Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 September 9 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 delete. North America1000 01:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TutorsWeb[edit]

TutorsWeb (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 lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, promo without evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Not notable. - JLOPO (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Source Review:
    • India Times - A reliable source... except that at the bottom of the article they placed the following disclaimer: "(This story has not been edited by timesofindia.com and is auto–generated from a syndicated feed we subscribe to.)" Thank you for being honest India Times, this is why you are a reliable source. And this article is not.
    • Start-Up Hyderabad - Exact same text from previous India Times source, above. Not RS. Not even really a different source.
    • Business Standard - Exact same text as above sources. Not RS.
    • Computerzhub - Obviously not a RS. Filled with ungrammatical advertisment-speak, reminiscent of email spam.
    • "The Hindu" - No link available, but the title suggests it is a mere press release, not an in-depth article.
A google news search pops up site after site after site with the EXACT SAME TEXT. It's not impossible that SOMEWHERE in there is an actual article with coverage, since there are so many hits, but if there is, I can't find it. Delete. Fieari (talk) 01:26, 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) 05:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Mroz[edit]

Devin Mroz (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)

Procedural AFD, expired PROD that had been PRODded before. Nomination was: "Unsourced BLP, was previously deleted via PROD for lack of notability, IMDB page shows only 3 minor roles http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3999679/, google doesn't return 3rd party coverage." I concur, and note the cut'n'pasted reference numbers in the text that don't point to anything. David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMDb is the only think vaguely like a reliable source I can find, and it is not. I seem to recall that at times IMDb is very wrong about casting for unreleased films. The film mentioned is according to IMDb due to be released in 2017.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if we could be 100%sure that IMDb is right both that Mroz is on the cast of Savage Dog nothing indicates that even when it is released this will propel Mroz to notability. He is not one of the 8 main cast members per IMDb. He is instead one of the 13 additional cast members. The film is said to still be in the filming stage, so he might also fall the fate of some people who are filmed and then cut from the final version. No one knows for sure at this point that Savage Dog when released will have Mroz appear on screen, let alone speak. In fact it is not a forgone conclusion Savage Dog will ever be released. The film is being directed by Jesse V. Johnson whose last film to be released The Package opened 81st at the box office (if asked I would not have guessed you could open below 60th), and managed to earn $1,469, even though the lead role was played by Steve Austin. In fact Johnson's film The Beutiful Ones was per IMDb still in post-production in July, but I came up with a claim it was released in June. Plus the only hard evidence I found was a YouTube trailer from 2014. None of this suggests that Savage Dog is actually on schedule or even for sure ever going to bereleased, let alone be a notable film, and even if it was a notable film, Mroz role appears to be too minor to count for actor notability, and unless his role made him a cult classic, he would need another significant role, and we would want a real reliable source, neither of which we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I posted the expired PROD mentioned above, and my reasons haven't changed. JamesG5 (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as absolutely unacceptable, not only not having sufficient and convincing sources, there's nothing close to actually suggesting a better notability overall since his list of works explain it all. We've deleted articles with 2 PRODs before and no one would've been affected had it happened for this case. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Salsman[edit]

Richard Salsman (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 notability criteria. Entry is basically a resume; no independent sources. Subject had a non-notable business career, and is a non-notable (untenured PhD) academic. Rap7910 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP from early WP days, no refs, basically CV of a 2012-PhD-minted person who has not yet satisfied any notability criteria. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to meet any notability standard. Found a smattering of mentions and quotations in independent sources, but nothing that I could call significant coverage, either in terms of biographical material or review/engagement of his works. Perhaps he will be notable one day, but he doesn't seem to be there yet. --RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to meet any notability standard. ALongSleep (talk) 01:19, 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 delete.  Sandstein  18:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Westech[edit]

Westech (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 real indication of significance. Lots of references but they all barely mention the company. Lots WP:PEACOCK statements such as "become global players" or "famous films". Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did clean up the article to remove the WP:PEACOCK statements and multiple unsubstantiated claims: see diff --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete both as puffed up bad article and disambig with no articles under G8 - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am the author of this article. I began this article because having watched Catching the Sun I wanted to find out more about the company featured, but it was not already featured on wikipedia. This company is notable for several reasons including the fact that it was one of the first developers of solar technology. I believe that this fact alone would be notable if not the fact that a film made about them I am sure they are notable of a mention in wikipedia. The reason I made the page with several different companies is because there are different companies which operate under the name which are also notable, some more so than others. Rather than have a separate page for each part of the Westech companies I thought it would make sense to have a single page. I agree that the page needed alot of work. I am new to wikipedia, but I thought that was the idea. We create a page about a topic of note then other people add information, citations and links to it. It would be great if we have some solar technology engineers and other experts who could add information to this page about this fascinating topic. The company is already mentioned in several wiki articles so it would make sense to have a page where they can all link to. I really dont think deleting the page would be of benefit. Steven Clamp —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is close to a disambiguation page, but none of the entries are notable companies with WP articles. No real reason for the article to exist. MB 21:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DIRECTORY and insufficient in-depth sourcing on the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MB's argument. Fieari (talk) 04:57, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Jenkins Shriver[edit]

Alfred Jenkins Shriver (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 lacks significant coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could find no published biographies, or biographical articles, on Shriver, and, to my knowledge, he left no collection of papers, which may explain the lack of published biographical material. But he certainly featured prominently in Baltimore society in the early 20th century and was a significant figure in the history of Johns Hopkins University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim at JHU (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment those paper sources sound like a respectable obituary in an RS. Not being online doesn't mean they don't exist - David Gerard (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Meatsgains: Can you clarify why you don't think the Baltimore Sun and John Hopkins Magazine are reliable and/or not significant mentions? Joe Roe (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, those are both reliable sources but I can't seem to verify coverage of Shriver in either of them. The references are ambiguous, only noting the publication and date it was published. Meatsgains (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "can't seem to verify", what do you mean? What steps did you take? - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is the person after whom Shriver Hall on JHU is named[1]. newspapers.com has tons of information on him. He has an significan entry in a book of short biographies of Baltimoreans, which could be added to the references, too [2]. A new editor who is a librarian started this page, instead of taking this straight to afd, maybe give the user some advice and time. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After the format of references were improved (the subject can be verified) and the page was brought up to quality standards, I see no reason to delete. Meatsgains (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smurphy. Definitely a notable figure in Baltimore's history, and the article now has the sourcing to verify this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This article is rather thin on what he did between his graduation and his last illness, except produce a text book. In my country legal text books can remain in print for many years, going through multiple editions, with a new one every few years. If that applies to Law of Wills and Personal Property in Maryland, then the article should certainly be kept. We have what appears to be a local biographical dictionary among the sources, but not one available to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not addressing your main point, but I fixed the Hall citation, sorry it was wrong-ish. I also switched the link from google books to archive.org, perhaps you can view that version. I'm not sure if people in the UK can see archive.org links when google books ones are hidden; if it works, you can search there for a view-able version in cases like this. You can also use a US proxy or vpn to view PD google books when they are hidden in the UK - many free browser-based proxy services exist. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:59, 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. North America1000 01:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Water Systems[edit]

Sun Water Systems (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)

Cites no references. The references listed are not enough to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reason. Not notable. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with above. Article created by SPA with only 6 edits, all to this article. MB 02:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable company....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete per nom and others. Problems are clear. --Lockley (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not at all notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Ayub407talk 17:50, 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 Speedy Deleted. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tapan Ahmed[edit]

Tapan Ahmed (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)

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. There are mentions of him as the director of Detective but no substantial coverage of him. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:04, 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 Speedy deleted under G5 criteria. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Kai[edit]

Wong Kai (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. Wong Kai is listed as assistant producer on the film The White Countess,[3] and as simply "assistant" on the film The Divorce,[4] but in both cases his involvement was ignored by the media. His "Bible of Romance" was not reviewed by any reliable sources. He starred in the film Hong Kong Dreaming[5] but it was not reviewed in any mainstream press. He has biographies at various websites such as alivenotdead.com which contain user-uploaded content, and at Dartmouth[6] where he attended school. I don't think Dartmouth's website counts as an uninterested third party, as they benefit from showing their alumni in good light. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 02:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 02:07, 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. Kind of an WP:IAR close. Aristotelous has played in a WP:FPL since the start of this discussion and now passes WP:NFOOTY. No need to keep it open for bureaucratic purposes. If there are any objections I'm happy for this debate to be re-opened. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charalambos Aristotelous[edit]

Charalambos Aristotelous (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has not played in a fully pro league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article The players had play in Cyprus 2nd division (pro league) and in cypriot cup against OMONIA
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. May be notable soon, but for now at best WP:TOOSOON. Keep vote rationale above is incorrect. Cypriot second division is not fully professional per WP:NFOOTY and cup appearance only count towards NFOOTY when the games are between two teams from fully professional leagues. Fenix down (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cypriot 2nd division is not fully pro Spiderone 15:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and close please the article Aristotelous played today with Anorthosis Famagusta against Aris Link
  • Keep - I fail to understand this time-wasting nominations of players who are clearly about to debut. Nominators need to show some WP:COMMONSENSE and remember there is WP:NORUSH. 23:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 10:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bible translations into Ladakhi[edit]

Bible translations into Ladakhi (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)

User:Ladakh Bible using this article to promote their Ladakh Bible App in the App Store JMHamo (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I thought it was accepted that most Bible translations were notable. This is giving a history of translation, and is certainly worth having, despite the creator's COI. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article appears to be a slightly rewritten copy, with beefed up references, of Bible translations into Tibetan. I'd suggest either merging there, or disentangling the two. Uanfala (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 2 days I've made some major additions to the article regarding "Bible translations in Ladakhi". I believe they are unique and new and beneficial to those who are interested in Bible Translations. I hope the changes/additions I have done will help to keep this article in WikipediaLadakh Bible (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The subject is clearly notable, and has sources. The prose of this article is not very encyclopedic, and could use cleanup, but AfD is not cleanup. The motivation of the article creator is also irrelevant. Definitely keep. Fieari (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article should be kept separate from that of Bible Translation into Tibetan. I think this article is note worthy in it self. The people group for which this article is written for (Leh district/zhung Dialect) numbers about 60,000 people. This would be of interest to them, not to mention all the Christians within India (2-3% of the population, 20-30 million people). I was looking through all the articles related to Ladakh which occupy it's own topic/article. They are Ladakh Scouts, Ladakh International Film Festival, Ladakh Marathon, Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Leh; Ladakhi Women's Travel Company, Ladakh. It could be said since Ladakh is a Tibetan people area so all these articles should be included in the Tibetan article however each of these articles have it's own web page within Wikipedia (even though some deal with a very limited topic range and only limited number of people would be interested in them). I think this article should also have it's own unique article and not be included in Bible Translation into Tibetan. This article is talking about the history of getting the Bible into the Ladakhi language. It started over hundred years ago and is still progressing. It's only connection with the article Bible Translation into Tibetan is that the first translation of the Bible into a Tibetan dialect/religious dialect began in Ladakh. But from that time on wards it separated. The work which is getting done in Tibet will never be able to meet the needs in Ladakh. I'm willing to work on this article if that is what is needed.Ladakh Bible (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (voted above). The last contribution reads to me as credible. Precisely when a dialect becomes a separate language is often debatable. Ladakh is separate from Tibet, being part of India, not China. The local religion is Buddhism, so that Christianity will be a minority one, but that does not mean that the translation project is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 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) 05:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harleys XXX TV[edit]

Harleys XXX TV (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 reliable sources available per Google News. Google searches result in YouTube channels and other video sites - these are not reliable sources. This article has no references. Notability is not inherited per WP:INHERITORG. Fails GNG, and WP:ORG. I am unable to verify this has any connection to Time Warner. This show has no claim to notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 18:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No RS coverage about this public access TV program. Fieari (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:V, never mind WP:GNG, with no reliable source coverage at all. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Great show, Something you could watch around the dinner table with your family at Christmas!, Anyway back on topic fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good one! (chuckling) --Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking RS coverage with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It fails WP:V because of no reliable sources coverage. Subject may also be notable per WP:TVSERIES. Ayub407talk 17:58, 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 delete. I'd never have thought we'd ever see that good of a textbook case of the "Wikipedia is not a TV guide" policy.  Sandstein  18:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Formula One U.S Broadcasts[edit]

1981 Formula One U.S Broadcasts (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:NOTTVGUIDE, a singular country's coverage of a singular sport for a singular season does not warrant an independent article. The359 (Talk) 17:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the recently created additional article as it is identical to this nomination:

1988 Formula One U.S Broadcasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The359 (Talk) 17:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm adding today's created article:

1985 Formula One U.S Broadcasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tvx1 14:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disagree, Keep this because this article is to be useful for everyone worldwide because it is to do with f1 on American television and it is my idea to make a lot of tb rights to broadcast f1 races and if it does all f1 coverage into one article, it will not work at all, so individual tv coverage will do best.Rowde (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rowde (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I fail to see how this article is anything but a TV guide. And Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Fieari (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disagree, Keep this because this article is to be useful for everyone worldwide because it is to do with f1 on worldwide television in 1985 and it is my idea to make a lot of tv rights to broadcast f1 races and it will work, so worldwide tv coverage will do best. 92.21.241.171 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: 92.21.241.171 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. — Note to closing admin: 92.21.241.171 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Rowde, this is a duplicate !vote. There's no need, you made your case above, we just disagree with it. And please log in when signing your posts, or you may be accused of sockpuppeting. Fieari (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two other identical duplicated votes were removed yesterday. Apologies; probably should not have done that with hindsight. Eagleash (talk) 15:25, 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 and redirect to Chishti Order.  Sandstein  18:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual lineage of Chisti Sabri[edit]

Spiritual lineage of Chisti Sabri (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 sources and unclearly reading, fails to meet GNG. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 17:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huzrat baba natho shah chishti[edit]

Huzrat baba natho shah chishti (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 sources and unclearly reading, fails to meet GNG. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 16:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nomination. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that the title of this article suffers from the problem, endemic in articles about South Asian subjects, of honorific overload, which means that it's very difficult for those of us unfamiliar with the relevant culture to even tell which parts of the title are the subject's actual name, and so to perform any sensible search for sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also another similar new article Huzrat baba sadeeq shah chishti: Noyster (talk), 11:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 11:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another non-notable clergyman, whom the (very) local populace has elevated to the ranks of saint. Does not show up at all in GNews and GBooks, not even when searching for the most essential core terms "Baba Natho Shah" or alternatively spelled "Baba Nathu Shah" (Huzrat is an honorific, while Chishti indicates the guy's membership of the Chishti Sufi order). --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HyperGaruda - editor has created several unsourced lineage articles - in addition to Huzrat baba sadeeq shah chishti mentioned above see Spiritual lineage of Chisti Sabri - Arjayay (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another obscure South Asian religious figure with a questionable article created in tandem with other questionable articles in order to give the appearance of notability. This isn't anything new, though the quality of the prose in this improperly sourced article on a non-notable person seems to have reached a new low. "You wrote a one book. Your birth name is Din Muhammad" is a whole new level of bad writing (or possibly reliance on Google Translate). MezzoMezzo (talk) 22:39, 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 Priyadarshan. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Revolutionary[edit]

The Last Revolutionary (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)

An unmade film has to have something pretty special going for it for it to be notable. Nothing in this stub makes any sort of claim of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No attempted claim to notability. I thought this was a speedy deletion criteria, except apparently no claim to notability is only speedyable if it's a person, event, or organization. Go figure. Regardless, delete. Fieari (talk) 03:31, 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) 05:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Craft Encoder[edit]

Cinema Craft Encoder (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 is not asserted. All references are from the company itself and a google search does not find any independent reviews and/or articles on the software (note, I was the IP that placed the AFD tag on the page) Muthian (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands - it's plausible it's actually important and noteworthy, but we'd need the sources - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all I found outside download sites and primary is [9], and it probably is not reliable. Note also the sentence Currently under development, a 4K UHD Blu-ray encoder will release in 2015, which does not really prove anything (if the other parts of the software are notable, maybe such a mention were warranted at the time) but gives me an occasion to advertise Template:As of. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:37, 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. Also deleted copyvio image on Commons.  Sandstein  19:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave McRae[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dave McRae (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 page for a non notable voice over artist/actor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JAGUAR  11:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although there are few third party sources in terms of notable outlets at the moment, it's clear (by just one click on his website) that Dave McRae is a very notable voice actor. His work for Disney, NBC, Rogers, Cineplex Entertainment, and a load of other commercials, promos, and movie trailers is very clear and obvious. The award he was nominated for is absolutely a major award within the voice over industry. William Shatner, James Earl Jones, Malcum Jamal Warner, Joe Cipriano and many others have all received Voice Arts Awards. Beyonce and Ron Perlman have also received nominations. Here is a link from Variety on last years show. Variety. Here is also an article from Hollywood weekly. Hollywood Weekly. And a CBS affiliate article on this years awards. http://www.cbs58.com/story/32224491/society-of-voice-arts-and-sciences-announces-opening-of-award-entries-for-the-3rd-annual-voice-arts-awards, with a notable quote from Good Morning America calling the Voice Arts Awards "The Oscars® of voice-over acting". Here is also a link talking about the Muhammad Ali Voice of Humanity Honor which will be presented to a well-known world figure at this years show in Los Angeles. http://voiceoverxtra.com/article.htm?id=3KN27BCK. Mr. McRae's nomination from last year is mentioned via the link provided in the body of his article entitled "2015 Winners & Nominees- SOVAS". Mr. McRae's voice is heard all over North America (which is evident from the work on his website) and I will do my best to continue to look for third party information, sources, and evidence. It would be a shame to see his article deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan7931 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, curious, would you happen to be Leah Kellar? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Duffbeerforme. No my name is Ryan Kennedy. Who is Leah Kellar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan7931 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you are not Leah could you please explain why are you claiming as your own work a photo that is marked as copyright Leah Kellar [10]. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Duffbeerforme. Thank you for supplying the link to the photo. I did upload this photo yes, but I am not Leah Kellar. I apologize, as I did not recognize the name when you mentioned it. When I uploaded the photo, I put "Own Work" because I was referring to the concept of the image (Dave McRae's own work), not the copyright itself. I found out about the image via his other website last year http://www.davemcrae.ca/main.php. Under October 2015 of the news section to the bottom right, it talks about this image (and I'm assuming others) being available for public domain. I gave the copyright credit to a Leah Kellar because that was the name attached to it under "Photo By" on his IMDb page. Clearly I misunderstood the reference, and understand completely if the image needs to be removed. That being said, I do encourage you to visit that part of his news section. I believe it's flash-based (as I just tried to access it via my phone and it didn't work) but does work from my desktop. I'm assuming a laptop will work too. However, If your phone can access flash-based webpages or flash-based items on a webpage you should be good to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan7931 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NACTOR is not passed just because of the number of roles that a person happens to have had — it is passed when, and only when, substantive reliable source coverage about him in at least some of those roles can be shown. But the sourcing here is entirely to primary sources and/or blogs, and those are not sources that can carry a person over a notability criterion. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can source it better than this, but an actor is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists if the sourcing for it is this weak. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Subject meets WP:NFOOTY Fenix down (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Man[edit]

Dennis Man (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason given. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:19, 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.  Sandstein  18:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio O. Delang[edit]

Claudio O. Delang (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)

Created by single-purpose account. Does not appear to satisfy the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Anyone more familiar with measuring "academic impact" that can weigh in? Citobun (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Academics who are only ranked assistant professor are rarely notable. He has published a lot, but there is no evidence that it has been impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not DeleteThe argument that someone should be ranked associate or full professor to be included in Wikipedia is elitist and rather silly. People get ranked associate or full professor because of age, not contribution. And how do you measure the impact of publications? Apart from a very small number of publications (e.g. by Karl Marx and Jeffrey Sachs), the impact is questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.182.66.175 (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC) — 158.182.66.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead at best because the only convincing thing here is that he's listed over a 1,000 times at WorldCat, although even his majorly listed book is only a high of 36 libraries. Certainly not convincing for WP:PROF, so there's essentially not a lot of convincing thus Delete instead, but Draft later if needed with the basis of at least accepting WP:AUTHOR with the library holdings. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 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 delete.  Sandstein  18:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Antal[edit]

Peter Antal (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 don't appear to be sufficient sources to confer notability - all the sources are either self published, press releases or very minor (Pinterest, for example) - the bulk being the press releases. I can't find anything that would qualify for WP:MUSICBIO. - Bilby (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, many reliable good sources like MTV.com, prnewswire.com, http://www.nownnews.com/, https://myprwire.com/, https://au.pinterest.com, http://newyorktime.news, http://www.allaccess.com/, http//starfleetmusic.com,http://genzel.ca/ about artist Peter Antal, and no one is published by artist himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambojharsangeet (talk • contribs) 04:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MTV.com is a bio which the artists write and submit. prnewswire, newyorktimes.news, prfire.press, dailydublin.press and dnews.press are all just press releases by the subject, and mostly are the same press release on different sites. pinterest is a clip from starfleetmusic.com, and starfleetmusic.com is a single paragraph and not enough to establish notability. - Bilby (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as it stands the sources are low-quality and not suitable for Wikipedia. Kambojharsangeet, by "reliable sources" we mean things that would pass WP:RS - verifiable third-party coverage in a proper journalistic source; so not a directory, not a blog, etc - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think press release are reliable and other sources show artist is recognized and had performed with some international artists. So keep article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaur.wiki (talk • contribs) 05:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another classic case and example of an article containing all unacceptable sources or sources somehow essentially not convincing at all for substance or significant, none of it actually then establishes any actual information for even an independent article. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self Conshus[edit]

Self Conshus (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 individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:24, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Vice[edit]

Maxwell Vice (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)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. There are some passing mentions. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable at the present time for a stand alone article; does not meet GNG. Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, barring an influx of better sources - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 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 speedy delete. Airplaneman ✈ 00:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atma Ram Lakshya[edit]

Atma Ram Lakshya (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 haven't been able to find evidence of notability. Marvellous Spider-Man 11:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. There is another person who shares the name has passing mentions in few sources. Anup [Talk] 15:04, 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 keep. Consensus to keep as well as a withdrawal by the nominator (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henryk Siwiak homicide[edit]

Henryk Siwiak homicide (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 IMHO a very good illustration of an article that fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: not everything covered by the media is notable. Here we have a regular murder case that got coverage solely because it occurred around the time of 7/11 in NYC and so journalists who were looking for material for the event anniversary in September 2011 decided to write about it. Yes, I do see it has received some coverage, but I think this is an example when we leave the realm of encyclopedic subjects and start summarizing news - not a place where Wikipedia should be. Not everything that receives reliable news coverage should is notable. A final note: this event is only notable due to its association with 9/11. If it occurred on any other day, it would be trivial and ignored by journalists. Outside that, it fails WP:PERSISTENCE, and raises issues with WP:SENSATION. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - sourcing is great. Artice is in great shape overall. It seems to have received continued attention over the years. WP:GNG also applies. The nominator might not like this but this nom is an obvious IDONTLIKEIT nom, even the nominator admits that it has received coverage but claims it fails PERSISTENCE. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It probably would have been just a normal, non-notable crime had it happened, say, September 9. However, this article is well sourced from multiple years, and covers an interesting event that is largely overlooked. epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a sad local event but only a passing trivial news story; it could be mentioned in a footnote of an article as to the event, but not notable for a stand alone article. As is stated, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources cited include international coverage in September 2001, follow up in October of that year, another follow up in January of the next year, and later a narrative of the story written for a crime journal. All of the sources feature the subject of this article. I see multiple writers, in several places, covering the story over a long period of time. This establishes WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject covered by full size articles in the US and in Poland among other places. A serious mater, somewhat similar to the Robert Dziekański Taser incident in Canada as far as death of a new immigrant with English language difficulties is concerned. An unsolved mystery closely tied to world events under WP:GNG mentioned in at least two books, by Verena Lueken (Germany) and Stryker & Parascandola (US). Poeticbent talk 13:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as article creator. +1 to everyone else's support. I consider its notability to lie in being the only death officially considered a homicide in New York City on a day when hundreds of people were killed there in the deadliest terrorist attack ever, and the deadliest single mass-casualty. That is a singular, unique attribute of this crime.

    I have nominated this for DYK, with the specific request that it run on Sunday, the 15th anniversary of 9/11, and it appeared as of last night US East Coast time to have been approved for that. Since we do not run articles on DYK if they are up for deletion, should this AfD last that long we could not run the article on the anniversary when it would arouse the greatest interest (interest which, who knows, might lead to the crime being solved). Piotrus, I accept that you made this nomination in good faith, although I believe, for all the reasons I and the other keep !voters have pointed out, that you have misinterpreted policy in making this nomination. But I do wish you had waited until next week ... if I didn't know and respect you as much as I do for your work here, particularly on Polish topics, I might have considered this nomination to be maliciously motivated and would not have been as polite and formal as I have been in making this !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel - I would not take Piotrus's nom as a personal affront, but given the timing I understand. I would bet he did not know about the DYK. The way the comments are going I don't see why it cannot be closed soon. Kierzek (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Piotrus may have just made this nomination with good intentions but no knowledge of a DYK nom. (And now I understand why this article has been created just a few days ago.) epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kierzek and Epicgenius: I know him well enough to know he didn't ... while he has made some excellent submissions to DYK, I don't think he keeps close tabs on things there, and that's OK. I just wanted him (and anyone reading, FTM) to be aware that these issues can exist and to check closely before taking potentially drastic action. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nom. This will be most likely closed as keep, since my view does not seem to be shared by the community, and in that case, let's not make any trouble for the anniversary DYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:13, 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 deleted as G12 (Copyright violation). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford in Washington[edit]

Stanford in Washington (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)

Cannot understand anything about this page's notability Marvellous Spider-Man 10:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - This is a copyvio and I have tagged it as such. shoy (reactions) 13:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Not notable at all for a stand alone article. Wikipedia is not a school newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 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.  Sandstein  18:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vugar Ismailov[edit]

Vugar Ismailov (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 quite an ordinary mathematician. All the references given are to his own work. Very low citability, both in MathSciNet and in GoogleScholar. Nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Based on the username of the article's creator, appears to be a WP:AUTO case. Nsk92 (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even without the autobio issue, the citation counts are too low to give a pass of WP:PROF#C1 (as is typical for working but non-star pure mathematicians) and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet comments and responses to them
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • I quote from WP:PROF#C1: "Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones". As everybody knows, in pure mathematics, citation counts are usually low. Besides, it is not always a good practise to assess
theoretical scientists only on the ground of their citation counts (see, e.g., http://www.nature.com/news/the-focus-on-bibliometrics-makes-papers-less-useful-1.16706 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Declaration_on_Research_Assessment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vugaris (talk • contribs) 08:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, low citation counts are to be expected in this area, and are not evidence of a problem. But neither are they evidence of notability, and we need such evidence to keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though the citation counts are low, his results are presented in detail in serious works, for example, in Allan Pinkus, Ridge functions, Cambridge University Press, 2015, 218 pp. —Boorey1 —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first criteria for WP:PROF reads as follows. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Ismailov's research area is approximation by ridge functions. The only book on this subject is "Allan Pinkus, Ridge functions" which was published by Cambridge University Press in 2015. A quick glance at the Author Index of this book shows that he cited more times than many other researchers (see http://assets.cambridge.org/97811071/24394/index/9781107124394_index.pdf). A close examination can show in addition that several sections of this monograph are based on his results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vugaris (talk • contribs) 04:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. However, you are misapplying WP:PROF. It is explicitly meant not to be applied in such a narrow way. The full sentence of WP:PROF#C1, which you truncated, reads: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." WP:PROF gives a fairly detailed explanation of how WP:PROF#C1 may be satisfied, and arguing that a scientist's area of study is so narrow that there is only one book dealing with it, and that notability can be inferred from the fact that this book mentions this scientist more than it does anyone else runs completely contrary to what WP:PROF demands. In this particular case the value of the book as a reference is diminished by the fact that the book itself is very new, just published last year, and has not had time to become a widely acknowledged authoritative text on the subject. Moreover, the book is written by a recent co-author of Vugar Ismailov (Pinkus and Ismailov had a joint paper in 2013), which somewhat diminishes the value of Pinkus' book as an independent source for evaluating notability in this case. Compare this situation with that of Allan Pinkus himself, a pure mathematician research-wise close to Ismailov. His GScolar profile shows the total of 4099 citations and h-index of 23. He would have had no troule passing WP:PROF#C1 just based on that (Although I should say that for a pure mathematician, Pinkus' citability is unusually high). Also, looking at his CV[13], one can see that he was an editor-in-chief of the Journal of Approximation Theory in 1990-1999, so he probably passes WP:PROF#C8 as well. The point is, here is someone mathematically close to Ismailov, who easily passes WP:PROF, on several counts. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, Pinkus could easily pass WP:PROF on many counts. There are many other notable mathematicians in the world, who are not in Wikipedia, but could easily pass as well. Take, for example, former and current Editors-in-Chief of the Journal of Approximation Theory, which you mentioned. Note that although none of them in Wikipedia, many of their descendants are here. Thus, what you write, is not applicable only to Ismailov's case. You write many things about citability and h-index. Unfortunately, WP:PROF takes all these into account as a criterion. Based on WP:PROF, a researcher "A", who is cited only 10 times but in papers of great mathematicians, makes less impact in his discipline than "B", who is cited 1000 times only in papers of ordinary mathematicians, does. This is because "B" satisfies the criterion WP:PROF#C1, whiles "A" does not. Nowadays, there are many and many mathematicians who have more than 1000 citations as a result of various manipulations. They did it because they know , for example, Wikipedia experts count citations. Note that there are a number of independent investigations showing that such an approach is fallacious (see, e.g., papers of Douglas Arnold on this subject at https://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/integrity.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boorey1 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • SPI report filed, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vugaris. Nsk92 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing admin: I will not cross out their comments and 'keep' votes above, but User:Boorey1 and User:Vugaris have been indeff blocked for abusing multiple accounts, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AynuraJafarova/Archive for details. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Writing initially that someone's article is an autobiography (only on the basis of a username) is a big mistake. This can be thought as a deliberate action against that article at the very first stage of AfD. Who can prove that a randomly chosen article in Wikipedia is not an autobiography?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic5 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read carefully this Afd and also looked at its history. The discussion is evidently one-sided. Many users were blocked and excluded from discussion, comments of some users were deleted. I recommend the closure of this discussion. Arctic5 (talk) 13:54, 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 delete.  Sandstein  18:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susheel Mehta[edit]

Susheel Mehta (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)

Reason Bohemianverses (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as it stands too skimpily sourced and referenced for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If there has to be an article, it should be on the film subject produced and directed. The 17-minute film Machis hai kya? won the Best Short Film, Best Director and Best Film Jury award at 2015 Shimla International Film Festival ([14], [15], [16]). That being said, subject may make a notability case under WP:DIRECTOR#3. However there is literally nothing on the subject itself, and nothing that could not be covered in the film article (when created). Anup [Talk] 15:25, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failing Forward[edit]

Failing Forward (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)

Looks to fail WP:GNG, outdated, effectively unsourced. The Banner talk 09:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable for stand alone article. "The band is currently working on their third studio album, due for release in 2011"; this sentence alone (uncited) states the case. Kierzek (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands unless good RS evidence of notability shows up - David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 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  18:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cohocton, New York (disambiguation)[edit]

Cohocton, New York (disambiguation) (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)

Per WP:2DABS. Town is at primary age and appears to be genuine WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - more coverage, more page views, bigger place. Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the prodder. My prod was removed due to concerns that there's not a primary topic. However, that question was already decided a while back here. -- Tavix (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary disambiguation page per established consensus. Smartyllama (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a hatnote is more than enough. Cavarrone 06:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure that the town here is primary. I hope that you all are aware that in New York "town" means "township", and is not a settlement. See the extended and inconclusive discussion mentioned above here. I agree that the dab page is not needed, but for most purposes, other than location, the eponymous villages tend to be primary. --Bejnar (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also see Cohocton, which another dab page. That one seems more useful, and this one just duplicates that. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:46, 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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Burnham[edit]

Paul Burnham (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 notability Wsnx (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As per WP:GNG. There is sufficient reliable 3rd party sources for the article. Plus the nominator's lack of cite to any policy and rationale "insufficient notability" has not been supported by any further statement makes me recommend a WP:SNOW close for this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everlake[edit]

Everlake (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)

Misses WP:CORPDEPTH Marvellous Spider-Man 05:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:04, 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. Questions about the reliability of sources were discussed and addressed on the talk page, there does not seem to be evidence that they are reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dami Tha Prince[edit]

Dami Tha Prince (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)

None of the sources confirm notability of the subject in question. Most are social media sites, and the only one close is his MTV.com profile, which only gives a short bio and tells us he produced a quasi-popular song by Montana of 300. JTtheOG (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starrs London[edit]

Starrs London (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 {{multiple issues}} tag says it all: "(It) needs additional citations for verification(, it) contains content that is written like an advertisement ... (its) topic... may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines..." KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe this brand would come up in the future, but as David Gerard mentions, this seems to be on Wikipedia before its time. I've searched for sources. To my best effort, could not find any that could assist in GNG/ORG... Lourdes 05:28, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of the criterion[edit]

Problem of the criterion (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 UNCANNILY, similar to Munchausen’s Trilemma, a much more well written article with better sources, therefore since there is only one reference to a single American Philosopher on the page, also the fact that the philosophical problem is similar to Munchausen's Trilemma, i recommend this page for deletion. --RuleTheWiki (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 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 03:08, 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 02:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I admit I am somewhat mystified by nom's rationale, for two major reasons. Firstly, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy devotes a whole article to the topic, with 51 citations. Those include papers not only by Chisholm but one by Amico and one by Fumerton both with the same title, one by Cling "Posing the Problem of the Criterion", DePaul's "The Problem of the Criterion and Coherence Methods in Ethics", and one by Poston "Explanationist Plasticity & The Problem of the Criterion". The topic is therefore certainly notable by WP:GNG. Secondly, I looked at the article pointed to by Munchausen’s Trilemma, and could find there no mention of Chisholm, the Methodist approach, or criterion, though both articles do mention (infinite) regression. The similarity thus appears very slight. The article requires far better citing and discussion of the views of the other philosophers mentioned, but since we know there are multiple reliable sources on the topic, this is an obvious keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Similar concepts, but differing in scope and approach. The two topics are both notable, and both well sourced, independently of each other. So, keep. Fieari (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned above, reliable sources for this do exist. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:09, 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Clearly a waste of time. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 05:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Rohit[edit]

Arya Rohit (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)

Prima facie, pretty low coverage. Please discuss. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 12:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 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) 05:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Build Your Baby's Brain Through The Power of Music![edit]

Build Your Baby's Brain Through The Power of Music! (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)

Prod removed by article creator. This is a non notable album Gbawden (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a non-notable compilation album, which does not meet WP:NALBUM. Possibly created for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 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 02:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:NALBUM. No reviews, no sources offering critical commentary. Does not meet WP:GNG either. Fieari (talk) 00:26, 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 criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nix Solutions[edit]

Nix Solutions (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:NCORP and no third-party sources. Contested PROD. shoy (reactions) 14:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:08, 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 02:47, 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) 05:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Hands In Chains[edit]

My Hands In Chains (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, not notable, substub. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as it stands, I find one thing approaching a source [24] and it's not enough. But perhaps an influx of good sources will show and it will pass NBAND - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 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) 05:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Son[edit]

Delta Son (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. Advertorially toned article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This was written by the band's own lead singer in defiance of our conflict of interest rules, and is sourced almost entirely to primary sources like the band's own website and their album's sales page on iTunes -- the closest thing to a reliable source here is an album review on the PR blog of a ticket-sales website. This may just be WP:TOOSOON for a band who might well clear the bar in the future -- but as always, Wikipedia is not a place where a band is allowed to have an article just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 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 02:45, 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) 05:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Martin (broadcaster)[edit]

Anthony Martin (broadcaster) (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. WP:BLP of a local radio host in a single media market, with no strong claim of wider notability per WP:CREATIVE and no particularly strong sourcing to get him over WP:GNG instead -- of the sources here, three are a radio industry trade magazine, and the other one is a weekly newspaper rather than a daily one. Any of these sources would be acceptable as supplementary sources in an article that had a much more solid range of sourcing around it, but none of them are bringers of GNG in and of themselves if they're the best you can do for sourcing -- and the claims they support are insignificant technological firsts, like "first radio broadcast ever to use audio recorded on a smart watch", that really aren't all that encyclopedically noteworthy. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:31, 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 02:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:SIGCOV is not met. The little coverage/references that are provided are (per nom) on websites with a very limited scope. I would also note that the two articles on RadioToday.ie and RadioToday.co.uk, (which mention Anthony Martin) look to be press release extracts by the same contributor (both by Roy Martin). Per nom, these wouldn't seem to meet SIGCOV in reliable sources. The mention in the IrishPost.ie article is not significant. (Per SIGCOV, ideally sources used to establish notability would be articles that cover the subject specifically. Not articles on other topics that might mention the subject fleetingly. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E: "being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article".) Guliolopez (talk) 09:23, 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. Obviously disregarding the IPs.  Sandstein  18:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haldanes Solicitors and Notaries[edit]

Haldanes Solicitors and Notaries (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 law firm. Every law firm has references. That doesn't make them notable.

Note to any closer: There has been a long history of sockpuppetry with this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Not notable. Article originally created by single-purpose accounts with undeclared conflict of interest for promotional purposes, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Citobun (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORP, with no substantive, independent coverage available in reliable sources. I expect this page to become another sock target; if so, please report them here. GABgab 03:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete WP:NPOV All of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The Useful knowledge related to law. One of the reference 'Business Crime Defence 2016: Analysis' is one of the good knowledge about Business Crime Defence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.202.191.243 (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC) — 123.202.191.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Not Delete conform with WP:PSTS - ample third parties' references and independent secondary sources are there. this article, in fact, contain more independent references (i.e. Not self serving or promotional) than many articles about other organizations or companies that I came across on Wikipedia. Also, WP:ORG - notability seems to be satisfied given the broad spectrum of legal references from different countries (I saw the names of legal directories and I click on all these). Do not see why it would constitute "advertising" or "promotion"? Would it be a bit too harsh? --124.217.188.198 (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC) — 124.217.188.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence of WP:NCORP notability. Sufficient in-depth coverage could provide WP:GNG notability, but despite the large number of references I'm not seeing any of that either. It all seems to be essentially press releases, directory-type listings, primary company sources, advertorial, a couple of passing mentions in stories that are not about Haldanes itself, and one in Chinese that I can't read (though having seen all the rest, I don't hold out much hope). It's the kind of trivial reference flood I'd expect COI editors to use to try to make a company appear notable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i note that there are many experienced Wikipedians or Editors here, who seem to have already made up their minds on deleting this company page. I suspect that what i say here may not make a difference at all under these circumstances. That said, I think it is fair for me to say something here.
Regarding the comment on WP:CORP, i note that this company has quoted different sources justifying its historical and functional importance. Those are the company's own website information, legal directories' analysis, legal news magazines, newspapers, legal awards organisations. Also, these sources are both local and overseas. If this does not satisfy notability (at least some notability), i wonder what would?
Regarding the comment on WP:NPOV, the article seems very straightforward and factual. Could anyone enlighten wikipedians and myself as to why it amounts to an advertisement?
I was browsing the current wikipedia pages of various Hong Kong companies and political figures, and notice that many non-notable, non-objective profiles are still there for wikipedians to browse. Not trying to criticise anyone, such profiles include:
Politician Steven Ho (whom i have no idea who he is) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Ho_(politician) - where is the notability? why is it not deleted?
Policitician Peter Wong (again, i have no idea how "notable" he is) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wong_(Hong_Kong_politician) - where is the notability?
Not trying to compare a company to a restaurant, many unknown restaurants with "promotional" wikipedia entries still exist, and nobody seems to want to remove them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dai_Pai_Dong_(restaurant) - where is the notability?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship_Entertainment - seemingly an unimportant article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Seafood_Floating_Restaurant - pure promotional article / advertisement
I would prefer if Wikipedia could apply more consistent policies on WP:NPOV,WP:CORP and WP:PSTS for users / editors / readers to follow. In my very humble opinion, the company page in question is much better than the wikipedia pages that i mentioned above, and should have way satisfied the relevant policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.203.134.209 (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC) — 123.203.134.209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A couple things. First, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a convincing argument for keeping this article. (But, since you brought up the politicians – if you review the relevant notability policy [specifically WP:POLITICIAN], it states that legislative councillors satisfy notability criteria. As for the restaurants, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Nobody is stopping you from nominating those pages for deletion.)
Secondly, would you and your colleagues please stop making sockpuppet accounts and switching IP addresses to comment on this discussion? It is against Wikipedia policy and you are wasting the time of volunteers. Citobun (talk) 14:14, 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 Merge and redirect as I'm not going to tag this as an actual merge considering the article itself in its entirety is actually unsourced, and the only actual "sources" listed are the games itself, thus there's no use or benefits of tagging something that is essentially unsourced, and is therefore vulnerable to triggering another deletion nomination later (I know we all have noticed that before). Anyone who wants to perhaps improve it later and include some of this, can since it's located at the history logs (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umbra (World of Darkness)[edit]

Umbra (World of Darkness) (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:GNG. Tagged for notability since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of the Queen of Hearts[edit]

Death of the Queen of Hearts (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. As the writer is not notable. There is only one source in the news from "broadway world". Marvellous Spider-Man 02:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search brought up little to establish notability. The Foreword Review is from their review-for-fee service, Clarion, and the BWW link is a reprinted press release, given that it's identical to this press release that's marked as such. This is part of the reason I'm always hesitant to use BWW, as they aren't always great at marking PR as such. The book looks to be your typical non-notable self-published book, which is why a few of us are trying to push for an addition to speedy criteria for nn self-published works. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO and lack of independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 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. North America1000 01:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks (musician)[edit]

Brooks (musician) (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)

What this subject has done is somewhat unclear. He remixed a possibly notable song, but that doesn't mean much in itself--there is no indication that the remix was notable (or made him notable). He is listed as an artist on a few other singles but, again, there is no indication that these are hits or otherwise important. A Google search does not deliver anything I'd call reliable or important, whether under his stage name or his own name. In other words, not notable as an artist, not notable per the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't find any credible information on the subject from independent sources. Article tries to inherit notability through "support" (whatever that means) or because he remixed from notable artists, which anyone can do. There is one notable label listed in the infobox, but there is no support in the article prose that the artist has any association with it, so NMUSIC#5 can't apply. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:58, 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) 05:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jørgen Larsson[edit]

Jørgen Larsson (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 living person tagged for notability since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources on page are not sufficient to meet GNG or MUSICBIO and my own searches turned up nothing better. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an insufficiently sourced BLP for a subject that does not meet GNG based on available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There may be sufficient sources to base an article on. These two books mention Larsson: LaBelle, Brandon (2010-04-01). Acoustic Territories: Sound Culture and Everyday Life. A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-4411-6136-9. and Feiereisen, Florence (2011). Der Text als Soundtrack -- der Autor als DJ: Postmoderne und postkoloniale Samples bei Thomas Meinecke. Königshausen & Neumann. ISBN 978-3-8260-4509-7. Mduvekot (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sources seems to mention Larsson on a single page in the context of discussing a song, and not about Larsson himself. A trivial mention, in my view. I don't speak Norwegian but the coverage in the second source seems trivial as well, with only a very brief mention of his name. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I had hoped that there might be more, but I'm not finding it. Delete Mduvekot (talk) 01:46, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basant Prasad Singh[edit]

Basant Prasad Singh (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)

Doesn't meet the notability standards for WP:NACADEMIC. Note that the results in google book search are about different persons sharing the same name. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WorldCat and GoogleScholar are simply not finding the needed substance, and the article contains nothing else for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Village[edit]

My Little Village (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 by non notable author. Safiel (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no claim of notability. no sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As a creative work, this won't qualify for CSD, unless regarded simply as a promotional page. There are a number of other similar pages on this writer's works and I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jekhai Narzary. As to this particular article, which was originally a posting of the poem utilising Wikipedia as a hosting site, I see no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. User also posted the poem in regional language at Angni gami. Anup [Talk] 16:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable due to lack of independent sources able to be found. Fieari (talk) 00:39, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_September_8&oldid=1142620346"