Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 May	22 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that could be used to presume notability. Mz7 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chattar[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. There has been some discussion on the article talk page regarding sources and also regarding a possible redirect but there simply doesn't appear to be any coverage in reliable independent sources that we could use to rescue this. Sitush (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and Sitush. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete--Fails WP:GNG.A stunning absence of any disc. in any modern WP:RS.Winged Blades^Godric 09:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush::--This seems to be a somewhat reliable source--which could be used to keep an one-line stub.Any opinions?Winged Blades^Godric 09:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's Bingley, a Raj era military guy whose only knowledge of castes etc was implementing the martial race theory, aka scientific racism. Asian Education Services reprint all that rubbish and their more recent publication date is often picked up in GBooks metadata. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Freeze[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO terribly. This is an attempt by Mr. Freeze to write his autobiography on Wikipedia. See this page on his website as clear evidence (and it certainly fails the WP:DUCK test). He originally had it sourced almost entirely to self-published sources or sources that do not confirm the claims, and removed tags when I placed them in the article. He also twice (once as an IP) tried to put his "Freeze's law" on List of eponymous laws. After it was removed, he created Freeze's law, which was quickly speedy deleted. He twice removed the speedy nom from that page. Sundayclose (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Whilst the untagging and creating Freeze's law do not persuade me, the lack of indepth source availability does. Also, I would click on ref's only to see that while they sourced part of a sentence, the source did not provide in depth coverage of the subject. Much of the sourcing is self-referential-- to subject's books. The pilot qualifications, while superficially impressiuve, do not actually serve to meet WP:GNG or WP:anybio. The credentials as an author do not meet notability requirements for an author.00:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, I feel like it's a variety of WP:Webhost Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete because a lack of notability and Dlohcierekim's research above. --Lockley (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Starz: Streets to the Stage[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:NALBUM. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find any significant coverage either; this appears to fail WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 05:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adidas F50[edit]

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

Proposing deletion of article with reference to lack of general notability. No references have been included with this article. These football boots were made from 2004 until 2015, with no apparent lasting legacy or fame. TGB13 (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VIXA[edit]

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

Non notable watch brand. The "official website" is a domain for sale. A couple of hits on non-RS sites, nothing more. Fails WP:ORG, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- based on searches, Vixa Pharmaceuticals appears to be more notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Their website doesn't even exist also. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Their website exist,It's just my editing error.And this is a Century enterprise，Worth keeping.Yiziyihan (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Yiziyihan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Then post the website. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG The brand name obviously exists because I can find mention of the watches. However I can find no in depth coverage of the brand or company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: So VIXA is a found mention of the watches，and it Have right website.Now，why？why delete it.I doubt your positive attitudeYiziyihan (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dadcula[edit]

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

High school project short that's appeared in two small local/regional film festivals. Page was created by the writer/star, appears to be a clear WP:PROMO issue. Notability is questionable. JamesG5 (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am indeed aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Despite this, I believe that I have not introduced any significant bias into the article. Do note that, because I did not find any sources to cite them with, there are no sections beyond "Plot" and "Awards and nominations". I disagree with the notion that this is a WP:PROMO issue. Per WP:PROMO, the article does not advocate an ideology nor act as propaganda; it represents a neutral point of view and abides by the general standards of Wikipedia; it doesn't attack anyone's reputation; and it does not make use of puffery. While its notability is questionable, it does have sources to back it up, as well as an IMDb page in the "External links" section. I do not think it should be an issue to leave the article in the mainspace as a stub; additionally, it is agreeably in need of more citations. Please note the essay about not demolishing the house while it's still being built. –Matthew - (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 22:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? –Matthew - (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with MarnetteD. This does not meet WP:NFILM. All of the sources mentioned are not on the subject per se and only mention it incidentally. The source that does, IMDB, has very little on it. The fact that this wikipedia page was created makes me think that the article creator, aforementioned star and writer, also created this page. The author mentions that it is in need of more citations, but I doubt that more citations exist after giving it an (admittedly cursory) look on Google.

Comment: The film has been screened at more than one festival and has received and been nominated for awards. On that basis, the only thing keeping it from sweet, sweet objective notability is secondary sources. But when such a thing occurs, it's hardly constructive to remove an article from a mainspace; the constructive thing would be to tag it as being in need of citations other than primary sources. Again, don't demolish the house before it's been built, folks. –Matthew - (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom for a blatantly non-notable film. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it's acceptable to assume that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", because, well, that's completely true. I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2013 and I'm aware of the general guidelines. But why is it that you consider the film blatantly non-notable? It has primary sources to act as citations; all it's missing is secondary sources, and the article can be accordingly tagged as relying heavily on primary sources, rather than jumping to deletion. –Matthew - (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been editing since '13 then you should know that the WP:NOTABILITY comes before the article is creasted - not on some far off distant day. MarnetteD|Talk 21:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources and a lack of secondary sources do not equal non-notability. –Matthew - (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete high school film with no solid references. Fails notability.WP:NOTABILITY Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kovy (youtuber)[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable. First, two of the six references (Refs #5 and #6) listed on the article are Youtube channel pages which are not independent from the subject (not making the article notable under WP:GNG). One of the remaining references is a dead link (ref #4). The last three references are not in English and when translated into English seem to be not reliable as they are interviews with the article's subject making them not independent from the subject. Finally, a WP:BEFORE search found no significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO after more BEFORE searching (no sources found in Bing). KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 23:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searching found a few more interviews. Lacks independent coverage needed for both GNG and BIO. Gab4gab (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just one of thousands of YouTubers. Even his claim to coining "infotainment" is false; folk singer and Pete Seeger band member Thomas Winslow used it many years ago. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Floor space. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add-on factor[edit]

(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

This article should be deleted as it cannot be expanded beyond a WP:DICDEF. A WP:BEFORE search found some sources that use this term such as ^[1] (this reference also calls the term "load factor") but other sources don't go into enough depth about the term to expand it beyond a dictionary definition. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ByBDnpuxmi0C&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=%22Add-on+factor%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=c9jrrrpOb1&sig=VED-NtasT2xSH0oeerlVtg7vURA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipuc6X3IHUAhWM7YMKHbhJBgcQ6AEIqgEwGQ#v=onepage&q=%22Add-on%20factor%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, unless somebody can find a good redirect. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to Floor space. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Disco. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-disco[edit]

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

Fails GNG; can't find anything in gnews or gbooks. Sorry. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 19:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just undo my edit and revert it back to the redirect. --Macaroniking (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to disco as it was before. Proto-disco may not have sufficient source material to support an article (per nom). Ajpolino (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator – Oops; of course redirect. :) J 947^{^{^(c)}} 03:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested, or to an appropriate song, such as the Theme from Shaft. We almost always delete or redirect specific genre articles. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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' . Alexf^(talk) 20:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Gods[edit]

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

Unsourced, with no indication of notability per WP:GNG. No mention of any of this online in English, and referencing tags repeatedly removed with no addition of references, suggesting a probable hoax. Proposed deletion contested without comment. Uncle Roy (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Uncle Roy (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Uncle Roy (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unsourced hoax article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clairvoyance (book)[edit]

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

Lacks independent sourcing to establish notability/allow a neutral article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBOOK. Dlabtot (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dlabtot, I think you meant to link WP:NBOOK. Alsee (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Dlabtot (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've explored this topic and there isn't enough reliable sources to write an article about this book. The author is notable but the book is not. Any significant article will have to be based on original research. KarlPoppery (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found. Many of the sources in the article are about the concept of clairvoyance, with no connection to this book itself. My searching was suggestive that sources might exist, and we're supposed to keep articles if sources exist-but-haven't-been-included, however "might exist" isn't good enough. My searching suggests that if sources exist they are likely to be unreliable or otherwise problematical themselves. Without better sourcing any article here article is going to crash badly against OR/SYN or other policies. The current state of the article, and history versions, well illustrates the problem. The article is essentially unreadable and the sources and notes are a disaster. Alsee (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For clarity: An article that "needs to be fixed" is not a good reason to delete, but an article that "can't be fixed" without better sources is a good reason. Alsee (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to: Robert Ellwood, PhD; Gregory Tillett, PhD; Philip Harris, general editor of the Theosophical Encyclopedia; Chelsea Jones, M.A.; and Karen Brown (she teaches creative writing and literature at the University of South Florida) this Leadbeater's monograph is an important book. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But we would be wanting independent, non-fringe sources. Are there any? Alexbrn (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable "book" -Roxy the dog. bark 07:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming Pool 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILMS. The only evidence that this film even existed is an IMDB listing, a few YouTube trailers, and two very brief mentions on Italian film review sites. In no way notable. DES ^(talk) 15:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh all the "sources" I could find are listed on Talk:Swimming Pool 2. DES ^(talk) 17:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - even if it wasn't a hoax, there's no way it warrants an article - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DES; moreover, the plot in the external links differ a lot from the plot given in the article. I believe Wikipedia is better off without this article. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aunty Jack Introduces Colour as notable, delete all the rest, per arguments below. If anyone wants any of the deleted content to merge in, let me know and I will provide it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aunty Jack's Travelling Show[edit]

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

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

Set of spinoff articles about individual episodes of a television series, none of which contains any real reliable sourcing, or even much actual substance, to demonstrate that they're individually notable as separate topics from the series as a whole. In each case, the article just consists of a brief plot summary followed by pro forma directory sections for the cast list and technical details, resulting in something that would belong on a fansite rather than in an encyclopedia — and right across the board the referencing is to sources that cannot confer notability, such as fansites, IMDb, YouTube or DailyMotion video clips and amateur film review blogs. For an individual television episode to qualify for a standalone article, however, we require reliably sourced real world context for what makes the episode significant (think Star Trek's "The Trouble with Tribbles", The West Wing's "Two Cathedrals", Ellen's "The Puppy Episode", that sort of thing.) The vast majority of episodes of the vast majority of television series simply aren't in that rarefied tier, and just get listed in episode lists rather than being spun off as standalone articles — and there's no evidence being shown that any of these episodes warrant being singled out for special treatment. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenuous keep for the "Introduces Colour" episode, Weakish delete for the rest. The significance of that particular episode is - as far as I'm aware, and I can certainly try to find sources for it - that it was both the first thing broadcast in colour on the ABC here in Australia as well as being broadcast in colour "earlier than the other channels were meant to" (this is my early-ish in the morning recollection of something I was told a few years ago, obviously sources are required before anyone says anything). I would suggest that that might give that episode a level of notability that the other individual eps mightn't have. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the "Colour" episode's links are not solely to "fansites" and the like, but to what look to me to be quite sober histories of television in Australia with footnotes of their own. Yes, there are two IMDB citations, but two of the others go to the National Film and Sound Archive in Australia, which speaks to notability right there. The other episodes seem on a very quick skim to have "weaker" sources, but I don't think this is quite the one-size-fits-all that it might otherwise seem. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sex (The Aunty Jack Show), Family (The Aunty Jack Show), and The Aunty Jack Horror Show should likely also fall under the umbrella of this AfD. Ajpolino (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they definitely should. Just for the record, though, they're not articles that I missed at the time, but articles that weren't even created until after this discussion was launched. I'm adding them to the page for consideration, however. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aunty Jack Introduces Colour as notable. I've added a few more references to the article to demonstrate its notability. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep colour episode, delete the rest, probably though salvage the detail content into a table in the main article. Such detail content of cast by episode, broadcast time and durations, producer/s, etc., has been done this way in other series articles quite successfully. Aoziwe (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aunty Jack Introduces Colour as passing GNG, Delete the rest. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we nominate Template:AuntyJackEps at MdD? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object if you did, especially considering the way this AfD is going. Normally, I'd probably suggest waiting until we're sure things are being deleted. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep colour episode - at least. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paternoster Press[edit]

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

Previous AfD showed no consensus because the assertion that publishing many works creates automatic notability. That argument was refuted by the community at the AfD here. The concern is a lack of WP:SIGCOV, the Irish Times gives only a passing mention as Ravenswing has shown. The book source An Eerdmans Century p93, only gives a passing mention, as a company that a friend of the subject of the book founded.

With the absence of a specific guideline to help, WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is not met by sources for this article. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I brought up last time, there are independent sources in the article that discuss the subject in depth. This history of the business is of very high quality. I added that and a couple other sources. Sources published by Erdmens may not be considered perfectly independent, as Erdmens frequently collaborates with Paternoster. The Brethren's Historical Review is published by Partnership UK Ltd, I do not know what relationship there might be between that publisher and Paternoster, but it, too, is a very good source. In any case, lack of perfect independence does not, in my opinion, automatically result in a failure to pass WP:NPOV, and this case is a fine example of that. Particularly as any argument about a lack of independence has to do with relationships between a publishing house and other writers and publishers, a relationship which is not unexpected given the nature of publishing. So in my mind we have an article with multiple reliable sources, even multiple independent reliable sources, that give in depth coverage of the subject. The article clearly passes WP:V and WP:NOR. As written, I don't see any NPOV issues and feel it passes WP:N. I think the subject-specific notability guideline is WP:NCORP, and is basically the same as WP:N; although it does give a fairly inclusive definition of independence, WP:ORGIND, while WP:IS is less inclusive. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That specific source has the following entry in the information, Name of Creator: Paternoster Press. I can't find 'multiple independent sources for this article. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It sounds like you are talking about the Rylands source I linked which is a history of the company written to accompany an archive at the library which was bequeathed to the library by Paternoster's Jeremy Muddit and consists of objects created by Paternoster. As User:StAnselm pointed out in the last AfD, "Name of Creator: Paternoster Press" refers to the creator of the objects in the collection. That history is published by the library. It is not listed with a specific author, and although the collection was submitted by Muddit, it would be most likely that the summary to the collection is written by a librarian or archivist. The second independent source I referred to is Summerton 2010. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok that makes sense about the Manchester Library source, but having something written about a donation to a museum is not, to me, passing WP:GNG as a grey area of the primary/secondary sources and independance. The Summerton 2010 is an obituary of Munditt, which does not address the topic directly as per the requirements for WP:SIGCOV. These sources are just not high quality enough, fulfilling all the aspects of GNG for me. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 20:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are welcome to your opinion, but Summerton certainly does satisfy SIGCOV/address the topic directly/not require OR to extract information. Similarly, in my opinion, both it and the Rylands Library Administrative History are very high quality sources. Grass 2012 is also high quality and addresses the topic directly and in depth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The catalogue description of an archive in a major library like Rylands is a reliable and scholarly source. Such entries are written by professional archive librarians who are by definition scholarly experts in the sorts of material that their library holds.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #2 - re-nominating the article just one month after the previous AfD seems fairly disruptive. St Anselm (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is not, in fact, what #2 says. Do you have evidence that the nom's being deliberately disruptive by making this nomination, and if so, may we see it, please? In the meantime, a "no consensus" AfD can properly be refiled, and a month is scarcely the "immediately" the guideline enjoins. Ravenswing 23:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Especially as the only reason that delete voters suggested was refuted in an RfC. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 10:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. A publisher with an 80-year history, with reasonable sourcing. However, the slant of the article is promotional, with copy such as:

Later significant authors publishing in Paternoster include Tim Grass and Harold Rowdon.

If these authors were significant, I expect that they would be blue links, not red. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smmurphy. --do ncr am 23:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a scholarly book review that takes a minute to praise one of this publisher's series. Editorial time would be better spent an improving an article on a publishing house than at AfD. Any publisher that had been putting out books that get serious attention from reviewers for decades can be sourced. The Nom who started the first AfD was wasting everyone's time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they publish the materials for the Anglican Credo course. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep --Guy Macon (talk)
Comment, it looks like the above consensus means this may be a 'keeper' but why hasn't PP itself received any publishing awards, or been written about, even amongst the Christian press? or that no one has written a book about it, btw i reckon they are very important in the field of Christian publishing (including children's literature:)), it would be great if/when more sources are found. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep -- a major UK Christian publisher. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Guy Macron. Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. darthbunk pakt dunft 08:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bove[edit]

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

Unaddressed notability issue since May '16. Sources (3) are affiliated with the subject. 'Reads like a resume' tag since 2012... darthbunk pakt dunft 15:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator,darthbunk pakt dunft 08:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC) per EricEnfermero and Jytdog below. Reason: Page has been improved with sufficient references for notability.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source and others indicate that he has held a named chair at a major institution, a pass of WP:PROF#C5. I know that h-index is often high in clinical medicine, but GS shows a couple of pages of publications with 100+ citations each. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the article required a complete rewrite but it is OK now. I suggest this nomination be withdrawn. Thanks for calling out that the article was unacceptable. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée René Cassin (Gonesse)[edit]

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

No sources but the school homepage for this French High school. Notability unclear. darthbunk pakt dunft 14:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found secondary sources from Le Parisien

http://www.leparisien.fr/gonesse-95500/gonesse-une-prof-agressee-au-lycee-rene-cassin-24-09-2009-649868.php
http://www.leparisien.fr/gonesse-95500/a-gonesse-les-profs-du-lycee-cassin-denoncent-des-classes-surchargees-01-09-2016-6086525.php
http://www.leparisien.fr/val-d-oise-95/greve-au-lycee-rene-cassin-17-03-2010-851634.php

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep above sourcing is enough to clear the GNG without relying on precedent. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Knedu Bima (talk · contribs) has the contents of their page as their userpage in entirety and has never edited another article. Ogress 13:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Copeman[edit]

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

This person and *everything about them* appears fabricated, including the citations to material directly pertaining to the alleged person. Ogress 13:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Absolutely nothing to support GNG/BIO. Lourdes 15:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A probable WP:HOAX, even the link to the Messerschmitt Institute is not registered. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out to sea[edit]

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

This is little more than a promotional how-to for Bacardi Carta Ocho and Allen Fang. This is sourced to a Bacardi competition in March and I don't see any widespread use of this term for this drink or coverage outside of what appear to be blogs and otherwise non-RS. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep，its information from yoka，chinanewsandsohuand so on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiziyihan (talk • contribs) 13:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete egregiously promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new editor seems to be here solely, to date, to create articles on arguably non-notable brands. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIXA. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Successful placement of a press release in several publications is not helpful to notability. No indication found in searching that this term commonly has this meaning outside of Bacardi promotions. Fails GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The usual searches turn up no mention of this cocktail. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, fails WP:GNG.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Ordnance[edit]

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

Reason: This article consists of two sentences in its entirety, making it a stub. The original author hasn't been back to the article for more than a year, plenty of time to complete any continued research and expand on the subject. The whole point of the article seems to be promoting the weapon mentioned; not a bad idea in itself, but not the subject of this article. Due to the brevity of the article, it was inevitable that it would be an orphan as well as a stub. There doesn't appear to be any other articles related to any of the three subjects mentioned, so the information can't be used elsewhere. - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 12:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Production of 600 units of a weapon is hardly notable; I'd also consider the article abandoned.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I can only find mentions in various catalogs, which is insufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, Fails WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk)

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richie bello[edit]

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

Sourced only to the subject's books, this does not meet WP:GNG or WP:Anybio. It is inherently promotional. There is not sufficient coverage form reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Bello is a good person and he really should be on Wikipedia. He has helped many veterans to start their businesses and financially helps them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamranhaider (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BLP. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an other evidence of notability, Richie has been helping Veterans to start their own businesses. Here is one of the Veterans named Jose Andres Giron, Vietnam (101st Airborne); You can call the Jose Andres about Richie Bello for more enquiry. Read More: www.neh.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.23.240 (talk • contribs)

The linked page appears to have no mention of Richie Bello. Peacock (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no significant coverage in independent sources to support notability. Peacock (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no prejudice to recreation if someone can find sources DGG ( talk ) 09:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raheislam Educational Organisation[edit]

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

There is no coverage of this school in reliable sources. In fact, I cannot even find any sources to confirm that this school actually exists. The web site given in the article does not resolve. The image provided in the infobox as the logo appears to be something somebody drew by hand and scanned. Whpq (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete None of the sources in the article even mention the organization. I removed links to an 'under construction' site as well. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 15:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Creation in violation of WP:ARBPIA3 and no substantial content edits by ECP-confirmed editors NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Huwara shooting[edit]

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

Non-notable incident in which a road was blocked by rioters who had stopped and attacked a car and were pounding it with rocks and threatening driver and passenger. Driver responded by shooting in self-defense, killing one of the rioters. Garnered a little coverage in a single news cycle. Delete ad per WP:NOTNEWS. AfD started as per notability discussion on article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - based on the current coverage. If this develops further (it might - it looks like this was an organized, not random, kidnapping/lynching attempt that involved both riots enveloping the car and a Red Crescent ambulance cutting across the road barrier (from the opposing side) and blocking the car - the ambulance driver was arrested the subsequent night) - it might merit an article, but probably under a different name. As it stands - it is a single news cycle item.Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icewhiz Is that a new tactic, using a Red Crescent ambulance to block a civilian car during a riot? This stretch of road Huwawa#Post-1967 appears to be a regular site for riots/attacks of this kind. I wonder whether we should perhaps redirect this to a new section to be created for the purpose at Huwawa, on the model of Bil'in#Weekly protests.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is video of the whole attack if you google it. I do not recall previous use of an ambulance to box in a motorist, but it might have happend. Palestinians have abused ambulances before to move infantry and rockets. This particular stretch of road, route 60 through Huwara is one of the only bits of settler travelled main road that goes through a Palestinian settlement.Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't have a right of vote) keep - it was an attempted murder, that if it would success, it was very dramatically and covered widely by the media. See previous cases, as the Murders of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran, which shocked the Israeli public, and the 2000 Ramallah lynching, which marked by some views the start of the second intifada. Deaths by rocks throwing were also very important: see for example the Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer and the Death of Yehuda Shoham. I suggest that you will keep the article and develop it, and change its name to 2017 Huwara lynching attempt. 95.86.108.250 (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and GNG. It's the second article (the first was 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing) of a user who writes exclusively on non-notable Israeli/Palestinian violent incidents. I googled a bit and it seems the one discussed here was already forgotten, garnering no follow-up, as was to be expected. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Middle East RSS news feed.AddMore-III (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural delete Without commenting on the merits of the article, this is the second time User:ThePagesWriter has created an article in violation of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Consider this the ARBPIA equivalent of a WP:G5 speedy deletion. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice This AfD is the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI#2017 Huwara shooting, User:ThePagesWriter, and WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every incident of violence should get a Wikipedia article, regardless of history of violence in that region. A 1-2 sentence listing at List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017 is enough. ValarianB (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Huwara#Protests_and_attacks and linked from at List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Although I started this AfD, due to facts emerging in the discussion, I took a closer look at the indident (which involved rioters bused in to the scent, violent attack on a civilian car, and the stunning spectacle of a Red Cross ambulance being used to block the civilian vehicle from escaping in apparent attempt to enable rioters to murder a random civilian driver) have now changed my iVote to support a redirect and merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Analytics of Things[edit]

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

Delete, my prod was removed and spam links were added instead. "Forbes BrandVoice® allows marketers to connect directly with the Forbes audience " The epitome of reliability and independence. Gourmet Burger King (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems mostly a spam magnet. A mish-mash of over topics, which already have articles: Internet of things (note lower case), big data, analytics, and all the related * analytics. Improve those articles first before spinning this one off. W Nowicki (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. May even be hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wiens[edit]

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

Notability issue for this blog. Of the 4 existing references, only one is not affiliated with the subject (and might not pass as reliable). darthbunk pakt dunft 10:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable Youtuber per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced and fails WP:GNG. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Career Toppers[edit]

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

90% of the article's content breaks WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT and even if it was pared back to a stub, I can't see that it meets WP:ORG. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Fails GNG/ORG. Lourdes 15:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A promotional-tone article on a business, sourced only to a case-search page. Searches, including the tailored Wikiproject India search, are locating no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lying through teeth when it says honoured by supreme court. Supreme court of India doesnt honour easily, it is a rare incident. If someone/some body gets honoured it automatically gets media coverage. All the refs I could find about it were added by the company itself. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, will undelete on request if reliable sources are located / created in future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Leo[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:FILMMAKER. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just social media, IMDB and crowdfunding sites. According to IMDB, she's directed one released short, and three not yet released; she's been a camera asst or production asst on some notable films, but notability is not inherited. Regarding official selections of her own work, I can find no mention of her on the Sacramento FF or Raindance FF websites. She was the executive producer of a short film called "Tailypo" which has been shown at the "A Place Called Sacramento" film festival, and the Sacramento Horror Film Festival, but these festivals' notability is unclear; I can find no confirmation of the official selections claimed on her IMDB even on the latter two festivals' websites, and the cited reference for these is a dead link with no archive or Google Cache available. WP:TOOSOON. Uncle Roy (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not yet meet the notability requirements for a filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indy Hall[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE shows insufficient sources to meet notability criteria. Redirect suggested by A7 decliner is implausible. Waggie (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject has received coverage in numerous sources, including a couple of books. Meets WP:GNG and WP:ORGIND.- Mr X 17:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, MrX, how many of those sources are a) based outside of Philly, and b) actually talking about Indy Hall, and not just mention that something happened there? Primefac (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't count them, but I did provide a link. There are enough sources to extract information for at least a small article. [1][2][3][4]- Mr X 18:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MrX Those are rather lackluster sources. 1 is a paragraph that briefly mentions the owner saying something. 2 is a non-notable book that doesn't exactly provide coverage. And the other two are local coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I hope no one expects me to make heroic efforts to save this article. I'm already overinvested.- Mr X 18:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrX, thank you for sharing your vote and the Google Search link. I performed this Google Search as part of my WP:BEFORE, and just reviewed it again as due diligence. I see a lot of passing mentions, interviews, local-only coverage, and thinly disguised blogs on job sites. I just don't see anything beyond what the article has already, and thus fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Waggie (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my original csd. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Coworking – Meets WP:GNG, although perhaps on a weaker level, and meets WP:AUD, but a merge would benefit the Coworking article as well. If kept, this short article would benefit from expansion; at this time the article has no claim of significance. See below for some source examples. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Coworking Growing in Popularity across Philadelphia". States News Service. (subscription required)
"The Indy Hall Experiment". Philadelphia.
"Timaree's Body: Indy Hall In-Depth". Philadelphia Weekly.
"Philly Is in the Middle of a Co-Working Boom. Here's Why". Thrillist.
Working in the Unoffice: A Guide to Coworking for Indie Workers, Small Businesses, and Nonprofits. Night Owls Press. p. 217.

Working in the Unoffice – pp. 53–54.

"A New Way of Working". Success. (subscription required)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to encourage additional participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SuperNoova[edit]

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

Long unreferenced article about fashion contest, with no significant coverage on Google, and that remains unreferenced on Eesti Wikipedia as well: so no strong indication of notability. Sadads (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete almost a speedy. No claim to notability and only its website given as a source. LibStar (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG ( talk ) 09:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HOPES Cabinet[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR. List of non notable names in a non notable organisation. There is a request to merge the article but this shouldn't happen, this is cruft that has no encyclopedic value Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is a part of a collection of promotional articles w/ same creator.Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, this is cruft. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the parent article (which was the merge-to target) has now been deleted, therefore there is no reason to keep this article. Ajf773 (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Media Partners[edit]

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

Long under-referenced article about a business with no claim to notability, except that it exists. Sadads (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article setting out a company's wares, with repeated subsequent IP editing to remove COI and Refimprove tags. The existing references are poor; I added one profile piece from a Glasgow-based newspaper, which provides basic verification, but I am not seeing more than indication of a company going about its business, with nothing encyclopaedic. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- org spam, with copy such as:

... a research-led consultancy that works in the digital media and technology sectors. Its board members include Danny Meaney, Managing Director;[1] Gerry Docherty, Chairman;[2] Nicola Cole, Director; Mairi Robertson, Director; and Caron Oliver, Finance Director....

The rest of the article sounds the same. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been requested to provide a more detailed closing statement. Very well.

There is an overwhelming consensus that the sources presented do not establish that the team meets WP:N. But, more than that, there is not even agreement that the team ever existed, and hence doesn't meet WP:V. Notability is a somewhat subjective concept, and there is room for legitimate debate about what is or isn't notable. Verifiability, however, is something which is held to a much higher standard, and there is strong consensus here that this standard has not been met.

I find the arguments for keeping to be particularly weak. One argument is that, the article exists in 16 other language wikis. WP:OTHERLANGS makes it clear that this is not a legitimate argument. There was also an argument made that the team is inherently notable. WP:NOTINHERITED addresses this one. There was also an argument that, I don't see any sources that say this team never existed. What we need (to meet the fundamental requirement of WP:V) are sources which say it does exist. The lack of sources which say it doesn't exist is not the same thing. And, lastly, the sources presented in the AfD were specifically, and individually, refuted.

Thus, delete is the only possible conclusion to this debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru national soccer team[edit]

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

No indication that this is a formal "National Team" could be found during my WP:BEFORE searching, and no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources could be found that meets WP:GNG. This team, if it is the national team of Nauru, has not played in any international matches - that is, a match against another country's national team - and its only match is against an ad-hoc group of workers from the Soloman Islands who happened to be in Nauru at the time. I have no idea why this article exists as it does not appear to satisfy any notability standards. During the first AfD it appears that many of the Keep !votes were misguided. This time, I hope that people who think this team meets a notability guideline are prepared to immediately prove it. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete During the first AfD there existed a source that the team had played an official friendly against the Solomon Islands; it now appears that it was an unofficial game against some Solomon Island migrant workers on Nauru. Given that the team appears to have never played an official game, there is really nothing to write about here. An alternative would be to create Nauru Amateur Soccer Association (which clearly does exist, and sources are available for that) and merge and/or redirect this article to that one. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - National team, inherently notable. Certainly some discussion of the team whether they have played official internationals or not which would indicate GNG, doubtless with more to be found offline in Nauruan sources. In particular:

Watson, Paul. "FIFA's Exiles". The Blizzard Football Quarterly (15) - source noted not the article.
RSSSF - briefish discussion of the national team
The Complete Guide to National Symbols and Emblems -

confirmation of thecteams existence and noting the nickname of the national team.

Nauru government - Announcement of second national team match
National team summery - article summarising the history of the team, mentions rumours of other matches against Pacific island teams.

There certainly seems to be some coverage in media sources from multiple countries indicating notability at the very least as a curiosity. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, those sources are the same awful ones I found - none of which actually confirm that the "Nauru national soccer team" actually exists. The closest thing to anything useful simply states that a match involving the "Combined Nauru Team" is due to take place. That's not enough. The others state that they're not sure a National Team for Nauru actually exists, and the most damning of all of them references the errors in the Wikipedia article that is the subject of this deletion discussion. Yes, national soccer teams are inherently notable - if they exist. WP:V doesn't ask editors to give it their best guess. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources suggests that an official Nauru team has played an official full international - even a friendly - against another national team.

Source 1 actually says that this hasn't happened.
Source 2 (RSSSF - reliable) even says "It is quite likely that there has been no official Nauru national football team."
Source 3 has their name in a list of teams, but provides no evidence as to the above
Source 4 merely says that a Nauru "representative team" (i.e. not an official national side) played a game - also referred to in Source 2 which then goes on to say that "It is quite likely that there has been no official Nauru national football team."
Source 5 actually says that there has been no games played, apart from the Solomon Islands one mentioned above, which of course wasn't official.

To sum up, we don't have any evidence of an actual Nauru national team ever playing an official game against another nation, so we currently have an article about a national team that has effectively never existed. To state the obvious, something that has never existed cannot be notable. This is why I suggested merging to Nauru Amateur Soccer Association which is verifiable. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the premise that it cannot possibly be notable, but it would require exceptional circumstances for it to be notable, which do not apply here. For instance, the Saudi Arabia women's national football team is notable for not existing, and there has been significant coverage in reliable sources of the fact that it does not exist, and the controversy over that fact. That does not seem to be the case here. Smartyllama (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources Fenix down lists, as others have noted, all doubt the team has ever existed, and/or speak of a "Combined Nauru Team", which is not the same thing, with the single exception of the symbols and emblems book, which tellingly gives exactly the same information for football/soccer and Australian rules football. Redirect to Soccer in Nauru, where the situation is summarised, or as Black Kite suggests, create Nauru Amateur Soccer Association and redirect there. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with a redirect, there's clearly sufficient reliably sourced material for content somewhere. Fenix down (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the team never existed, how can it be notable in the first place? —JJ Be rs 20:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only reliable sources available on the subject indicate that it is likely the team never officially existed. Someone knowledgeable in the other languages in which the subject has an article might want to address those as well.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isn't there a rule somewhere, that if the article exists in 16 other language wikis that we can throw the nominator off the island? As per Fenix's references. The sport may well collapsed in the country, but that doesn't mean it wasn't notable in the past. Nfitz (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, none of those references confirm that there ever was an official national soccer team.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit difficult for something to collapse that never existed in the first place! Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Why would an article about a team that has never existed need to be kept? As stated above, there's already an article about Soccer on Nauru so what possible justification (apart from the red-herring "there are articles in 16 other wikis" argument) can there be for keeping an article about this "team"? Exemplo347 (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347:. I finally had a chance to look into this further. I don't see any sources that say this team never existed - I'm not sure what's the basis of that statement. FIFA's website has a document indicating they played in 1994 against the Solomon Islands here. There's other documents on some of the 15 other wikis. Currently seems there isn't a team, but the statement that there has never been a team doesn't seem to have any sources, while there are some good sources that there was once a team. Nfitz (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be based on WP:SYN of the sources. It seems there was once a team there, but they are not a part of any professional or semi-professional governing body and have not played a match in over 20 years. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Football in Nauru~~ Soccer in Nauru. It doesn't exist, and never existed, and therefore shouldn't be kept, but it's entirely plausible that a reader who didn't know that the team never existed would search for it. ~~And there are also the unofficial teams participating in non-notable competitions mentioned at Football in Nauru#National team, which people might want information on~~. That's not enough for an article except in rare cases where the team has received significant coverage for not existing (see Saudi Arabia women's national football team or perhaps the college football team at Plainfield Teacher's College), which is not the case here. But it's a plausible enough search term that it should be redirected. Smartyllama (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree it's a plausible search term. The argument that "all national football teams are kept" is absurd here. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'mt not sure it's entirely absurd, User:Power~enwik. Off-hand, I can't think of another nation who is part of the United Nations (as opposed to province, enclave, region, territory, etc.) where the men's team article hasn't been kept in such a discussion. Not that is proof it should be kept, but I think it does demonstrate that it's not absurd! Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well @Nfitz: this team doesn't exist, so why should this article be kept? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: You use the present tense though. Is it true if you use the past tense? Nfitz (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Yes. This article is purely a misunderstanding of what counts as a National soccer team, and a thorough search before you !voted would have shown you that. Exemplo347 (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All national football teams are kept. The problem is that this team does not exist, and therefore is not a "national football team". Smartyllama (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the debate though isn't it. My point in my comment above though was clearly not arguing for keep, but simply pointing out that it's not entirely absurd that there should be an article. I'm not sure why User:Exemplo347 is turning that point into a debate about a different issue. And I'm not sure where the unnecessary comment a thorough search before you !voted comes from, give I even provided a new reference from a British publication, and mentioned the other 16 Wikis (where do you think I found the reference). I can easily accept there is currently no team. Is there enough historic media coverage? That requires more work. Accusing someone of not spending enough time seems a bit rich given his close in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Roady where he managed to do it about 2 minutes after editing somewhere very different. I don't think I could read all the diverse comments in that closure thread in 2 minutes, let alone do any background checking! Nfitz (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete till such time as it actually exists. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace when it can be RSd.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Goulet[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails NHOCKEY. I want to believe there is something out there that can fix the GNG issue, but it's not immediately making itself available. South Nashua (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't really blame Dolovis for this one, because this (very marginally) passed the notability criteria of seven years ago, but this NN minor-league journeyman does not now pass NHOCKEY, nor show any evidence of meeting the GNG. Ravenswing 02:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our current notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atif Mian[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. cited ref are not reliable. Saqib (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His citation count alone warrants keeping as per WP:NSCHOLAR. His first 10 counts are 1463, 1563, 512, 654, 611, 484, 329, 388, 300, and 250. That's a pretty clear indication of their importance in their field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Princeton full prof who holds a named chair with an HI ~30...please close this. Agricola44 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw this was my mistake. --Saqib (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Vortex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails gng ans pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous subscription service[edit]

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

Not notable.

The page is basically about a patent on indefinite magazine subscriptions.

Only linked to from Sjakkblad (old version), which was a totally pointless link.

Sources are all affiliated with the company that holds this patent:

http://www.walkerdigital.com/about-us_what-we-do.html
https://www.synapsegroupinc.com/

Searching around the internet, the only references to this topic are in the patent itself, this Wikipedia page, and sources affiliated with the company that holds the patent. No one else seems to have talked about it at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellbur (talk • contribs) 22:27, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Discussion page was created under the wrong title (capitalization did not match that of the article), and without the {{afd2}} template. Fixed now--I remain neutral on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 02:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I doubt the accuracy of the article. Placing subscriptions on a "until forbid" basis has been standard in libraries for decades and I think also in the consumer market. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC) ,[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No further discussion despite relist and especially no arguments addressing Chrissymad's point that reliable source coverage does not exist. So Why 10:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cephalgy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Can find absolutely no coverage other than basic listings and a single review1. There is an article on de but it doesn't appear to be any better and is completely lacking in sources as well. I searched under Sven West and found a few mentions but no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find nothing better than what Chrissymad has found, in fact, she found more than I did. Waggie (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cephalgy are one of the big names in German gothic scene. New single was released in February 2017 on Out of Line Music. BTW, it's just saying, i don't mind importing this article to the Music Wiki ;-) --Saviour1981 (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Saviour1981 Do you have any sources which provide coverage? I came up empty. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Characters and time combination password[edit]

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

Only source given doesn't mention the topic at all and has been poorly sourced since its creation. I was unable to find anything online that mentions this topic besides Wikipedia mirrors. No indication of notability, and has been tagged with {{notability}} since January 2016. In my opinion there are no plausible places this could be redirected, hence delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the nominator, I was unable to find any reliable sources and therefore it seems that this is not a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete good moldy stub removal. W Nowicki (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too could find no sources. WikiWisePowder (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Central and Eastern Europe)[edit]

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

This articles appears to be a TV guide listing, which WP:NOTTVGUIDE advises user to prevent from creating such lists. Also the article does not cite any sources whatsoever. Possible candidate for speedy deletion. Wes Wolf ^Talk 05:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. We already have an article for List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network and there is no need for a separated list for different regions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 will be salting given the history at Zaki Ameer. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaki Ameer (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Semi-procedural nom. This page had been previously speedied under various criteria several times at Zaki Ameer, which is now salted. It was recreated under this new name, which was brought to my attention at my talk page. This new version is substantially better but many of the sources still only mention him shortly and focus on generic financial advice he gives. Not many of the sources are in-depth, and those that are seem to be focused on one incident (his criticism of the Australian Labour Party policy), possibly making this WP:BLP1E. If kept, it should be moved back to the undisambiguated name.-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete smacks of being self-promotional. Has previously been speedied several times for exactly that reason. Given that the article's creator's only contribution is the creation of this article raises immediate suspicions. Similar to the nom I struggle to see what exactly is notable about this individual. Dan arndt (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional and not really notable. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawl. Unambiguous meeting of the Heymann standard. That was impressive, guys. (non-admin closure) — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors-Cavaliers rivalry[edit]

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

Pure original research. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep votes did not make any policy-based arguments and did not provide WP:RS to indicate that Mr. Beron passes WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eian Beron[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable video producer and actor. The award he won is a minor local aware. The editor keeps trying to add "references' that do not support the statements in the article. Lacks in-depth coverage. Vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, autobiography offering no evidence of notability per WP:CREATIVE or other WP:BIO. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. Most of the references tip "Cyberace" as a source, but it's unclear who that's referring to, as the backlinks don't mention Beron by name. As a director he won a local library film festival award, and as an actor he seems to have appeared only in his own music video, made in his final year of high school. Uncle Roy (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article's edit history looks suspiciously like sockpuppetry. Uncle Roy (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article represents subject that may be of notability in some regions. According to Niche, a social influencer platform in which a user may link all of their pages to attract advertisers, Beron apparently has almost 500,000 followers across social media. Also, regardless of our personal opinions, IMDB seems to recognize the subject's work and awards, regardless of if Wiki contributors deem these contributions minor. IMDB is an exclusive database which has specific criteria for the titles which are allowed to be listed on the site. All titles/actors added to the site have to be approved by IMDB staff. Subject's has also been cited many times on notable video game publications. I understand biographical information may not be reliable from IMDB. However, not any random person can have an IMDB listing. AppleFan2007 (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC) — AppleFan2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb: it's user-edited content like Wikipedia, so having an entry there is not an indication of notability by Wikipedia guidelines. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've now moved your reply to my last post back into your previous reply[5], so I'll reply to that here. Yes, any random person can have an IMDB listing: [6]. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to reviewing admins: Account User:AppleFan2007 and the article's creator account User:Cyberacex have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Uncle Roy (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe CyberAce fan community is really excited about this page! We obviously recognize that Eian is not a huge celebrity. But his videos have reached tens of millions of people! And his music video, no matter if the film festival was major or not, is still recognized by IMDB! I've seen people on here with a way smaller following and they've been uncontested. 500,000 followers across all his platforms? Definitely somebody worth noting.Tundra86 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC) — Tundra86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as per nom. This article lacks in-deep significance courage on Beron by third-party sources, only several passing mentions but that's it. TheDeviantPro (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had the pleasure of meeting Eian/CyberAce a few weeks back at Playlist Live 2017 while I was on vacation in Florida. Definitely not one of the biggest YouTubers, but I saw him stopped several times for pictures by fans, and he always stopped to talk with a smile on his face. He definitely is known in the YouTube community. As a creator and as friend of a lot of the bigger creators. Seems that the Wikipedia editors on here aren’t too familiar with YouTube. But his contributions to the community are far from lacking notability. GeekInParadise (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ILIKEIT: we're here to discuss how he meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Uncle Roy (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the admin closing the discussion, please keep in mind the editors who said Keep haven't yet given any reasons how this person meets the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Most are these just his fans trying to keep the page from being deleted, easily falling under WP:ILIKEIT. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The award is a minor one given by a non-notable film festival's organisers. Leaking a video game trailer doesn't establish notability. That info can be added to the video game's article, though. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beron has a good 500,000 followers combined across his accounts. There's existing articles about YouTubers who have about that amount or less, so can't see how the followers alone make him any less notable. Also, IMDB is WAY more strict than Wikipedia on who/what they accept on their listings. The fact that they accept the festival he won as a means of getting listed would imply that there is some significance there. Really seems like there's a bit of a vendetta against this page and that the Wikipedia moderators don't really understand that YouTube community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinePride (talk • contribs) — PinePride (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Fienhage[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Undistinguished journeyman in the mid-minors, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Ravenswing 07:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yashovardhan (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People's Justice Party (UK)[edit]

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

Non-notable political party fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Power~enwiki (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why? Velociraptor888 21:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a couple of sources, plenty more out there on this short-lived political party, not only in news articles but in books. Here's a gBooks search on "people's justice party" + Birmingham [7]. Editorial time could have been better spent improving article. If someone takes the time to expand it, it will fly pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting this discussion, I did a WP:HEYMANN-lite to the article, which is now adequately sourced. Note especially the fact that this Party began as the Free Riaz and Quayyam Campaign, a movement among Muslim Kashmiri immigrants to free the two terrorists who kidnapped and murdered Indian diplomat Ravindra Mhatre in Birmingham, England in an effort to support Pakistani control of Kashmir.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has too many problems for me to pick just one. I would support a merge/redirect if one is proposed. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a political party based in a single city that never had more than 5 local councilors, it's not notable.
The history section reads merely as a narrative of every press appearance they ever made, many are trivial in nature.
Ideally, this would be a candidate to merge into a different article. If any of the members were notable, it could redirect to them. But none of them appear to be.
There are pages such as Birmingham City Council election, 2014, but none dating far enough back for this party. I have no ability nor desire to create them.

User:Power~enwiki, Note that as with any topic, a political party becomes notable when it passes WP:GNG. Even a very small party may be notable if journalists and scholars regard it's impact as notable. In this case the party has been the subject of in-depth new articles :like this one in The Guardian [8], and this one "Future of Kashmiri party 'in doubt'.," [9] . and is discussed in articles [10] and in several books [11] about the role of immigrant groups in British politics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Political parties which win any elections, even joke ones, are going to be kept. And this one meets GNG apparently. --do ncr am 23:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a difference between a political party that's an organization, and one that's a flag-of-convenience for candidates who would otherwise run as independent. I see no sources suggesting this party was the former. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other than the fact it meets WP:GNG, it has clear international dimensions connecting it to the Kashmir dispute. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yashovardhan (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 NRLB Championship[edit]

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

A contested prod. This competition season is unlikely to meet GNG or other notability criteria, of the three sources presented, two seem to be duplicates of each other. Mattlore (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as it covers a season in Dutch Rugby League's top division, but it does need improving with more sources IMHO. Skemcraig (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the contested prod. Would take issue were player articles to be created, but a season of the top-level of the sport in a country surely must be something that is contended when put up for deletion.Fleets (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Dutch Rugby League Competition. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage to justify the creation of articles for individual seasons, but I'd be ok with grouping them together in the main competition article per WP:NSEASONS. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The highest tier of domestic rugby league in one country deserves the accreditation and recognition. References have now also been added to each match as found on the website link, http://www.rugbyleague.nl/index.php/competitie#uitslagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.68.6 (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. apparent consensus. I urge Icewhiz to continue to work on the article DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Farid[edit]

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

apparently doesn't pass WP:GNG. cited sources are not independent and reliable. clearly an autobio. Saqib (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove the "Philanthropy" and "Controversy" sections. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why keep ? please provide reason. --Saqib (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has way too much detail on these things. Co-founding a $500 million company is notable. Being a party to non-notable lawsuits is not. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Remove "Philanthropy" (or reduce - which I just did), but most definitely keep lawsuits - which is why he is notable. the "edible arrangements" by itself doesn't make him notable (though it is an interesting business and did get some coverage). His serial lawsuits (and coverage of) alleging discrimination against himself, Muslims, and Islamic institutions - quite a collection of cases - push him over the notability line. Convinced by going over Google news hits.Icewhiz (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Ah yes I remember the NMEDIA thing now......., Well as the previous discussion got no where I don't particularly want another long and tiresome debate over NMEDIA so as such closing as Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huntingdon Community Radio[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Fails RADIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to find a handful of reliable sources which properly verified that the base WP:NMEDIA criteria for includability of a radio station are met: Ofcom license, check; original programming, check. Media outlets are one of the areas where Wikipedia's stated goal is to be as complete as possible a reference for all radio stations within the bounds of verifiability in reliable sources — so a radio station does not need to claim anything special above and beyond the fact that its meeting of the base criteria can be properly verified. I'm leaving the refimprove tag on, because it does still need more referencing before it could actually be considered a good or thorough article, but there is enough referencing present and available to cover off the basic question of includability. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Top 250 - 2014[edit]

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

The list provides no claim of significance, especially given the fact that it's based upon a poll taken every year. It's claims are purely subjective: "the top 250 songs". The editor, LVDV GTA5 (talk · contribs), who made it had no experience in its creation before its creation, and this is evident in the creation of this article. Tuxipεdia^(talk) 01:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I say this as a Eurovision fan myself. There are a number of notable "Best of Eurovision" polls (the ones taken in 2006 and 2016 for the 50th and 60th anniversaries come to mind), but this is not showing any evidence of being one of them. A quick Google suggests that it's a longish-running annual poll, and there may be scope for an article on the poll itself, rather than simply recapitulating the results every year, but that's a question for another day. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This is definitely WP:NOTWIKIA, and most certainly a collection of indiscriminate information. A personal "top 250" is something that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Wes Wolf ^Talk 08:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I don't think it's a personal top anything. This does seem, per search results, to be a poll run by one of the assorted Eurovision fan-sites with online votes from its users. That said, it's probably only a step above "personal", as there are a lot of these sites and there's no sense of what the user-base is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTRIVIA and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No discussion after the sole !keep vote which also provides references. No discussion at all after 2 relists. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LIVE555[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep: this seems to be a relatively niche library but it appears to be often referenced in research papers, and there's also at least one review in a book: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="LIVE555"&tbm=bks&prmd=visn&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjElaSnyNzTAhXMBsAKHV7EAgUQ_AUIDigG&biw=360&bih=512&dpr=3 Laurent (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide verifiable citations for research papers. Your google link is just a list of search results, and includes republication of wikipedia content as books and what appear to be incidental mentions. Which book contains a review?Dialectric (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned there for example: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLaurent (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Hunter (athlete)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. His main notability seems to be he finished 72nd at the 1978 IAAF World Cross Country Championships. Jb45424 (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Competed in 2 world championships, and finished 49th in 1979. Was also ranked 17 in the world in 1978.[12] Also arguably notable as a coach. Additional sources: [13], [14], [15], [16]. --Michig (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets #1 of WP:NATH South Nashua (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is the father of Drew Hunter, and more notable in that regard than he ever was as a runner. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies criteria #1 of WP:NATH as mentioned by South Nashua. Gab4gab (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NATH. --Guy Macon (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. After nominator's withdrawl, there's not a consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Colvin[edit]

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

The notability of this decade-old, unsourced BLP is based on the person not having gotten into an auto accident, of being the first woman to hold a specialized category of commercial-grade driver license in the U.S. state of Kansas, and of winning the "Company Equipment Driver of the Year" trophy from an unspecified organization. While all are probably great achievements, the lack of any RS I've been able to locate seems to call the notability of this person into question. Chetsford (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the article, she is a non-notable truck driver. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added sources to the article and she seems to be well-known in the trucking world. I'm leaning Weak Keep for GNG in a niche field. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep withdraw nom and change to "keep" as per improvements by Megalibrarygirl Chetsford (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per establishment of notability within an obscure field, particularly as an individual who established themselves in the pre-Google era; to have sources at all for that time and occupation is impressive. Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still see no way this person is notable, and still support deletion. Describing her as "pioneering" and "blazed the path for women into another male-dominated occupation" is egregious editorializing. She is a female truck driver. Being the first female truck driver at two small, otherwise not-notable companies isn't a sign of notability. An industry-specific lifetime achievement award isn't a sign of notability. I see no claims that Dora has done anything besides drive a truck. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If an "industry-specific lifetime achievement award isn't a sign of notability," then what do you call the Academy Awards or the Grammys? Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not convinced those "lifetime achievement awards" give notability either; their competitive awards (such as Best Actor) do. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USACK[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in third-party sources to meet WP:COMPANY. Self-admitted WP:COI by involved editor to use article for promotional purposes. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything in my searches besides this, but I'm not sure of its reliability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only the Teruaki Kanemitsu article will be deleted as a result of this discussion. Mz7 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teruaki Kanemitsu[edit]

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

Clearly non-notable wrestler. Made professional debut in 2016 and now permanently injured. All references are from within the wrestling community with no independent 3rd-party WP:RS to support inclusion. One of a swathe of articles on wrestlers of no apparent merit for inclusion, also with no supporting citations, apart from lots of brief entries on wrestling match databases and online video websites. Does not seem to meet WP:SPORTSPERSON or WP:ENTERTAINER. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could also add the following examples of similar articles of little apparent merit and no 3rd party sources outside of the wrestling match lists:

Nick Moyes (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage, most of it in the form of "this guy beat that guy" with no real achievements in their careers. MPJ-DK 02:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes if you meant to include the other three articles in the deletion request then you did not do it right, if you just brought them up as examples then that's irrelevant to this deletion request (and misleading the way it's listed). MPJ-DK 09:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, it was more to help others determine whether or not I was approaching the rationale behind this particular AfD in the right manner or not. I know zilch about professional wrestling, but see long, detailed, multi-referenced articles that look well-written, but seem just promotional in nature. To that end I posted this question on the Wrestling Project page after posting this AfD, so that I can better understand guidelines for wrestling notability. Hope I've not muddied the waters. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Also WP:TOOSOON. Nikki♥311 04:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither article content nor sources indicate notability.★Trekker (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=ByBDnpuxmi0C&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=%22Add-on+factor%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=c9jrrrpOb1&sig=VED-NtasT2xSH0oeerlVtg7vURA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipuc6X3IHUAhWM7YMKHbhJBgcQ6AEIqgEwGQ#v=onepage&q=%22Add-on%20factor%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

[1]