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 11:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
This Is Folk Techno/Pull the Plug	7 years ago	1	2799	0	860.1
Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh	7 years ago	3	4812	2	684.97
Maxford Nelsen	7 years ago	3	6436	2	672.16
The Glass Ceiling Project	7 years ago	2	2053	0	669.2
Bill Slais	7 years ago	1	4462	2	481.68
Demetra Kolla	7 years ago	0	3364	2	457.69
Lady Red Couture	7 years ago	0	1668	0	448.3
The Oracle of Hi-Fi	7 years ago	0	4497	2	444.05
Sherman Smith (singer)	7 years ago	0	3083	1	442.86
Koloma	7 years ago	0	3364	1	442.76
Kirill Dytsevich	7 years ago	0	2615	1	442.71
Pascal & Pearce	7 years ago	0	4894	1	433.56
David Robert Coleman	7 years ago	0	1809	0	429.38
Mithra Siriwardena	7 years ago	0	1956	0	426.85
Chandra Mendis	7 years ago	0	1969	0	426.77
Padmalal Sandungahawatte	7 years ago	0	1911	0	426.75
D. S. R. Wanaguru	7 years ago	0	1869	0	426.41
Wikijob (2nd nomination)	7 years ago	0	2924	0	422.54
Aek Chabhi Hai Padoss Mein	7 years ago	0	1707	0	413.68
Samsung SGH-G600	7 years ago	0	1605	0	411.11
Asoka Wijetilleke	7 years ago	0	1539	0	409.92
OVW World Heavyweight Radio Championship	7 years ago	0	1709	0	409.45
Stephen Allott	7 years ago	0	1783	0	397.48
Tess Whitehurst	7 years ago	0	3615	0	397.26
Augusta, Indianapolis, Indiana	7 years ago	1	1739	0	394.7

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. Not much discussion, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This Is Folk Techno/Pull the Plug

This Is Folk Techno/Pull the Plug (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. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete sources are almost exclusively self-cites: HuffPost blog by artist, record label, Bandcamp, etc. Only one that might not be is 404. No other evidence of coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 30 June 2017 (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 - there is consensus that the sources added during the AfD demonstrate notability. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh

Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh (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)

Of the sources only 1 covers the subject in depth and this is from 2007 in Peace News. Difficult to know what their readership is (nothing found) but they have less than 2k followers on FB. The book only makes a very very short passing mention of ACE and the other sources only list them as a signatory. fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG Domdeparis (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is some more discussion, including in academic works; I added a link to a 2-page account by Chris Atton who has also written about it elsewhere. But I am concerned that there's a network of related articles about not very notable organisations and publications also including Counter Information and Edinburgh unemployed workers centre which could probably be merged. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. I was skeptical at first, but this organization was lucky enough to attract significant attention from scholars. For example, it seems to have been a subject of case study done in this book: Nick Couldry; James Curran (22 September 2003). Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 9–. ISBN 978-0-7425-7520-2. over several pages (~60+). That is likely sufficient for notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Notability established based on sources added or cited since start of AfD. Other related articles can be dealt with separately. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Added sources show significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and thus passes GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 17 June 2017 (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. Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 21:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Maxford Nelsen

Maxford Nelsen (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)

Despite the author's claim that the WSJ articles are sufficient for notability, this entry fails the basic notability standards:

1. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

2. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Of the citations in the entry, only two were not written by Nelson himself. And in each of those, he is briefly quoted. There is literally no coverage of Nelson as a notable person.

Writing editorials for your employer and pitching them for publication doesn't make you a subject worthy of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleverhawk (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please Keep In response to the suggestion of no notablity, I have added four original works of research/analysis.

In response to the suggestion that too few examples of coverage, I have added around 25 additional citations of the work and additional commentaries of related events in Washington and around the nation in an attempt to make more clear the breadth of the notability. These range from academic journals, professional association publications, ideological publications, to newspapers.

Few in the nation cover these topics with academic integrity (see the first four original research pieces).CalmGromit (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)CalmGromit (I'm not Maxford, but I do confess to being relatively new to this, so your patience is appreciated)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - we are not a web host nor a resume service. The wall of citations in the article are for stories that he's written, not about the subject, thus failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. We are a not for profit, which would be put into jeopardy if we provided advertising for profit. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Stories he's written" claim is simply not true. Twenty five of the items are written about his research and analysis. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. National Federation of Independent Business. New York Times. Inlander. Reason Magazine and many other news and analysis outlets around the country find it relevant enough to report or cite it. I can't even fathom how wikipedia presenting social science research somehow violates nonprofit status. CalmGromit (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY likely written by someone close to the subject; note the use of the first name here: "Max's work has been published in local newspapers around the country...". Plus, writing articles is hardly a claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SOAPBOX issues aside, notability guidelines, both th subject-specific and the general ones, ask for significant coverage about the article subject. There is, at best, evidence for significant coverage of labor market issues by the article subject, which is another thing entirely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 17 June 2017 (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. joe decker^talk 23:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Glass Ceiling Project

The Glass Ceiling 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)

Non-notable album by non-notable musician where the artist has no page. Should have gone A9 but speedy tag removed. See sister album AfD here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IV_Life... Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- a nn notable album by an nn performer. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Note there was additional support to delete this page at the linked sister article. This should be closed not relisted. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 19:56, 21 June 2017 (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 defaulting to Keep without prejudice to a future renomination. Already relisted twice and only a single weak keep vote. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Bill Slais

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

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. A Google News search for "Bill Slais" came up empty. Large parts of the content aren't even supported by the given unreliable sources. Huon (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I seem to have run into a Twinkle-based edit conflict and someone else tagged the page for speedy deletion while I was writing the AfD rationale. Given his numerous works with more notable musicians I'm not sure Slais qualifies for speedy deletion, but I obviously wouldn't object either. Huon (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note I declined the speedy for those reasons. Clearly claims significance even if he is not notable. Regards SoWhy 08:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Weak keep - this saxophonist appears to have been notable in the pre-Internet age, young folk. I found a few Billboard articles online. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:22, 12 June 2017 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE of course Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Demetra Kolla

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

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

Does not seem to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 13 June 2017 (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Lady Red Couture

Lady Red Couture (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)

Contest PROD (which was removed with a tirade against "Wikipedia staff"). The subject is a drag performer and host, however the only references provided confirm the existence of the show she hosts. The "Filmography" section contains a list of other performers who appear to have been on the show in the past, which perhaps points to notability for the show itself, but not necessarily the host. I note, too, that this comes uncomfortably close to being an unsourced BLP BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• I am not a professional wiki editor. All I know is that this person is just as famous as all the RuPaul drag queens and moreso. And if you people would get a damn life and research before deleting things....it would be nice. All you do is anger people that have contributed for over a decade! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photolarry (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. I can't find any good ones, and all the existing sources are connected or likely connected to the subject (I believe anyone can add/edit entries on IMDB). - GretLomborg (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2017 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Oracle of Hi-Fi

The Oracle of Hi-Fi (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:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment I've found some reviews/sources and adding them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

An interview can be helpful but is a primary source. It needs reliable secondary coverage to be considered notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Would this or this work? One of the references I already included references the interview as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I still am not seeing sources that talk about the album specifically (not just a few passing mentions). I'm all for keeping articles but if your scraping at the bottom of the barrel just to find small mentions of the album, it is probably a good indication it isn't notable enough for a standalone page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I already have included reviews on the album in the reception section. I've also found a 2003 article in Canadian Musician detailing the recording process of the album. This article is also available in EBSCO as well, and I will be adding to the article since I have access to it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 13 June 2017 (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 WP:REFUND applies. In the absence of any participation after being relisted and with no evidence of any previously contested deletion I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sherman Smith (singer)

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 13 June 2017 (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 convert to disambiguation page. SoWhy 07:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Koloma

Koloma (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)

Too short to be useful as a standalone article, and completely unreferenced. I'm not even entirely sure that it exists because it doesn't have an ISO 15924 code, although it is mentioned here and there online. Unless better references are found, it should be at most mentioned in the Kokborok article. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• There are sources on google books, so it's conceivable that someone might create a decent article at some point. Until that happens, Kokborok language#Script is the place where this should (and already is) mentioned, so redirecting there would be sensible. However, in addition to the script, there's also Koloma, California and none of the two seems to be a WP:PTOPIC, so Koloma should be a disambiguation page per WP:2DABS. – Uanfala 21:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Convert to a dab page until such time as there is more than a one-line article about the script. There's the script (which can be kept verbatim as a dab entry), Koloma, California and a district of Conakry, Guinea, plus a See also entry (Coloma (disambiguation)). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I believe Koloma, California should be a redirect to Coloma, California. That change may affect any disambiguation page. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. They're two different, though related, places. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete no sources provided. I see primarily references to a non-notable song called "kokbrok" by a band Koloma when I search "koloma kokborok". [1] References such as [2] that I would expect to mention it do not. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2017 (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. WP:REFUND applies. In the absence of any participation after being relisted and with no evidence of any previously contested deletion I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Kirill Dytsevich

Kirill Dytsevich (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 doesn't meet the notability guidelines of actors and models as he is not covered in reliable Russian sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 13 June 2017 (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. SoWhy 08:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Pascal & Pearce

Pascal & Pearce (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)

Despite a wealth of references, I can see none that convey notability or get even close to satisfying WP:MUSIC. Many listings and track listings, several nominations for awards but no evidence of a record in the country's charts etc. Several daughter articles have been spawned off the back of this article including separate articles on discography and individual albums, none of which, I suspect, are notable.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep for now, pending a refutation of my reasoning. - They have been nominated twice for the South African Music Awards. Musical notability guidelines provide that nomination for a major award is a qualifying criterion. So it really comes down to whether the South African Music Awards are of the same standing as the American Grammy Awards. The Delete argument would appear to turn on saying that national awards only count depending on the size of the country (and South Africa is a medium-sized country, not a small country). I am ready for an argument that South African nominations don't count, but for now I am inclined to read the notability guideline literally.
• Comment - If this article is deleted, the daughter articles can mostly go A9. If this article is kept, we can have a merge/keep debate on each, and I think some should be merged and some kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - By the way, I am beginning to think that I am a deletionist, but, if so, I am a deletionist who nonetheless favors "strict construction" of specific notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment response - Robert McClenon- I did look at South African Music Awards to see whether that helps in clarifying the applicability of our policies - it doesn't. I tried the web-site which left me with the strong impression that anybody in South Africa can be nominated, including self-nominated, for an award. There is then some verification and initial adjudication process which produces a list of "Nominees". If included on that short list of nominees, I would expect to see a status of "Nominee" in the article table and not "Nominated". If this is the correct interpretation, then no notability can attend upon the status "nominated" although the winner of an award might well be considered notable as per the BAFTAs. Grammy etc.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 21 June 2017 (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. SoWhy 08:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

David Robert Coleman

David Robert Coleman (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. I can't find any better sources. Seems like a non-notable musician to me. More opinions needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep-- the article claims his compositions have been recorded by Naxos Records which is a major label. Admittedly that goes to the notability guidelines for "ensembles" rather than composers, but it suggests a certain degree of notability. Looking up the Naxos recording of five of his pieces for the album "Starry Night" he also conducted and the piece was played by the Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra. There's a little more info on the Naxos site here: http://staging-naxos.aws.naxos.com/person/David_Robert_Coleman/208865.htm. It looks like he may be better known as a conductor. http://news.uzreport.uz/news_9_e_85412.html Crypticfirefly (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 28 June 2017 (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. This has been open a month; has been relisted three times; and has had no substantial input for at least three and arguably over two weeks. Therefore there seems no realistic likelhood of a consensus emerging to delete this article. What discussion that did take place, however, was evenly-weighted between policy arguments to delete, and sourced-based arguments to keep. No prejudice of course aganst WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 14:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Mithra Siriwardena

Mithra Siriwardena (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 subject to previous speedy delete and this re-creation of the article still fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is Senior gazetted officer of Sri Lanka Police, should not be deleted instead allow the article to be further improved.DilJco (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment @DilJco: just because they are/were a senior police officer does not make them automatically notable. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements under WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Weak keep Consider Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the third highest rank in the Metropolitan Police Service of London, UK, i.e. covering a population a bit less than half that of Sri Lanka. Most of the people in that role are notable, so, by extension, it seems likely to me that holders of the third highest rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service would probably be notable. The current article clearly fails WP:GNG as is, but there is material out there, like [3], [4], [5], and passing mentions in [6] and [7]. So, on balance, I'd go with keep. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - There are five Assistant Commissioners but there were 46 Deputy Inspector Generals (at 31/12/15).--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment based on Obi2canibe's comment this means that in the history of the Sri Lankan Police force there could be over 1,000 DIGs - I don't see how the whole is automatically notable as a result. The article needs to meet WP:BASIC at the very least, which this doesn't. Dan arndt (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one last time to generate some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment (to closer) there is no justification that a DIG is inherently notable. Both DilJco and Obi2canibe have not been active since making their respective comments. Dan arndt (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2017 (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. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 07:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Chandra Mendis

Chandra Mendis (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 subject to a previous speedy delete as it fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. There is nothing contained within the article to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is Senior gazetted officer of Sri Lanka Police, should not be deleted instead allow the article to be further improved.DilJco (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment @DilJco: just because they are/were a senior police officer does not make them automatically notable. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements under WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete pretty much per nom. Nothing confirming notability here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:11, 11 July 2017 (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. SoWhy 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Padmalal Sandungahawatte

Padmalal Sandungahawatte (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 article fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is Senior gazetted officer of Sri Lanka Police, should not be deleted instead allow the article to be further improved.DilJco (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment @DilJco: just because they are/were a senior police officer does not make them automatically notable. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements under WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete The coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage of promotions and assignments. No indication that there is significant, independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Can't find any in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:43, 7 July 2017 (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.  Sandstein  09:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

D. S. R. Wanaguru

D. S. R. Wanaguru (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 article fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is Senior gazetted officer of Sri Lanka Police, should not be deleted instead allow the article to be further improved.DilJco (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment @DilJco: just because they are/were a senior police officer does not make them automatically notable. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements under WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete The coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage of promotions and assignments. No indication that theres is significant, independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:23, 7 July 2017 (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. czar 06:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikijob

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Wikijob
• Articles for deletion/Wikijob (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Wikijob 2

Wikijob (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)

Stumbled upon this one at Special:Random. This was previously listed at AfD and there was no consensus to delete. The article was created for promotional purposes; that much is clear. It relies on paid content for some of its sources, thereby managing to squeak by in 2008. See [8] for instance. Also note that the site is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. —Guanaco 03:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  04:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  04:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  04:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete "WikiJob features several of the FTSE100 and Times Top 100 graduate recruiters, including Deustche Bank, Citigroup, Accenture, Deloitte, KPMG,PwC, Linklaters, Freshfields, Credit Suisse, Barclays and the Financial Services Authority (FSA)"
  

there you go promotional article Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 01:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- spam & WP:ADVOCACY on an unremarkable web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Aek Chabhi Hai Padoss Mein

Aek Chabhi Hai Padoss Mein (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 article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. The only valid link in this article is an archived link from 2007 from the TV station's website. A Google search identified some links from directory listings and a couple of links that may be LINKVIOs. I couldn't really find anything to establish notability. AussieLegend (✉) 11:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 01:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems that article could be broadened using Hindi news sources but it wasn't done just like most of other Hindi TV shows articles. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't find any sourcing for it, so in its current state it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:52, 7 July 2017 (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. Despite two relists, no further discussion happened (for three weeks), especially none about the sources mentioned. SoWhy 08:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Samsung SGH-G600

Samsung SGH-G600 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:MILL cellphone. Article has no references; notability has not been established.

Deprodded by one "SMSNG" with no edit summary, and without addressing the concern in the PROD rationale. —Keφr 12:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• It's got some press coverage[9][10][11][12] --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 28 June 2017 (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.  Sandstein  10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Asoka Wijetilleke

Asoka Wijetilleke (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 article fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. The references are simply mentions in passing, confirming his existence. The investigations that he was a part he wasn't even the lead officer. No evidence of any individual notability. Dan arndt (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

OVW World Heavyweight Radio Championship

OVW World Heavyweight Radio Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, and per Nikki311, whose rationale when prodding was "No evidence this is even a real championship. It isn't listed on OVW's roster page with the other current champions. Either way, it lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources." - TheMagnificentist 13:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 16:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete No notable title. If the title becomes regular, maybe. Right now, No Notable and Too Soon --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2017 (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.  Sandstein  10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Allott

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

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

I suspect this is a puff piece written by a paid agent. In any case I do not think he is notable. Many links are dead and many, if any, of the WP:RS do not actually refer to him. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

These two appear to be substantial independent RS: [13] [14]. Actually the second one may be a blog. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• delete fails gng the sourcing just does not measure up. Is the term WP:Coatrack?Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2017 (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. czar 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Tess Whitehurst

Tess Whitehurst (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)

After several declines at AfC, article was simply moved to mainspace. Other than trivial mentions, advertisements, and non-independent references, not a single in-depth source currently. And searches turned up virtually no coverage, let alone any in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll work on improving the article, but if the requirements for notability are "major reviews" that won't be one of the things I can change. There are no specific criteria for what is a "major review" and this author's work won't be reviewed by a major publication because of the nature of the topic. I didn't disregard the editors comments. The criteria being set for declining publication of the page wasn't justified. There are several other authors who have pages on Wikipedia who do not meet this requirement. She's published 10 books, most of which are best sellers in the category on Amazon.com. Her latest release was a #1 new release in it's category. She's won literary awards and had her work featured in Publisher' Weekly. I believe this argument for deletion is invalid and is directly related to the topics she writes about.

Can you please provide examples of what you are asking for to provide proof of notability?

Internetgal (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Internetgal, you can read a more detailed explanation of what's required for an author to qualify for a WP entry here: WP:NAUTHOR. Or, WP:NPERSON is another option. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I've found some reviews of her books: The Magic of Trees Review PW and Magical Fashionista Review PW. These can be used as Reliable sources, Internetgal. But I do wish I could find more than just Publishers Weekly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete I'm afraid I don't see the sources here to establish notability. For next time I can only advise making use of the guidance offered by AfC reviewers and editors at the Help Desk on how to meet the criteria for an entry in the encyclopedia. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete No coverage in independent reliable sources. Also, book reviews are not sufficient per WP:NOTINHERITED. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to note, book reviews could be enough per WP:NCREATIVE #3 but that requires notice in multiple independent periodicals, which we unfortunately haven't been able to find. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 06:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Augusta, Indianapolis, Indiana

Augusta, Indianapolis, Indiana (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)

Neighborhoods are generally not notable unless there it sufficient independent coverage in RS to meet GNG. Otherwise, this neighborhood should be mentioned in Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana. No objection to Merge/Redirect. MB 01:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana. --Lockley (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep – This historic former village meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally-recognized populated place, as per this reliable source, as well as other sources that attest to it being a legally-recognized place: [15], [16]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • NA1000, I don't see how those sources prove that this is "legally recognized"--I think you are reaching too far, and you're probably safe enough already when arguing GNG. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I interpret "formerly populated" places to be things that are no longer populated, like "ghost towns". This place is still populated and it is now a neighborhood of a larger place. If it had sufficient notability for a stand-alone article, it certainly should have one. But otherwise, a neighborhood is covered under the "legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" per GEOLAND. And it turns out that there is already a separate article on the New Augusta Historic District, so in this case any content in this article not already in the NRHP article, if any, should be merged there. MB 02:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Source #2 in my !vote above was published in 1866 by the Adjunct General of the State of Indiana, and source #3 is The National Gazetteer of the United States of America, which was published in 1988 by the United States Government Publishing Office. The first source is published by the National Park Service, which is an agency of United States Department of the Interior, and describes the locale (in part) as

... a small village called Augusta developed at the corner of present-day 71st and Michigan Road. With plenty of travelers using Michigan Road, the small village grew to have general stores, a post office, and other essentials."

These come across as valid, legally-authoritative sources to me. For example, the United States Government Publishing Office "prints and binds documents produced by and for the federal government" (italic emphasis mine). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

But this doesn't address my comment at all. It may have been a village at one time, but now it is part of Indianapolis. There are dozens or maybe hundreds of former villages that are now part of NYC and they don't all have individual articles. See Blissville, Queens as an example. MB 02:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hi MB: You state in your comment above that "a neighborhood is covered under the "legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" per GEOLAND". However, this phrasing is under point #2 of WP:GEOLAND for Populated places without legal recognition (italic emphasis mine). Per my !vote and commentary above, I view this former village and neighborhood as falling under point #1, for Populated, legally recognized places (italic emphasis mine). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This IS a populated place without legal recognition, in my view. It may have been legally recognized as a village before it was swallowed up by Indianapolis, but it then lost that status. It is now just a neighborhood of the city, which is not legally recognized. This section of GEOLAND is often interpreted differently by different editors. MB 03:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - A possible merge target would be New Augusta Historic District. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: passes WP:GEOLAND. DrStrauss talk 21:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: As per Northamerica1000 above. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss whether to keep as is or merge somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment When I originally nominated this, I was unaware of New Augusta Historic District. Since this topic is clearly notable due to its historic designation and is covered in that article, we don't need two articles on the same place. The article should be merged into New Augusta Historic District. MB 15:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• It may not be the same place. The New Augusta Historic District article states that the New Augusta Historic District "...is located east of Augusta", although this is presently unsourced in the article. If the New Augusta Historic District is located east of Augusta, Augusta is not the New Augusta Historic District. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You are right. The historic district is "New Augusta" and is located 1.5 miles east of "Old Augusta" (the topic of this article). They are different places. So I am back to "Old Augusta", which was apparently mostly abandoned as the people/businesses there followed the railroad east in 1852, being merged into either Indianapolis or Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana. MB 03:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Merge The only reference on this page (other than a link to Google Maps) is to [17] which describes the New Augusta Historic District. I support a merge. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep  As per the evidence given in this AfD, this is a formally recognized albeit former place and there is sufficient information (at least the location and one fact) to have a separate article.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion would benefit from a third relist, consensus is not clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I think this is better than a merge per NorthAmerican. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as per Northamerica. Passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 13 July 2017 (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.