising links to your websites. -- HighKing++ 17:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Links removed. I’m not trying to disrespect the Wikipedia process or the editors who make it such a great source for information online. In your shoes, I would probably feel the same as you do. I certainly wasn’t trying to “advertise” to the editors here by sharing those links. I shared them because they are pertinent to the discussion regarding Fr. Kirby’s notability via the claim that he is merely a self-published author. That is not the case. If the issue at hand is strongly focused on the presence of primary sources rather than secondary, could someone advise as to where the line is drawn? For Catholics, diocesan newspapers and similar outlets are not primary sources (as I understand them), but are independent news outlets that operate within a specific market niche. --Mkgallagher1 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for removing the links. There are a number of policies that define and govern the criteria. Start with Notabability. It defines the general notability guideline as If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. It then goes on to define what "significant coverage" and "reliable sources", etc, are. When we examine the references in Kirby's article, this is the definition we are most like to use. I have been through the entire 100+ references and thry all fail against this definition. -- HighKing++ 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThat particular user might have a "conflict of interest", but it does not change objective facts like: "Two of Father Kirby’s Saint Benedict Press products would be Wall Street Journal bestsellers, and possibly New York Times bestsellers if they were sold through the channels that those publishers track as opposed to directly to Catholic parishes across the nation". This is notable no matter who the Wikipedia user is that posts the information. Also, Father Kirby will be awarded the Order of the Palmetto this month, which seems exactly the sort of high honor that would mark notability (especially since it is a public honor being given by an outside party (The state of South Carolina) as opposed to an internal award within the Catholic church). Boyarty (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One person's "objective facts" are another person's WP:SYN. And many would argue about whether the statement was "objective" or contained any actual "facts" - best definition is that it is an opinion. Also, as per the discussion for the article "Recipients of the Order of the Palmetto", one of the better comments sums it up nicely by stating "presumably awardees have done something (perhaps notably, by Wikipedia standards) to have earned the award; that is likely what defines them, not receiving this award.". -- HighKing++ 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete a simple case of WP:TOOSOON. Many sources in article, are less than they appear, for example, the NPR segment is real, despite the fatc tht it is linked ot youtube rather than to NPR, but Father Kirby is merely a "caller" (as the interviewer describes him) a young priest who phones in to talk about why he became a prirst. I wish him a long and distinguished career, but he is not notable yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable. Self published books do not normally provide notability; there are very few indeed that are exceptions and it takes very strong evidence . DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa Red Ensign[edit]

South Africa Red Ensign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely duplicative of Flag of South Africa#History. Generally, historical flags are covered in a section of the Flag of X article. The deletion discussion for Flag of South Africa (1928–1994) reached a consensus that a flag can have a separate article when it is independently notable and has separate, contemporary relevance (as with the current use of that flag by certain sociopolitical factions). But the Red Ensign does not meet these criteria. Ibadibam (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per WP:GNG. There are sufficient reliable 3rd party sources to support the existence of this page. And actually historical flags of countries often get their own pages, but that is a WP:OTHER argument, thus is irrelevant here. Per WP:NOPAGE, the red ensign can be better understood with this separate page. Given that the info in the Flag of South Africa page is mostly unsourced. To include this article in the FOSA page would violate WP:UNDUE as it would give even more coverage to the historical flags than it would to the actual subject it s supposed to be covering. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The C of E and link to this from the main SA flags page. This page is much better sourced and extensive than the section it's said to duplicate. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Flag of South Africa#History. Only three of the sources cited look reliable, so I do not accept the subject as generally notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Chris troutman: There are more than 3 reliable sources, I have just added two more which I hope should affirm it for your interpretation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This nomination is not based on a lack of notability, but based on redundancy per WP:CFORK and WP:PAGEDECIDE, the general consensus on organization of vexillological articles on Wikipedia, and the standard of independent notability for flags put forward by Slashme in the recent AfD. If you would like to retain the sources you have located for this topic, I recommend we instead treat this nomination as a merge to Flag of South Africa. Ibadibam (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not a CFORK as there is no other article that covers this in detail. It is not a POV fork and neitherthe Flag of South Africa page cover the information in detail that it does here in this separate page. But if you want to rely on the OTHER argument, I point out the Flag of the Orange Free State, Flag of Transvaal, Flag of Transkei and Flag of the South African Republic as precedence for flags of short lived colonies or political situations having their own articles. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's definitely not a POV fork, but it is an unnecessary and incomplete split of Flag of South Africa, which makes it a content fork. Given that this flag is historical and sees no new use, I can't imagine there being so much to say about it that can't fit in the extant primary article. The other stuff you raise is different, in that those are the flags of separate, defunct states with no sole successor, and thus no other "Flag of X" articles, whereas this is the historical flag of a state which already has a flag article, which is not yet so long that summary style is called for. Ibadibam (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • How can it be a split when it's bigger with more information and better sourced than the section in the FOSA page? Stands to reason it cannot be a Cfork if its got more than that it's supposedly forking. As for the others, they were all succeeded by either becoming provinces or the Union as a whole. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • What should have been done was to develop this content on the article about South African flags before being spun-off. That's why I'd consider it a CFORK. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Keep per The C of E's improvements. Incidentally, my argument for deletion does not have to agree with the nominator. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I didn't mean to undermine your argument. My statement as to the original motivation for nomination was incidental to my response to The C of E. Ibadibam (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article has enough content to stand on its own, with a short version remaining in the Flag of South Africa article. It's clearly a notable topic, because it passes the GNG. It's not a content fork, because it's not presenting a different POV from the main article, and has a narrower scope. --Slashme (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonably well sourced article on a relevant subject. Passes GNG per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Lloyd-Jones[edit]

Antonia Lloyd-Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there is no independent notability other than translating some books. all of the citations are either social media profiles or tabloid journalism Wasabi,the,one (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are still no substantial and major publications and the only library holdings there are, as tertiary author, that's not convincing for establishing her own article, let alone with convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. a translator can be notable, but there is no evidence this particular translator is . DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being associated with a bunch of notable institutions as well as notable works isn't the same thing as having personal notability. A biographical page requires significant reliable source coverage to make the actual 'meat' of the article, after all, and that just doesn't exist here. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:PROMO and for lack of sufficient RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19iPvB5oIjBxg5ri9f0psGi_QPen2XzFQprPNhN-Cl30/edit#gid=725588157
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_September_7&oldid=1142620355"