User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 23:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Robert Vinson	10 years ago	5	2976	1	969.25
Dayanand Shetty	10 years ago	2	3270	0	500.24
Robinsons Place Dasmariñas	10 years ago	0	2990	2	498.75
Emotional symbiosis	10 years ago	0	3823	2	498.35
Jela Mihailovic	10 years ago	0	4831	2	490.22
Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz	10 years ago	1	6877	0	486.92
Linux Desktop Testing Project	10 years ago	0	2156	2	483.8
MSR Studios	10 years ago	0	3260	2	483.71
Pinkly Smooth	10 years ago	0	2185	2	483.71
Colortone (band)	10 years ago	0	2696	2	483.2
Benjamin Oduro	10 years ago	0	1982	1	482.86
GoCatch	10 years ago	0	1857	1	482.83
Nyce Control	10 years ago	0	1852	1	482.78
Egerin	10 years ago	0	1579	1	482.74
Cecile Raubenheimer	10 years ago	0	1751	1	482.68
BioReference Laboratories	10 years ago	0	3370	1	482.61
Alok Agarwal	10 years ago	0	1995	1	482.33
Radio Northern Star	10 years ago	0	1907	0	481.53
Cowboys and Indies - The Epic History of the Record Industry	10 years ago	0	1628	0	480.94
National Institute of Education (Cambodia)	10 years ago	0	1530	0	480.24
BRINT Institute	10 years ago	0	1553	0	480.16
British Council (Jordan)	10 years ago	0	1611	0	479.96
Costa Campos	10 years ago	0	1644	0	474.57
Machel Waikenda	10 years ago	0	6115	2	471.02
Sno E. Blac	10 years ago	0	2028	1	468.18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Robert Vinson

Robert Vinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete- I'm not seeing the notability. The reliable sources only mention him in passing. . It's not quite clear from the opening sentence what it is he does, or is notable for. The opening sentence appears to be asserting his notability rather than proving it. . I'm not seeing anything significant. The tone of the piece suggests this is a vanity article - and it was created by a single purpose account. I'm inclined to support a delete unless somebody turns up something more significant. Itsalleasy (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep : Notable per coverage. Happydit (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep : all search results seem to note his candidacy for mayor of Los Angeles Fife~ 20:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FifeStarMedia (talk • contribs) — FifeStarMedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SmartSE (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• Procedural note. This AFD was never listed properly. I have just added it to the AFD log today, so it needs discussing for 7 days from now. SmartSE (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage of the subject and a search in factiva for better references has turned up nothing for this particular Robert Vinson. SmartSE (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I can only find that he was candidate for a member of the City Council, not for Mayor. (not that he would have been notable as a candidate for mayor, but there is a difference--I see he worked on someone else's campaign for mayor--perhaps that's the source of the confusion). DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural note This semi-automated edit of mine unlisted it again straight after I added it back in March... I guess it needs another seven days from now. SmartSE (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Evidence sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia standards is neither provided nor found in the usual searches. Note: others of the same name may well be notable, especially the Robert Vinson who was president of the University of Texas 1916-1923. [1][2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Neither his business career nor his unsuccessful candidacy for local office provide notability as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. (WP:Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Dayanand Shetty

Dayanand Shetty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The person, Dayanand Shetty has not won any major award and as per the Wikipedia guidelines does not deserve to have a page on Wikipedia.Also, the page has only 2 references and nothing is properly referenced. Shane Cyrus (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Even a cursory Google research reveals tons of sources. Vectro (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Many people want to have a wikipedia page but not all get it. This person's name should direct at the C.I.D. page. If he wins a major award, then add it. Otherwise this article is not adequate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane Cyrus (talk • contribs) 05:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane Cyrus (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I've undone the out-of-procedure redirect and improper CSD tag. No opinion. ansh666 21:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Weak keep per my Google search. Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

'redirect' to C.I.D. (Indian TV series). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane Cyrus (talk • contribs) 08:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Robinsons Place Dasmariñas

Robinsons Place Dasmariñas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. shopping malls are not inherently notable, only coverage merely confirms its existence or existence of certain shops in it. also nominating:

• SM City Masinag
• SM City Calamba
• SM City Novaliches LibStar (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: SM City Masinag, SM City Calamba and SM City Novaliches are nominated but the articles were not tagged for AfD. They are tagged now. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Emotional symbiosis

Emotional symbiosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Prodded as an unreferenced essay & non-notable term. PRod contested alleging that the article is referenced: not so. Horrible misuse of the word symbiosis. TheLongTone (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• The definition of the word symbiosis has grey areas online, and taking into account that I don't have a major in Psychology, I think I did a pretty accurate job of describing events that occur throughout symbiosis. Also, this article has been requested as "Emotional Symbiosis" so I've tried finding definitions that were closer to the word that the person who requested this article wanted. You can always edit things that you find to be wrong, but for the most part, this article is on the topic of Emotional Symbiosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaiyaEstes (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think we should move it to something like "Psychological symbiosis" or "Symbiosis (psychology)" and it needs cleanup. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely, I'm going to edit more things on this page, but I wanted to get the main points down that I thought were related to Psychological Symbiosis — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaiyaEstes (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Jela Mihailovic

Jela Mihailovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. Author has COI with other music related articles as noted on their talk page. I'm unable to find a connection with this subject though. C1776M^Talk 13:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• Keep Notable person, there are lot sources about her, awards, article can be better, but she is notable. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Can you share some of those sources or add them to the unsourced article so we can review them? Thanks! C1776M^Talk 16:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, look:

• Širom zatvorenih očiju 2012
• Sanre Entertainment Announces the North American Launch for Internationally Awarded and Acclaimed Cellist Jela (Mihailovic) Cello
• Violončelistkinja Jelena Mihailović nagrađena za dopinos umetnosti (FOTO) (VIDEO)
• Jelena Mihajlović: Posle Džejms Bonda prašina se slegla
• Fame & Philanthropy Organized Stars to Speak to CITY's Youth Entrepreneurship Program About Project of Life Changing Experiences the Day Before Their Event
• Kako mi je izmakao Džems Bond

And more of those also! Some sources are under Jelena Mihailović, her full name! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was delete. Note that whether or not the organisations used as references are themselves notable is not really relevant. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz

Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable person. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the independent sources has in depth coverage. No native-language wiki article to poach refs from. Article built almost entirely by SPAs. PROD removed by @ErraticallyIntelligent:, so move to AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep - The article in question has been referenced using as many independent sources as possible - which include: the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, the British Forces Foundation and Burke's Peerage all of which are considered notable organisations (by Wikipedia's standard or otherwise). Whilst notability is not through mere association, one must consider whether: a)Oxford or Cambridge would be granting honours to an individual who is of no note? b)A charity as well known as The British Forces Foundation would appoint as Vice President an individual who is of no note? c)Burke's Peerage would allow the creation of a record (note: the record appears to be a newly created record NOT just a small entry into an existing record) of an individual who is of no note? Therefore the individual, especially as he is being recognised by the above institutions, is notable enough to have a wikipedia article written on him. Ctfn 20:54, 02 April 2014 (BST)

(a) the coverage isn't from the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge, it from colleges associated with those institutions (but legally completely separate), colleges which are notoriously cash-poor (b) I'd never heard of the The British Forces Foundation until I read this article (c) Burke's Peerage website contact page has a suspicious comment about 'paid research'; I believe they've changed their business model recently? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

In response to the comments above:

a) cash-poor or not, they are still very careful in what they promote - Oxford and Cambridge are (arguably) Britain's top two academic institutions, with a world reputation - and their constituent colleges (whilst separate entities) must still "toe the line" with regards to how they conduct themselves. They are not merely "associated" with the University, but are part of the University itself (no different to Trinity, Clare, Jesus etc. or any other Oxbridge college). My point - the colleges are still well known institutions and (for whatever reason) they have felt fit to recognise the individual of the article and furthermore they have not "tucked him away" but made mention of him on their website and written material. It is also quite clear that the sources were produced by the colleges themselves. If there is enough notability for them, then why not Wikipedia?

b) Just because you have not heard of The British Forces Foundation does not undermine its notability. Indeed it has its own Wikipedia page, which does not appear to have been rejected or deleted (my argument being that, I assume, The British Forces Foundation has passed its own test of notability). Besides, whether or not it is found on Wikipedia, it has received coverage in the British Press, has had associations with a number of celebrities and is a charity probably most familiar to members of the British Armed Forces. (As an aside, the following YouTube link - which whilst it is a promotional video by the charity - should highlight that The British Forces Foundation is not some unknown charity [3]). Again, my point, the individual is not just associated with the organisation (which I hope I have argued is one of note) - he has been appointed as a Vice President (reference to which has been included in the article).

c) Burke's Peerage do appear to offer a paid research service, but from what I gather entry on their records is still rather strict (I also believe this is something they have offered for quite a while - and is more to do with "we need to prove that you are who you claim to be").Ctfn 11:37, 3 April 2014 (BST)

• Comment See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mahfouz Foundation involving a similar set of references and editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

*Keep - The sources seem good. It looks like he has been noticed by a quite a few organisations (some big, some small). He is also a CEO in Saudi, so surely he should be included as there is a category in Wikipedia of [Category:Saudi Arabian chief executives]. User talk:BenoitHoog 14:09 04 April 2014 (GMT+1)

• Keep - I was responsible for removing original PROD. I believe the article should be kept - as per my comment. He is Vice President of the British Forces Foundation. If there is information on the guy, I'm sure people who are interested in the Foundation will want to know more. ErraticallyIntelligent 07/04/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErraticallyIntelligent (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• The above editors are indef-blocked as socks of Ctfn. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete - There is little corroborating information on the web. The term "His Excellency" appears fanciful as it is reserved for the House of Saud, or for those holding senior governmental position - not for any other person. The entire article leaves one feeling that "on the 7th day he rested". If an individual makes charitable contributions to private or public companies and institutions, whether in return for a title or for altruistic reasons, I would imagine that should not automatically make them a person of note. Lonscribe (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Lonscribe appears to be an SPA as well with no contributions besides this discussion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments -

a) The use of 'His Excellency' (HE) is by way of the GCMLJ - which is a Knight Grand Cross of Merit from The Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem. Regarding members of the House of Saud - senior members would actually be referred to as 'His Royal Highness' (HRH) [as with members of the British Royal family], junior members 'His Highness' (HH). I believe that the father (who is a Sheikh) would also be entitled to also use HE.

b) To answer the "on the 7th day he rested" the following reference show him contributing (recently) to St John of Jerusalem Eye Hospital: [4]. However, I've not added it to the article as it is merely mention of a contribution.

c) With regards to Lonscribe's comment: If an individual makes charitable contributions to private or public companies and institutions, whether in return for a title or for altruistic reasons, I would imagine that should not automatically make them a person of note. - I would agree with that to some extent BUT if the title or honour is considered noteworthy within a respected and fairly public organisation, then I would argue that there must be an element of notability. I have used the British Forces Foundation as an example in a previous comment, but he has been (and judging by his charity's website - is still being) honoured with positions of respect within other organisations (in fact the GCMLJ is another good example). Famous, definitely not - but I would still argue for his notability.

Ctfn (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments -

Reconfirm Delete

a) In fact there are other sources (such as that on Wikipedia referring to Faisal of Saudi Arabia) that clarify how the term "His Excellency" is reserved solely for members of the Saudi Royal lineage (or senior government officials when holding office), not businessmen, sheikhs or philanthropists etc and certainly not their offspring. In the same way that a British citizen outside of the royal family would never be referred to in English as “HRH”, the term “HE” would never be used to refer inappropriately to someone in Arabic. One notable omission of the article is that this family reputedly originates from Yemen (not of Saudi descent) so could never qualify. The fact that the term "His Excellency" is used inappropriately, reinforces the notion that this is not a suitable article for Wikipedia.

b) I only came across this article during some tangential research. The reason it stuck out compared to other articles on notable persons from the Middle East is that there are no independent, reliable sources of note, it looks "commissioned" and quite self-promotional in comparison. I have no problem with that in principle but as a part-time researcher, the context of an article is paramount so would expect to see such an article on Facebook or a private website, leaving Wikipedia undiluted and largely independent.

c) Yes I see the argument and agree that non-famous people can still be notable. However, that is not the case with this article. There are literally thousands of other Middle Eastern family members of large businesses that do not qualify for Wikipedia (correctly in my view) despite having names associated with global charities and institutions. This article would fall into that category in my humble opinion.

Lonscribe (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Struck the duplicate delete !vote above. Only one !vote is allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I think the awards and honors section here provides enough notability to push him over the edge. Some of the sources here in the article don't really contribute to his personal notability, but I think there's just enough evidence here to make a case for him being notable. Ducknish (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reconfirm Delete. After some more careful scrutiny, the article appears far more suitable for a social media site, and would otherwise dilute Wikipedia. Detailed reasoning above.

Struck what appears to be a duplicate !vote in this unsigned entry. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• I did not find anything in the biography to suggest he may be an Excellency (or “صاحب سعادة “ in Arabic), which to the best of my knowledge, needs one to be holding certain official positions, none of which seem to have been quoted in the said article. The article looks like it was put together by an editorial team. It is this kind of article that gives the otherwise wonderful Wikipedia site a bad reputation — EARK123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (comment moved from top of page)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Vanispampuffery of the worst kind. Sourcing is atrocious, and I do not think that such peerages and "academic" honors (I'll phrase this delicately) confer notability. In the meantime, I'm going to prune the article some, beginning with the portrait gallery of his royal highness. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence that he's actually done anything noteworthy. Elassint ^Hi 17:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, this appears to be a violation of WP:PROMO and WP:VANITY, Drmies actually cleaned the article to the point where I could not tell right off bat. However, further research of the editor who created the article appears to be based on WP:NOTHERE. I could not find any third party RS either. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Linux Desktop Testing Project

Linux Desktop Testing Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced and I can't find any material to support WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

---

I have added more info and refs. I think this article meets the guidelines and should not be deleted. cjbayliss

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

MSR Studios

MSR Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:N; no coverage in independent, reliable sources Adabow (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Ssssssooooooooooo...... Innumerable mentions on backs of album jackets and film credits for the last 20 years is not "independent reliable sources"? How about all the trade rags that discuss it - both in the world of Hollywood (Variety, Billboard, Ad Age, Hollywood Reporter etc) as well as in the world of music (Mix, EQ, Microphone, Stereo Fidelity, Hi Fi and Stereo Review, The Absolute Sound etc etc etc.) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.176.170 (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Credits in album liners could only verify something like "this is a list of all the works that have been recorded at MSR Studios". We need actual substance, such as history of the studios and their features. The other sources sound more promising; could you post links here, or add them to the article? I can't find anything like that from a quick web search. Adabow (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Pinkly Smooth

Pinkly Smooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. One self-released album, two members of the same band though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Colortone (band)

Colortone (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

unremarkable band lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The article cites significant coverage from the Chicago Tribune. Highbeam also finds a short article in the Chicago Sun-Times. As the band released a major label album, further coverage is likely to exist, but given that the band was around in the 1980s, the bulk of any coverage is likely to be in print sources that may not be available online. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Oduro

Benjamin Oduro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual. Possible vanity piece? Shritwod (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 05:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

GoCatch

GoCatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely non-notable company. Shritwod (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 05:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Keep, was able to find coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald, BRW, etc. Probably not the sort of coverage the company wants, but it does make me think that they meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Nyce Control

Nyce Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable small company. All but one of the references provided are to company sites or ads. There is only one acceptable source, an article in a local business journal; not enough for notability. I could not find any additional sources in a search. MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 05:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Egerin

Egerin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable startup company. Shritwod (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 05:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Cecile Raubenheimer

Cecile Raubenheimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable actress with some minor roles, who appears to be working in the hotel trade. Shritwod (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 05:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that we consider this a soft delete not subject to speedy deletion if and when the article is re-created with sufficiently claims to notability above and beyond what we have now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

BioReference Laboratories

BioReference Laboratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable. Most news related items are press releases or non-notable facts of company's existence. Sole possible claim to notability is inclusion on Forbes list, but per WP:CORPDEPTH. "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization" --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Weak neutral for now but could be persuaded to go to WP:SOFTDELETE. The references are not nearly what is needed to demonstrate that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH but the fact that Reuters saw fit to write http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?rpc=66&symbol=BRLI.O gives me hope that such references could be found. If it turns out that this content was provided by the company then I'll change to DELETE. Likewise, if it turns out that Reuters has this level of depth on all NASDAQ stocks I will change to DELETE on the grounds that the coverage is "routine." Should quality references be added to the page, I could be persuaded to move to "weak keep" or even "keep." Should this deleted later and quality references found that clearly demonstrate notability, I have no objections to un-deletion provided the notability-demonstrating references are added to the page or talk page immediately after restoration. By the way, I marked two of the "longer" references as press releases. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Keep. I believe the page needs to be expanded and more references needs to be searched. As it is a Listed company, there are higher chances that more reliable and independent references can be found. Mr RD 16:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• WP:SOFTDELETE as almost all of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage as a result of NASDAQ listing. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Alok Agarwal

Alok Agarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional material for a non-notable individual. Lacks non-trivial support for notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Will add supporting reference and change tone to neutral as best as possible. What counts as 'non-trivial' support though? Dvidby0 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Radio Northern Star

Radio Northern Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 01:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Delete. "Google Test" yields two non-blog site links, indicating a lack of secondary source coverage. CarnivorousBunny^{talk • contribs} 15:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as non notable radio station. -[-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cowboys and Indies - The Epic History of the Record Industry

Cowboys and Indies - The Epic History of the Record Industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 01:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete. This could possibly be speedy deleted as a promotional page due to the article's tone. I started to clean it up, but I can't find enough (or anything really) to show how this passes notability guidelines. A speedy end would probably be the best option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The page is deleted -the only reason this showed up as a blue link was because it was a redirect to the now-speedied page, which I've deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of universities in Cambodia. Not really any content to merge. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

National Institute of Education (Cambodia)

National Institute of Education (Cambodia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 01:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• merge and redirect to List of universities in Cambodia. This is almost certainly notable, but the sources I'm seeing are in Thai Khmer. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

BRINT Institute

BRINT Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This has been tagged as possibly failing notability guidelines since 2009. I'm going to let the community be the judge on that one! SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete as NN. Apepars to be a website promoting someone called Yogesh Malhotra, possibly linked to User:Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra / User talk:Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The article title does not seem to be a plausible redirect and a merger to British Council does not seem to be very feasible, given the current structure of that article. In the absence of any convincing evidence that this branch is separately notable, I close as delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

British Council (Jordan)

British Council (Jordan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

May fail WP:ORG SarahStierch (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 02:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 02:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Keep/merge The nomination seems quite tentative and the worst case would be merger into British Council per WP:ATD. Andrew (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Question Hi - How is it "tentative"? Perhaps I should rephrase my nomination - I failed to find any reliable secondary sources that establish it's notability generally or as an organization. And it's been sitting tagged with concerns since 2008. So not too tentative :) ) SarahStierch (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• The nomination was created at 01:31. At 01:28, you were creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRINT Institute - another drive-by nomination of an unrelated organisation. At 01:33, you moved on to the unrelated topic of Guillermo Cabanellas. You seem to have spent about two minutes on the matter and that doesn't seem enough time to do the due diligence of WP:BEFORE. When I look for sources, there seem to be numerous references indicating that this organisation is active in sponsoring a variety of cultural activities and that it is one of "Amman's top two language schools". There's an obvious alternative to deletion in that this is the regional office of a global organisation and so merger up a level would be a sensible alternative. What we seem to have here is a rote nomination of a topic because it has had a tag for some time. But AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: I am not seeing anything regarding the organisation itself which is not better at the (unlinked) British Council article. An article on an organisation branch is justifiable only if it is of demonstrable individual notability. What we have here is some material about the part of the host city in which it is situated and some text on the edge of incoherent in the Strategy section, none of it referenced (and hence not appropriate for an upmerge). AllyD (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• All the article content is referenced now. Andrew (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Costa Campos

Costa Campos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

My fail WP:GNG and guidelines for musicians SarahStierch (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 04:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Machel Waikenda

Machel Waikenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was forbidden when created, and is still forbidden today, per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

Article was first created by a man who is a secret paid advocate (a bad kind of paid editor) and blocked serial sockpuppeteer. It was then speedily deleted. The subject of the biography, Mr. Waikenda himself, said he'd pay to get it back. Freelancer.com user Sourov00 requested undeletion; the article was undeleted.

Despite Mr. Sourov's edits, the article is still promotional.

I have not checked to see whether or not there exists SIGCOV regarding Mr. Waikenda in RSes.

Dear Mr. Waikenda: Please stop paying people to write autobiographies of you on Wikipedia. It can backfire upon you badly: see User:Durova/The dark side. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• There's some legitimate sourcing here. The article has a promotional tone, yes, but not to a G11 degree. Could the nominator explain more why the article should be deleted, with more comment on the content rather than the contributors? --BDD (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear @BDD:

• A) If a promotional article meets G11, we can speedily delete it. But, even if it doesn't meet G11, we can still delete it anyway. Even though this article doesn't meet WP:G11, I propose that it is still forbidden due to WP:NOT. And see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, which mentions WP:NOT.

• B) We cannot consider only the content: we must also consider the contributors. As it says in Deuteronomy, "... a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise". Since this article was written by paid advocates, we must assume that — if any negative information about Mr. Waikenda exists — the writers have ignored it.

I think it is better not to leave a paid advocacy piece sitting live in mainspace — especially if it fails WP:NOTFORPROMOTION — unless an unpaid Wikipedian has completed a careful search for negative information.

Dear reader:

Are you an unpaid Wikipedian willing to remove all promotional material? And are you willing to spend fifteen or twenty minutes looking online to see whether or not any negative information exists? If so, please indicate your intentions below, and let's incubate or userfy the article, in order to give you time to fix it. Otherwise, I still think we should delete the article. Maybe one day a neutral Wikipedian will write a new unbiased article from scratch.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If a COI editor has made an acceptable article for bad reasons, punish the editor, not readers. You're still referring to WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, such as the article's tone. Can you speak directly to how it doesn't meet notability standards? --BDD (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

My tack seems to be failing to convince you. Let me try a different tack. I clicked on the BBC ref, but saw only a passing mention of Mr. Waikenda. I clicked on "This is The Man Who Handles President Uhuru’s FB & Twitter Accounts", but am unconvinced that the source is an RS. I wonder if you could please point out two sources of SIGCOV which actually qualify as RSes? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sno E. Blac

Sno E. Blac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Being best know as the voice in a video game is not really being well know. Shritwod (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 05:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Or maybe redirect to the video game. Gets about 100 hits on Google, most of which are blogs, forums, and social media. IGN did an interview, but that's not enough to satisfy the GNG by itself. A custom WP:VG/RS search was similarly empty of results. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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