Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 22: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:38, 22 June 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 June	23 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Isitt

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

WP:BLP of a politician and academic whose only substantive or sourced indication of notability is as a municipal councillor in a city not large enough to confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass on its city councillors (we extend that only to internationally famous global cities.) Further, the sourcing here is almost entirely of the primary variety — there's only one appropriate reliable source here, and it's just supporting a statement about his educational credentials rather than anything that would get him over a notability criterion (and was published nine years before he was actually elected to office, and is also an incomplete "publication + date but with no title" citation). So the sourcing doesn't even approach the volume or quality necessary to claim WP:GNG in lieu of NPOL. He might be able to claim notability as a writer, but that section of the article is completely unsourced (the one acceptable source in the article predates the books too.) Delete unless the sourcing can be massively beefed up onto his academic books instead of his city council seat. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have created stubs on 2 of his books; From Victoria to Vladivostok: Canada's Siberian Expedition, 1917-19 (2010) and Militant Minority: British Columbia Workers and the Rise of a New Left, 1948-72 (2011).--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For both of those, you still need to write a lot more than a single sentence asserting that the book exists — neither one of those articles, in its current form, demonstrates any reason why the books would actually merit standalone encyclopedia articles under our rules for determining the notability or non-notability of books. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:TBK says that a book may be notable because it was published by an academic press. In this case, they both satisfy that criteria. They also satisfy criteria 2 of BKCRIT and GNG with multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Let me expand the book articles.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable. Satisfies AUTHOR, and GNG and BASIC, with significant coverage in multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN but the book reviews are enough for WP:AUTHOR. On the other hand, the micro-stubs for his books should probably be merged back into this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quarto Miglio

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

I live in Quarto Miglio and can confidently say that it has no redeeming interest that would justify a separate article. The church mentioned is a relatively new one and is of little interest. Gina Lollobrigida lives there and Valentino (fashion designer) used to but that hardly merits an article. Roundtheworld (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Populated places are considered notable per WP:GEOLAND. Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Seraphimblade per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Togbe Delalom Kocuvie-Tay

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

Promotional. No reliable sources to prove notability. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 18:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11, a fairly clear cut case where this was written to advertise and promote the subject. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Townlynx

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

Non notable bus company - There's nothing on this company at all except flickr images & bus timetables. Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable small company; article unreferenced since 2010.--MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as it fails WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KPovModeler

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

Project is dead. The article didn't have secondary sources never --Be nt all (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without afd2 template and never transluded to a daily log. Fixed now--no further comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 18:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up forum posts, but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete (with no apparently good target for moving elsewhere) as my searches found nothing particularly significant regarding coverage with the best being this. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete'. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bugoy Drilon

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

Delete: has not yet met threshold for notability as musician. Possibly TOO SOON Quis separabit? 15:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there are better sources overseas, I found nothing (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) with the best being this and this. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Lectures

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

Article created by one of the creators of the Australian version of these lectures. Has she established notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I wouldn't care to attend, I believe these series have received their fair share of news. (Is it DO or Do?) Alec Station (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat reluctant keep simply because it seems to have received some coverage and I found more with my searches here, here and here and it's imaginable there's more at several news sources as shown here. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Zaremba

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

Fails WP:BIO. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Article was deleted via PROD for the same reason and recreated by an SPA. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Fails WP:GNG, and been PROD-deleted before- clearly no experienced editors think they're notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm a little reluctant with the salt as it's only been started twice now and I'd like to think improvement can be made in the future but if it's need, I strongly suggest future use of WP:AFC. As for my searches, I found nothing particularly good with this and this (one minor mention) being the best I found. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gold.

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

Film that lacks non-trivial secondary support. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found - I wasn't able to find anything third party that wasn't just a listing, perhaps it's just too soon? Artw (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it it may well just be a question of WP:TOOSOON. It would have been better to have waited for the premieres, coming soon. Can this be userfied or turned into a draft article? It's not a bad little article and there's a decent chance we'll have a few reliable sources for it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah WP:TOOSOON, I'd support a move back to the draft namespace.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete for being TOO SOON. It is admittedly difficult for short doc films to gain the requisite coverage even after release, and even with it soon-to-screen at short film festivals... July 4th in Berlin and July 5th at Mykonos Biennale in Greece, simply screening is not a notability. As it is beginning to catch some minor attention, it can userfied back to contributor Mike300578 with a thank you but a polite explanation that simply screening at even a notable festival is not a notability unless also receiving commentary and analysis in reliable sources... and even if lacking notability enough for its own article, it can always be spoken of in that of its filmmaker, Alexander Tuschinski. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ExMplayer

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

New article, fails WP:NSOFT with no secondary sources. Was prodded, and the article creator removed the prod without addressing the problem. Possible WP:COI, as the article creator has the same name as the software's developer. McGeddon (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stevenson

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

As of 2006, this page was begun and remaines unaddressed. It is woefully outdated, even neglected.

Whilst I am aware that some of the content discussion on the last nomination for deletion in 2008 made reference to the general publicising of 'Heads of Departments in Universities' and resulted in a 'keep', this page should be considered as not part of this agenda.

Since beginning her work at DCU, Chris Stevenson embarked on a great deal of both professional and personal projects, worked in many different areas and with great success. She had a battle with Cancer for a year and a half and sadly lost this fight in November of 2014.

Whilst the merits of such pages should be considered and not dismissed. It should also be noted that attempting to updaet this page would be a massive (and possibly painful) undertaking and those wishing to argue a 'keep' on this occasion bear this in mind. Find another, more useful source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clothsnake (talk • contribs) 11:10, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

Sad that she has died, but that provides the possibility that there is an obituary that would be a good source of information for her. Since you seem to be knowledgeable about the person, perhaps you can look for this and add to the article? As it is now, the sourcing is not strong. LaMona (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no further comment on the nomination itself other than to note that the nominator has no other edits under that account. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update The previous discussion resulted in a clear "keep", and the nomination does not clearly state why this should be overturned: our approach is "once notable, always notable". The fact that the article is outdated is not a reason to delete, but to carry out the updating. Please note that this may be done by any editor, and those who may prefer for personal reasons not to be involved are not required to participate: Noyster (talk), 09:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable in 2008 would not make her less now. Her death, actually makes the arguments for deleting less strong: one of the main points of the notability requirements is the difficulty of policing BLPs. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Davewild (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Free Market Institute

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

The article contains two dead links, no sign of notability, and the site link [[1]] purportedly to the organization's web site is just a single page blog. The organization name comes up a few times in the media but there's no evidence that it even exists anymore. Timtempleton (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page was created without the afd2 template. Nominator did not transclude it to a daily log until today. I've added the template--no further comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 17:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a ton of stuff about it but it seems like it's related to accusations against the founders of being secret jihadists and anti-Israel, none of it in reliable sources (though I didn't search too far). I deleted the external link as it seems like the "official site" domain expired and was taken over by an e-cig marketer (thus the "blog" you saw). —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Diamond (band)

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

Non-notable hip-hop group. Natg 19 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found absolutely nothing good even in the slightest. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G3 by Nyttend. Esquivalience ^t 21:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate Lubrication Syndrome (ILS)

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

Probable hoax. I cannot find anything about this. Most of the article is highly implausible. Adam9007 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on internet and clear hoax; look at text. Irrelevant. CSD tagged. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: If nothing else, the list of celebrities at the bottom confirms this to be an obvious hoax. It's sure to be speedied as per WP:G3. ~ Rob^Talk 17:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, I did consider tagging this CSD G3, but decided to err on the side of caution. Maybe that was a mistake. Adam9007 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting, due to things like "former African nation of Humpbagdo in the early 1600s", treating it with "paste made of ear wax and tears", the syndrome being commemorated on the "sixth Tuesday in December", and seeking medical attention from a "semi-qualified expert". I'll be willing to undelete if someone wants to send this to BJAODN or Unencyclopedia, as I did find it rather funny. Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carman-Ainsworth High School

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

The article is a content fork of the school districts, Carman-Ainsworth Community Schools, by trying to included the history of all high schools in the district, with some highly questionable information. Google and Yahoo searches only turn up routine coverage. The single sourced reliable sources, Mlive/Flint Journal, only adds trivial information about alumni - basically the school only gets passing mention. Thus the article fails Notability's WP:GNG. I have been told that just because it exist that it is notable, but that is contrary to WP:ORGSIG. Spshu (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a sizeable public high school, and the article already has substantial sourcing. As noted at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, we have a very long consensus to keep articles about schools like this one (recently reconfirmed, for example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Esperanza Marquez High School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Livingston High School) and no sufficient reason is stated to vary from that consensus here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again source coverage is routine and/or passing coverage. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason. Spshu (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is actually less than at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swartz Creek Area Fire Department, which still was deleted per the WP:ORGDEPTH arguments as the Mlive/Flint Journal (a single source for notability purpose) talks about the athletes and only mention that they are alumni in passing. NCES is a routine governmental statistic website. Michigan Football source is about Ainsworth High (now CA Middle School) which is not Carman High, the original name for the now, Carman Ainsworth and could be considered a personal website. --Spshu (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - As the nominator stated, he has been informed that high schools have automatic notability, per Arxiloxos and also per WP:Gazetteer John from Idegon (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This keep voter was informed that statement is completely false per Wikipedia:Schools. Per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features): "..are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable" does not mean automatic notability. As this "keep" vote must show notability now that it has been challenged. Spshu (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Gazetteer states: "And Geographical features must be notable on their own merits." Which does not grant any immunity from AfD or notability. Spshu (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes" (WP:WPSCH/AG#N) There is a citation from NCES on the article. The school exists. If you want to argue the guideline, individual articles are about the least effective way to do that. This will be kept, undoubtedly. What exactly were you quoting? And your quote from WP:Gazetteer is an out of context disclaimer on WP:INHERIT. Notability does not perish. An article about a predecessor school is certainly an establishing factor for notability of this school. John from Idegon (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NCES is not a publisher and since it is statistical information, it is routine coverage per your standard. Existence does not equal notability. You are arguing against WP:School. No, that is the full WP:Gazetteer section quoted (copied & pasted), please actually read what you are referencing. There is no predecessor school to Carman/Carman-Ainsworth and that would be inheriting notability, which is against WP:INHERIT. --Spshu (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like with many topics such as population centers, the community wisely decided long ago that there's an inherent notability with high/secondary schools. Instead of editors having to vet and scrutinize the tens of thousand of such topics, time and resources of the volunteers are much better spent creating and improving articles and avoiding discouraging animosity between editors. --Oakshade (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Note. Again voter ignores the totality of the argument here. Since, you mention it, we are here directly due to another editor's animosity and adversarial stance in his inability to allow the school's article to be redirect (per WP:OUTCOMES) to the school district for it to be incubated there and not find or look to see that the history section of the article is mostly false. Also, being told that AfD is the only place to discuss and that I should know it. --Spshu (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's only you in the eight year existence of this article that doesn't' want to "allow" this article to exist, this despite every other editor (including two during editing that only you have been reverting) weighing in so far agreeing with long standing precedent on the inherent notability of high/secondary schools. --Oakshade (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an OTHERSTUFF argument in claim that I am the only one objecting to the article. As every editor is not summoned to weigh in on the article nor force to weigh in on the creation of the article. Every editor cannot review every article at every moment and that is what you are suggesting. You are using the false argument of WP:ARTICLEAGE ("Consensus can change, and an article that was once accepted under Wikipedia's guidelines or just by defacto practice could be put up for deletion.") as Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The number of editors that have edit the article is also a non-issue per WP:INVOLVE. Also, I have seen as pointed out else where here with two articles in the same wikiproject totally different outcomes because closing editors go apparently on and incorrectly on votes based on whether or not outside due to INVOLVE. Second, inherent notability of high schools is false per WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." WP:NSCHOOL: "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both." So making it clear that the precedents have been made incorrectly per the various Notability guideline.

Consensus has long and strongly held that all high/secondary schools are considered inherently notable are are kept as indicated in WP:OUTCOMES. Finding a sub-clause buried in sub-guideline that contradicts consensus (see WP:GAMETYPE) isn't going to change consensus. While you've reminded us consensus can change, you've demonstrated zero evidence it has in this case as you are the only person who wishes this to change. While it might be shocking to you that there are exceptions to the Wiki-lawyering guidelines, they do exist. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You hit it on the head of what I feel has happened. "Bad faith wikilawyering" in proclaiming high school instead of properly "school districts" as inheritable notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#School_districts and "Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy." since NOR applies to schools not automatic notability. Gee that is how I feel the consensus was made, since it does not match up to what is written. So now the previous consensus is being cherrypick and wikilawyered against me as being gaming the system. --Spshu (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The history section could do with a good pruning but apart from that the article fits squarely into the time honoured precedent as documented at OUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:OUTCOMES is same as arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF. But if you want to apply it then that it also states: "Schools that don't meet the standard (notability) typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America)..." Thus a non-notable outcome is allowed for schools under WP:OUTCOMES. Additional note, editors have reject my changing it to a redirect so information could be pulled from this article & incubated at the school district article. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, the difference between OTHERSTUFF and OUTCOMES is that OUTCOMES documents a clear precedenr evidenced by hundreds, if nit thousands of near identical AfD closures. That's a very strong precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, OTHERSTUFF also indicates "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article." "Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty;" "However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS)." Just stating OUTCOMES as a reason is clearly OTHERSTUFF.

Look at who you can notify about an AfD and it is bias against the nominator as he cannot solicit even people that he feels would be neutral, while notification of bias parties like the School project is automatically. In one AfD (since they would not accept a redirect to a full sourced "list of" article, that was forced through an AfD with absolutely flying colors - luckily some neutral parties did show up), the stand alone article passed AfD based on a single primary source (the organization's website) and vague claims of large membership.

Additional, I have point to another OUTCOME where as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES "The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG)." WP:ORG was supposedly applied and even a regional newspaper with lots of direct coverage (some of which wasn't routine, just not apparent how to integrate those news article into the WP article) and an AP article could not help (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swartz Creek Area Fire Department), there is even less here for the CA High School. That AfD is still an outcome for an ORG which applies to schools. Spshu (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, I'm not quite sure I follow your comment above, but I repeat: OUTCOMES documents a clear precedenr evidenced by hundreds, if not thousands of near identical AfD closures. That's a very strong precedent. That precedent is proven by consistent AfD closures while OTHERSTUFF relates to individual AfD closures or existing 'other' articles and comparing fire departments to schools is comparing apples to oranges. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

←It isn't apples to oranges as they all fall under the Notability for Organizations as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES & WP:NSCHOOL to show that the precedents are incorrect. There for citing precedents that failed to follow Notability for Org & WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a false argument. Claim other precedents under ORG notability don't apply is a false argument.

per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts, school district have inherit notability not high school. As WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states: "Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. |'Redirect' as an alternative to deletion is anchored in policy." And I quoted this again, which you have clearly dismissed despite claiming this as the authority for keeping. Spshu (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES sentence applies to elementary (primary) and middle schools. The part of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES you conveniently left out is: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists."--Oakshade (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which you fail to note states "most" is not all "independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools.." Is is the small part to the other quoted material which as you recommend to see WP:GAMETYPE as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES clearly states WP:ORG applies to "schools and other education institutions" not inherited notability that school district have. Is that not cherrypicking at its finest? Spshu (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Secondary school articles are typically retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward James III

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

WP:BLP of a political figure whose only substantive claims of notability are as an internal campaign organizer, and an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election. These are not claims that satisfy WP:NPOL — a person must win the election and thereby hold office, not merely have their name on a ballot, to claim NPOL on that basis, and we do not extend notability freebies to campaign staff. All of the sourcing here, further, is of either the routine or blogspotty varieties, with not enough substantive referencing to claim a WP:GNG pass on the basis of the coverage itself. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when he wins his seat. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with WP:USUAL caveats if he wins a notable office. Currently fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Coverage seems to be, at best, 'local guy makes good' type of coverage which does not make him notable by Wikipedia standards. Jbh ^Talk 21:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice, although I disagree with the nominator that all coverage is of a purely routine nature; a couple articles appear to be full-blown profiles, rather than matter-of-course announcements. However, a smattering of local media coverage does not (or should not) qualify as enough to pass GNG. This should obviously be revisited if he goes on to more notable things. TheBlueCanoe 01:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Stemplewski

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

Non notable film director which has not received significant coverage in reliable sources Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:FILMMAKER. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 16:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one film, no awards, no coverage, searches turn up only social media. Kraxler (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ARTIST. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Discount Centre

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

This page does not meet WP:GNG. DominosChamp2930 (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references are two routine announcements and a monthly non-notable award, nor are searches turning up anything beyond routine passing coverage, mainly in the Newcastle Journal which is local to the firm's operation. A firm going about its business, but not of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spammy promo advert, no independent sources. Kraxler (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Icelolly.com

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

This page does not meet WP:GNG.DominosChamp2930 (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are several reliable independent sources that focus on this company. See: [2] [3] [4]. The larger concern with this article is WP:NPOV. I've taken some steps towards removing and altering the promotional content on this page, but there's still more to be done. It's at a state where it's fixable without a fundamental rewrite. ~ Rob^Talk 16:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are quite a few sources, just about passes WP:GNG I believe. I agree it needs a rewrite- currently it just trying to celebrity namedrop, if the "Work with Celebrities" and "TV shows" sections cannot be sourced, they should be removed. Also, it should be moved to Icelolly (website) per WP:TITLE (shouldn't use .com in article name). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed those sections for now. Even if they were sourced, it isn't exactly neutral to name drop every celebrity the company has ever worked with. WP:PROMO comes to mind. I think the article is as close to within policy as I can get it at the moment. Everything is sourced except the initial text, which I'm going to go searching for a source on now. ~ Rob^Talk 16:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunmaster Holidays

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

The page does not meet WP:GNG. DominosChamp2930 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article, originally contributed by a WP:SPA, documents routine firm approval listing and various associations of the company with larger groups (themselves non-notable) and an award nomination for Global Travel Group, but the nearest to establishing notability for the subject firm itself is a monthly non-notable award. Nor are searches turning up any tangible coverage that could meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this law journal is notable. Rlendog (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) as a non notable student edited journal Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tagged this for speedy deletion in an earlier incarnation, and it was deleted. In a subsequent discussion with the author, I said that the article needed "reputable third-party sources (NOT your website, or blogs, or a Facebook page) that support the journals notability." He has responded with four sources. Unfortunately, one is their website, and the other three are directory and catalog listings. The article asserts that one of the sources provides a ranking, but it's not obvious — certain the link being pointed to does not support the assertion. The article still provides no evidence to support notability. ubiquity (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For law journals, the Washington and Lee ranking is used to evaluate their relative ranking. The site is not very user friendly and one cannot link to search results, but if you rank journals here according to impact factor, this journal ranks 107 among 1640 journals, being way into the top 10 percentile. --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first, almost all U.S. law journals are student run and edited, including the Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Review. Whether it is edited by students or not is not relevant as to its notability. Second, being listed with an abbreviation in Bluebook in Table 13 means that the journal is used frequently enough in legal citations to merit having it listed. The same thing with being listed as a journal accessible via HeinOnline. This is clearly a notable journal. GregJackP Boomer! 16:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I agree with your "keep" !vote, I disagree with your rationale. Not all law reviews are student edited. The vast majority of US journals are, but even in the US there are exceptions. Being listed in the Bluebook is not generally considered to satisfy WP:NJournals, because it is not selective (it strives to include all law reviews that are cited from time to time). --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I amended my !vote to reflect "almost all U.S." instead of the previous language. I disagree with you on Bluebook, from the language at the start of Table 13, it states [P]rovides abbreviations for the names of select English language periodicals... (at p. 444, 19th ed.). In any event, this is still a notable law journal. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable law review journal. Minor4th 16:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I edited the page to reflect that the Journal is ranked fourth for author submissions for 2013 in the category of "Law and Society," as indicated by ExpressO, a major submission platform for authors of material in U.S. legal journals. It's certainly notable by any measuring device. Tener311 (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A relative ranking of 107 out of 1640 in Washington and Lee establishes notability. Whether the journal is student edited is irrelevant to its notability, as that is not unusual for notable (and reliable) US law reviews. James500 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Runcton Priory

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

As it stands the article does not meet WP:NOTE. The article is unsourced so I searched online and, other then the fact that it existed, I could find nothing to add that would make the priory worthy of having an article. Now if anyone else can find and add info to improve the article I will be happy to withdraw this MarnetteD|Talk 14:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a bit of history on the British History website. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and a lot of siblings) unless expanded during AFD period. I looked at Category:Monasteries in West Sussex. It looks as if User:Starzynka (now blocked) created a string of place-holder stubs in September 2010. Six weeks later he was blocked and declared himelf retired. A few of the articles in that category have substantive articles, but there are a lot of similar stubs. The category probably needs to have a list created as its main article to replace the stubs. I am not saying that an article on Runcton Priory could not exist as a legitimate article, merely that this and its sibling stubs need converting to redlinks in a list article, until someone is prepared to write substantive articles. Material certainly exists to make this possible, but I do not have the time to do it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced stub, no sources to be found, except the abovementioned link, priory ceased to exist in 1260, so the subject may be mentioned in any article on some extant place or some notable succeeding/superior religious organization, if that can be determined. Kraxler (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a softie for historical articles, which IMHO, are what an encyclopedia is all about. Would rather have a wiki full of historical priory stubs than full of mindless articles about pokemon or porn stars. Anyway, found some sources in just a few minutes searching:

The Victoria History of the County of Sussex, Volume 2, [5]
The Victoria History of the County of Norfolk, Volume 2, [6]
Chinchester District Council, Runcton Conservation Area [7]

-- RoySmith (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about historical articles, but the sources you cite are trivial mentions, not in-depth coverage required under the guidelines. #3 has a few words about Runcton Priory but also only in context with the Abbey of Troam and the Priory (later Abbey) of Bruton. Kraxler (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SoftDelete, nominate other one-liner stubs in the category for soft-deletion, and create a list of them all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete I agree with @Davidwr:, a list of all of them is much better than 1-line stubs. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of the DO lectures speakers

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

List of speakers on a non-notable event, no independent sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 15:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. We do allow "list of" articles for some rather obscure things but we expect them to have an high proportion of blue-linked entries and the proportion here is not high enough. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is basically a disambiguation link farm with a lot of non-notable people. bd2412 T 18:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Diver

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

article maybe about a person or not who might possibly have existed or not and might be notable or not-and is written in just the same rambling tone. Orphan for 7 years. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A surprising number of sources can easily be found about her, starting with the drawing "A Woman in Battle: Michigan Bridget Carrying the Flag"[8][9] the paper Michigan Bridget: Discovering the Truth Behind the Legend (which may be the basis of the article), a half page entry for "Divers, Bridget" (c. 1840-c. October 1915) in American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection, edited by a VMI history professor, a couple of pages in Women in the Civil War: Extraordinary Stories of Soldiers, Spies, Nurses, Doctors, Crusaders, and Others, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the excellent information cited by above by User:Clarityfiend and the bibliography in the article. Because women's activities were in general poorly documented at this time, we should include the information that we do have. Many women felt just as compelled to do something meaningful for the war as men did, and here is important evidence that they did more than roll bandages, and put themselves at great risk to do so. Additionally, the fact that she was mythologized is an important social phenomenon that emphasizes her notability. Peacedance (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK #1. The nomination is proposing a merge, rather than deletion. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page, or perhaps boldly performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua

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

Reason This page should be incorporated in the Sacred Name Movement page. Lacks references and is not notable enough for its own page. In Citer (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- This reads as if it is a single congregation, which has splintered from a larger movement. The movement probably qualifies for an article as being a small denomination, but local churches are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sacred Name Movement. There's a vague consensus here for a merge, but less clear how much should be merged. Whoever does the merge will need to make a judgement call on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah

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

Reason

I think this page should be deleted because of WP:NOTABILITY and because it doesn't have any real sources. Let it be merged with the Sacred Name Movement article. Thanks. In Citer (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- This reads as if it is a single congregation, which has splintered from a larger movement. The movement probably qualifies for an article as being a small denomination, but local churches are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they're a church, and a stand-alone and referenced subject. Shouldn't remove for arguably reasons of personal taste or "I don't like". They're notable enough, it seems. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Flag me if independent sources can be produced. I have looked and can find no reliable news reports or secondary sources. The problem as I see it is that any group can declare itself a church, but to merit a Wikipedia article a church needs to be written up in reliable, independent secondary sources. I don't doubt that this church is real and significant to its members, I simply have tried and failed to locate reliable secondary sources. No RS, no article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (very little), as notability has not been demonstrated. The only sources given are the congregation's own website and a "Yellow Pages"-type directory. No objection to merging the home page link to Sacred Name Movement. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge N. Amely Vélez

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

Non notable scientist. He has some nice patents, but that is it. No non-trivial third part material available to sustain a biography about him. damiens.rf 13:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Just because some people haven't heard of him doesn't mean that he is not notable. He developed methods and apparatuses for timing events within an implantable medical device capable of performing many concurrent processes. He also authored a method to help prevent defibrillator output stage short circuit failures in implantable devices.I would say that he is the Puerto Rican Thomas Edison in the medical field. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marine 69-71: His work is fabulous! But, did he received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? The article fails to show that. --damiens.rf 19:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The patent references in the article speak for themselves. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they don't. They are primary sources. While they prove the patents existence, they say nothing about how important or influential his work was. --damiens.rf 17:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - Here is a site of his patent, The "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TIMING EVENTS WITHIN AN IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE", which can be viewed by those who maybe interested and which tells us all the importance of his inventions in the medical field: [file:///C:/Users/Soy%20un%20Campeon/Downloads/US20020107550.pdf] Tony the Marine (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the most appropriate guideline for this person is probably WP:NACADEMICS which he seems to fail. Especially, he is not a fellow of IEEE. Any thoughts, Tony? Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's sources are: a link about the existence of a scholarship program (but not about Amely Vélez receiving it); patent listings; and a bibliographic entry for Amely Vélez's book. None of these do anything to prove notability. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, JSTOR, InfoTrak, and ProQuest turned up no reliable, arms-length sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:SCHOLAR. To quote WP:GNG, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Worldbruce (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above it fails WP:BASIC, WP:SCHOLAR and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Klevan

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

All sources are either non-independent (galleries that make money off displaying his art), independent news sources only mention him in passing once or twice. WP:GNG requires that sources be independent and about the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've been tracking sources at Talk:Alexander_Klevan#Notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Do we know how his name is spelled in Hebrew? Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't list it at the information center for Israeli art, which would seem like the place to list it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

אלכסנדר קלבן — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuliagrig (talk • contribs) 11:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portable boat lift

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

Seems to be based entirely on what a "Portable boat lift" is _not_.

A boat lift is very much stationary, part of canal infrastructure.

A ship lift has the function described here, but on a far greater scale.

There are straddle carriers used as boat lifts. We need an article on those. This is clearly not it.

If this article is so keen to distance itself from any other existing and notable form of vessel mover, does it still exist as a WP:Notable topic? I can't see it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete arguments which I explain how the article does not meet the notability guidelines are stronger than the keep arguments, which do not successfully refute the delete arguments. Davewild (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teresita A. Levy

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

Non notable professional. This woman seems to be a nice professor and researcher, but it seems she's not notable enough to be covered by third part sources. The article references are just trivial mention of her doing her work, article written by herself and a book about a tangential topic. damiens.rf 12:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You are right, she does seem too be a nice professor and researcher. However, her published book "Puerto Ricans in the Empire; Tobacco Growers and U.S. Colonialism" the first book which tells how Puerto Ricans challenged United States officials and fought successfully for legislation that benefited the island. Her book has been praised by scholars, here is an example:

“Puerto Ricans in the Empire provides an excellent introduction to Puerto Rico’s crucial tobacco industry, with fascinating material on farmer organizations and agricultural research." —Herbert S. Klein, Gouverneur Morris Professor Emeritus of History Columbia University

"Levy shows that even within the framework of U.S. colonialism, tobacco farmers proliferated, prospered, and advanced their interest, and were thus makers of their own history. This is a salutary correction to the one sided vision of the colonial regime of previous scholarship." —César Ayala, University of California, Los Angeles

"Levy offers a well-documented, nuanced revision of post-1898 Puerto Rican economic history. By focusing on tobacco rather than sugar cultivation, Levy argues, Puerto Rican tobacco farmers, despite clear power imbalances, did influence certain aspects of US colonial policy, including the political structure, changes in legislation directly affecting the island, and the transfer of technology. She effectively exposes the silences produced by a historical narrative that until now has focused mainly on the unilateral action of the US. Highly recommended." —Choice

Tony the Marine (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem to be trivial accolades for a nice work. Sorry. --damiens.rf 17:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Her notability may be not super high, but given she represents a "different side of the story," I say lets err on the side of caution. Peacedance (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're conceding that there's a lack of notability, but that you want to keep the article based on something different: what you're calling a "different side of the story". Could you be more specific? I don't know what you mean by this. Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- the vote is weak but I strongly object to the rhetoric of "nice" by damiens.rf which is often used as a code for dismissing the work of female academics and female academics of color in particular. She is a serious, up and coming scholar publishing serious work that has been noticed very positively by her peers. The vote is delete, however, because the bar is rather high for assistant professors; she almost clears it with book holdings (135 institutions), but for an assistant professor in the humanities I'd like to see at least 200 or 300 in the absence of a major award. There's little harm in keeping the article, because given her position, she will likely clear the threshold in four to five years, but for now precedent says delete. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're reading sexism where it doesn't exist. Having personally been a victim of it in the job market, I like to think I am more sensitive to spotting this than the average person, but I'm increasingly concerned that WP eds see "misogyny behind every tree" (as I commented at another recent AfD) and that this trend only serves to trivialize the whole matter. Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the recognition extended by Cesar Ayala to Ms. Levy is far from "trivial." Ayala is an established & internationally renowned professor, and author of two definitive books about Puerto Rican agricultural history. Sarason (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In academia, one's PhD thesis is not considered a "published book". In essence, the Rutger's Press book is her PhD dissertation (perhaps with added material/analysis) in published form. This is standard procedure in the humanities area of academia. Agricola44 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree with this. It is not uncommon for a PhD dissertation to be re-worked as a published book, but it is still a published book, and not a PhD dissertation, which exists in another form. There are many, many dissertations which are not published as books, and the publishers who publish academic works are not indiscriminate in which books they publish. It only makes sense that once someone has done the research that it takes to write a dissertation (which must present new data) that the research becomes the basis for a book on the topic. LaMona (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we agree that the book "Puerto Ricans in the empire: tobacco growers and U.S. colonialism" from Rutgers University Press is published. It is her dissertation "The history of tobacco cultivation in Puerto Rico, 1899-1940" which is not considered to be a published book. Dissertations are internal documents written to satisfy a curricular requirement. It is true that not every humanities dissertation winds up being published, but it is true that a published dissertation is all but a requirement for tenure-track/tenured academic appointment, i.e. it is a minimal academic requirement. That is one of the reasons why we normally do not take a single published book to indicate notability by WP:PROF. Passing usually requires 2 published books, either by 1st rate university presses or that show very good library holdings (I informally call this the "DGG" condition, as he often invokes it in AfDs). Agricola44 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. The keeps seem to be based largely on testimonials. Objective analysis shows Levy is an entry-level academic with 1 book that grew out of her PhD thesis and that that book has about average library holdings according to WorldCat. Her work has 4 GS citations. This is the archetypical case of WP:TOOSOON. Aside, the article itself is full of WP:OR and the reference list is mostly web pages, YouTube vids, and publications by Levy herself. The only WP:RS is the NYT wedding announcement. Agricola44 (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nom and Agricola44. My sweeps of US news, world news, Spanish-related media, did not find much to indicate coverage meeting the WP:GNG. Her book on Amazon here published in 2014 has not yet had one customer review -- I know, not an official reason, but an indication to me of a lack of interest.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was stubify. Consensus is that this is advertising, but a less spammy version could probably be kept as notable. Cutting it down to a stub. Sandstein 07:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Technology Information Center (Ethiopia)

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

Alleged to by CSD-eligible on promotional grounds, but I think the article may be salvageable. Community gets the final say on this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 01:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not for clean up. Can anyone doubt that if this was a similar government organisation for a country in Europe or even a State of the US, it would have been cleaned up long ago. Unfortunately I do not have the time to improve it. I suggest flag it for COI and needing cleanup and keep for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. --99of9 (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (stubify) -- maybe simply deleting "Strategic foundations" (similar to the original version by Abel Asrat (talk · contribs) - see 3 October 2014 version) could be a solution, removing the worst promotional parts. Unfortunately the originally short factual description has been puffed up by later SPA edits, full of irrelevant details and self-presentation. The article is short of independent sources too, but that could be improved by interested editors over time. For a government organization, that just started full reporting in 2014 it's likely that more coverage will be available in time (or is possibly already available in Ethiopian sources, although an English-language search had little success). The current version is definitely too promotional and gives undue weight to overly detailed self-descriptions. GermanJoe (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify Probably is notable, but this is a puffpiece. Keep the intro, maybe some of the history, but not much else. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied by Tomstar81 per A7 and G11. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 14:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qymatix Solutions GmbH

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

Couldn't find any sources on Google. I dream of horses (T) @ 10:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A7/G11 - the author is their marketing and PR manager linkedin.com. Bazj (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not enough evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Stich

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

There appears to be a total of one reliable source that discusses this person; all others are fringe sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BLPFRINGE. Location (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real evidence of notability. The sources just aren't there and the article smells like a form of soft promotion. Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands, though at least there's one more RS than most articles like this. It's possible it should stay, but needs the RSes added first - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added more wp:RS, so per wp:AUTHOR, clause 1, The person... is widely cited by peers or successors.The works of the author have been cited by a best seller, and other books one published by Feral House and the other by New York University Press, in a trade magazine published by Utah Fire and Rescue Academy.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Being cited by others does provide some evidence of notability, but he's certainly not "widely cited by peers or successors." Pburka (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Defrauding America has been reviewed by the Conspiracy Digest, describing it as "Defrauding America by Rodney Stich is the Rosetta Stone for decoding nationwide criminal conspiracy. It's also an astonishing contribution to American history. And, without a doubt, it will be the most mind-blowing book you've ever read.".^[1] More citations for Defrauding America,~~^[2]~~^[3]~~^[4]^[5]~~^[6]^[7] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph in an article written by Ken Summers, has been attributed to him.^[8] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take a closer look at those sources; Gyeorgos C. Hatonn is my favorite. Conspiracy theorists frequently cite or give kudos to other conspiracy theorists. I do not believe he has been "widely cited", but that is irrelevant. Implicit in "widely cited by peers or successors" is the idea that those peers and successors are reliable sources themselves. We don't allow fringe sources to dictate the notability of fringe subjects. This fails WP:BLPFRINGE. - Location (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your fringe description, his theories may be fringe, but they are popular, and that makes him notable. Also he has been quoted by mainstream sources too, as per above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Hatonn off per Location. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me to go through these sources one by one? Well, Conspiracy Digest is the self-published work of artist Uri Dowbenko. For Farrell, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph P. Farrell. Douglas Perez's work appears to be self-published and only notes Stich in his recommend reading list (which contains other conspiracy works). Larry Chin cites other conspiracy theorists to support a version of the October Surprise conspiracy theory. Ken Summers writes for Week in Weird; this is essentially the National Enquirer. John Barry Smith's www.montereypeninsulaairport.com is self-published. And as you've noted below, Flying Magazine cites Smith, not Stich. - Location (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Barry Smith in his Rupture at Midspan Latches of Cargo Door in Flight Probably Caused by Wiring/Electrical Fault uses a photo from The Real Unfriendly Skies, Saga of Corruption,^[9] Smith is an independent investigator who has been quoted by Flying (magazine).^[10] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smith using a photo from Stich's book is hardly a citation, and contributes little to notability. Pburka (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed one photo alone doesn't contribute to notability, but it isn't one photo alone, here is an independent investigator who uses a photo from Stich's work, how is a photo any worse than quoting text. Yes, Flying (magazine) doesn't quote Stich, it quotes Smith, so Smith is a notable investigator who cites Stich. Even when we take a couple of sources as bad, there still are seven that are kosher, as I see them. Stich has come up with fantastic theories that are taken cognisance, so what a few are National Enquirer type. His Spartacus Educational entry says he has done 2500 radio/ TV shows, internationally, which also makes him notable.^[11] SE isn't blacklisted, it is "use with caution" just as any other source better or worse, see this Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on Mahabaleshwar it locates it completely wrong.[10] I had written them, yet they ignored. This is a package, a conspiracy theorist, an investigator, an author, if you sum the parts, there is enough to make him notable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is copied nearly verbatim from Stich's book advertisements: [11][12]. - Location (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Conspiracy Digest is "small but influential",Robin Ramsay (editor) mentions CD^[12] so does Adam Gorightly^[13] Mark Fenster^[14] Richard M. Gilman^[15] Richard M. Gilman calls it Small but highly influential.^[15] A Orion Publishing Group book also refers to a quotation from it.^[16] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The advertisements mention reviews by West Coast Review of Books, Dick Gregory, Nexus (magazine) and American Library Association Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the lengthy back and forth above I decided to have another look at the article and try to take in the points from the discussion. Unfortunately I still am not seeing much. Once you take out the Fringe sources the case for notability is incredibly weak. Regrettably I stand by my Delete !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Dowbenko, Uri. "Book Review". Conspiracy Digest. Retrieved 2 July 2015.
^ Gyeorgos C. Hatonn (April 1994). Taking Off the Blindfold. Phoenix Source Distributors, Inc. pp. 97–. ISBN 978-1-56935-038-6.
^ Joseph P. Farrell (2006). The SS Brotherhood of the Bell: NASA's Nazis, JFK, and Majic-12. Adventures Unlimited Press. pp. 392–. ISBN 978-1-931882-61-3.
^ Gyeorgos C. Hatonn (1 December 1993). Retirement Retreats: Or Which Concentration Camp Do You Prefer?. Phoenix Source Distributors, Inc. pp. 100–. ISBN 978-1-56935-027-0.
^ Gyeorgos C. Hatonn (1 June 1994). Criminal Polit Buros and Other Plagues. Phoenix Source Distributors, Inc. pp. 2–. ISBN 978-1-56935-041-6.
^ Douglas Perez (1 January 2010). Paradoxes of Police Work. Cengage Learning. pp. 118–. ISBN 1-111-79025-6.
^ Chin, Larry (2006-11-09). "Bush administration's Trojan Horse gift to America and the Democrats: Former CIA Director and Iran-Contra insider Robert Gates". Global Research. Retrieved 2 July 2015.
^ Summers, Ken (2014-05-20). "Man without a Country: Who Was The Mystery Man from Taured?". Week in Weird. Retrieved 2 July 2015.
^ Smith, John Barry. "Rupture at Midspan Latches of Cargo Door in Flight Probably Caused by Wiring/Electrical Fault". montereypeninsulaairport.com. Retrieved 2 July 2015.
^ Flying Magazine. July 1992. pp. 104–. ISSN 0015-4806.
^ Simkin, John. "Rodney Stich". Spartacus Educational. Retrieved 2 July 2015.
^ Robin Ramsay (3 February 2012). Conspiracy Theories. Oldcastle Books, Limited. pp. 37–. ISBN 978-1-84243-819-0.
^ Adam Gorightly (2003). The Prankster and the Conspiracy: The Story of Kerry Thornley and How He Met Oswald and Inspired the Counterculture. Cosimo, Inc. pp. 200–. ISBN 978-1-61640-622-6.
^ Mark Fenster (1999). Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture. U of Minnesota Press. pp. 274–. ISBN 978-0-8166-3242-8.
^ ^a ^b Richard M. Gilman (1 December 1982). Behind World revolution: the strange career of Nesta H. Webster. Insights Books. ISBN 978-0-910087-00-1.
^ Dan Burstein; Arne de Keijzer (18 November 2010). Secrets Of Angels And Demons. Orion. pp. 237–. ISBN 978-0-297-86490-5.

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next-Gen Text

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage whatsoever. Also possible conflict of interest and advertising. Article author claims to be the developer and copyright holder of the game through the logo image description. The1337gamer (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this game. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Also WP:CRYSTAL issues, as this is unreleased.Dialectric (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of importance and has no references. --Anar chyte 08:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muttcrew

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Fails to meet notability criteria at WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable act. Flat Out (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as my searches including the most simple searches found nothing good regarding third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if the concerns can be addressed. Rlendog (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two stone mill Meibod

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

Badly translated, barely clear what or where this is, no sources or anything to indicate notability Jac16888 ^Talk 09:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, no indication of importance. WP:CCOS. (Note: In my revert in the edit history, I meant AfD not SD). --Anar chyte 10:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article appears to be about a horizontal wheel watermill, but fails to demonstrate notability by meeting GNG. No prejudice to recreation if this can be met. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTGUIDE, either. Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jmj (series)

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

Couldn't find anything on Google. I dream of horses (T) @ 08:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Not on amazon or Google books. text is incredibly poor and does not mention why it is notable. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The author of the article wrote it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A speedy close is needed here, not further listing. Again, as I said above, the creator of the article wrote these stories. He made them up. They are really, really not notable. Please see his talk page to understand why. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7. Jenks24 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal-Eddeen Abubakar Saleh

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

Supposedly a "Professor of Public Health," but the article does not specify at which university. Was unable to find out myself in a quick Google search. Also, main author Manny2015 seems to be in a conflict-of-interest. bender235 (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Shankar

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

fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. the alternate foreign language article in Farsi is very bare. I could find sources for other Raj Shankars but not significant coverage for this neurochemist. Given that his research is in medical sciences one would expect significant coverage in English, which there isn't. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Veres Royal

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

Classic WP:BLP1E - obscure director of marginally notable charity, tangled up with the Clintons.

The article was created by obvious WP:COI editor, now editing as an IP. This particular article smacks of a WP:COATRACK by the article's creator to perpetuate publicity of her relative's accusations against her former employer - Bethbar5 (talk · contribs) has written numerous articles about Sue Veres Royal's family members including Gregory Charles Royal, George C. Royal ‎and added lots of material to articles affiliated with them. The Dissident Aggressor 06:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Happy Hearts Fund as her name is a plausible search term; agree with nom that there is no need to keep per WP:BLP1E. I would have made this same recommendation even without the whistleblower claims. - Location (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about what I may or may not know about Royals is irrelevant to the merits and facts and weight of the listing. If you delete a person majorly sourced as the subject of a topic of national importance for a variety a of obvious reasons , a person who is now - regardless of whether you approve of the source contributor- an important enough figure to meet the historical bar of a wiki entry then delete her with the thousands of other entries which meet an even lesser standard. Lastly the wiki entry is to memorialize the subject not to perpetuate publicity as arguably the New York Times and several other news sources have done that quite capably BethBar5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethbar5 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I said. The Dissident Aggressor 23:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E. One time thingie. There are spotty references] here. Here's the BLP1E rule...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
— Wikipedia rule WP:BLP1E. (boldface by tws).

And I don't see the coverage as being persistent.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per BLP1E, event has petered out, as has coverage.... Kraxler (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). No consensus has occurred here. Discussion regarding potential merge targets can continue on the article's talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Editions

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

Seemingly NN company. While it's founders are probably notable, I've been unable to come up with anything that would pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP for this project of theirs. There is a mention of it on the antiopic website but they're a business partner. The Dissident Aggressor 06:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Parmentier (band). -- haminoon (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I disagree with merging, because it is verifiable the label has releases other than those by Parmentier. The most notable of the artists listed appears to be Vladislav Delay. I'm not even sure Parmentier is notable, in fact I was going to comment that the Sigma Editions article appears to be a walled garden, with the exception of Delay. At first glance the subject appears to be possibly notable by the number of notable artists signed, but the articles for these artists are likewise missing sources. Right now I'm leaning delete, but possible sources include this. I couldn't find anything else. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the walled garden observation and had come to that same conclusion. Unfortunately, the only way to break out of a walled garden is to delete the NN label since artists can inherit notability from their label, but not the label from the artist. The Dissident Aggressor 19:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said merge with Parmentier because they ran the label, not because they were on the label. However because there is so little verifiable information on the label and Parmentier scrape against the notability guidelines, it may be better to merge it into both Rosy Parlane and Dion Workman's bios. -- haminoon (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be better. The Dissident Aggressor 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of the founders if possible as the best my searches found was Books. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus to delete - Consensus seems to be that this is not an encyclopedic topic. While those seeking to keep did demonstrate that sources exist they did not demonstrate that this had any notability beyond being a fringe theory. Thus the result is deletion without prejudice against recreation if you can address the concerns in this AfD.

If anyone is interested in merging to Southern United States they can request undeletion for the purposes of merging, but I don't see a consensus for that here. I would suggest getting consensus at Talk:Southern United States first as it is a long article and probably needs to pick and choose its content. Chillum 20:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Southerners

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

Unsourced; original research. A topic like this would need a lot of backing research considering the controversy surrounding it. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article utterly fails WP:GNG. I'm finding a few blogs and some other sources that refer to "southerners" being a socioethnic group, but nothing of substance and reliability that would warrant an article. - Aoidh (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!!! Surely a hoax? Alec Station (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be written to make some kind of point, or let off steam, or whatever. Merge to Southern United States. The article is much better now, but the material is already covered in the main article. The info here is worthwhile and could be added there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a hoax and I'm not letting off steam. This is a legit article about the Southern ethnicity. We are a separate people with our own history, culture, etc and I thought it'd be a good idea to type up a Wikipedia article about us. Now mind you I have a bit of a problem with procrastinating and I am taking the time tonight to really make the article look good. I have sources, etc. I am currently planning it out on a word document. So please, don't delete it.(MelungeonEire (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I ask that you don't delete this. I've put a bit of work on the article and I ask all of you to help me with it. Down South, we consider Southern to be an ethnicity and it has been proven by various historians that we are ethnically and culturally distinct from the rest of the United States. I plan on continuously working on this article from now on. (MelungeonEire (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Proven by which "various historians"? I see you added a rather large amount of sources, but none of them seem to support this article's subject. This source mentions "white Southerners" only once and not in an ethnic context, this doesn't seem to mention it at all, and most of the sources have no page numbers whatsoever. In what way do any of these sources support the content of the article, and why go through the trouble of adding them all without a specific page number? - Aoidh (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Southern United States. The page creator went on to edit the George Patton to link to his own creation. There is not a lot of content to the article and I find the timing of its creation to the furor over the Confederate battle flag curious. We went through this shuffle earlier this year when editors started creating pages trying to prove that the southern states were all, briefly, independent countries in 1861.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I had similar feelings about the timing too. I thought that I subsequently checked the article history and found that it was created before the Charleston church shooting, but looking again now, it was created the day after. Nonetheless, I don't think we should judge whether the topic is worth covering on the basis of the intentions of the article creator. In fact, if we can have well-written, sourced coverage, that might actually deter people from writing their own soapbox coverage (maybe). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page creator is also suspected of editing page as User:PennsilfaanischTatar (SPI pending).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the sources listed support the existence of an ethnic group called "Southerners", which I doubt. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, one author not included amongst the sources who does view Southerners as an ethnic group is John Shelton Reed. Whether his work alone is enough to justify an article that asserts that Southerners are an ethnic group, I doubt. Personally, I would just include a brief note in the Southern United States article to the effect that some scholars consider there to be a distinct Southern ethnic identity. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reed's publications on this include a chapter in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. I've struck my delete comment for now, pending more discussion of the issues raised by the Reed sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: I have rewritten the article based on reliable sources that I was able to access. Whether this merits it being saved, I will leave to others to judge. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Larry. I crossed out my delete and changed to merge to Southern United States. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this merge. Great work Larry. My main concern from here is the edgy nature of this article. I'm not saying it should be excluded because of that, but I would encourage any editors reading this to add it to their watch page, because I could see this page being abused quite quickly. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the article on my watchlist, but I'd be happy with a merge to Southern United States because it seems to be a pretty niche view that Southerners constitute an ethnic group, and better covered there than in its own article unless more sources can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Aoidh, Alec Station and Gaarmyvet in case they want to revisit their comments in light of my rewrite. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded below, thanks for the heads up. - Aoidh (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This article makes me cringe! Southerners in and of themselves are not an "ethnic group" anymore than mid-westerners, northerners, or any other part of the United States. There is nothing WP:NPOV about leading off with "White Southerners" as the criteria. Is the author implying that anyone without white skin cannot be considered a Southerner? We don't need this flawed POV, cited with decades old sourcing, merged. This has one point of view, and it doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria. No way.— Maile (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that single opinion does not warrant an article, as WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources, not one (questionable) individual. Especially given that this single author's opinions are over 30 years old, if there were any merit to this article's subject someone would have picked up on it and there would be sources but there seems to be nothing of the sort. - Aoidh (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- On a purely technical note, it's untrue to say that the article is based on the work of one author alone. Predating Reed is Lewis Killian's work, and some other authors are mentioned. The idea has also received secondary coverage (e.g. from Dillman and M. G. Smith). Dillman notes that "this concept of Southerners as a distinct American ethnic group has been presented for more than a decade, and it continues to gain momentum". Whether we agree with use of the concept or not, it's clearly not just the idea of one author. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MelungeonEire has moved the article from Southerners (Ethnic Group) to White Southerners. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it'd be more fitting, since this refers to White Southerners. (MelungeonEire (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I read the new article and while it seems improved it still lacks plausibility. My white (Australian) sister and her (South African born & Jewish) husband live in Atlanta. Shall I tell them they have a new ethnicity? They are white and live in the American South so it would seem so. Alec Station (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Alec Station, note that the article isn't saying that Southerners are an ethnic group. It is saying that some academics and others consider them to be an ethnic group. That is a different thing, and is verified by the sources cited. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cordless Larry, pardon me but academics (especially the non-scientific) claim loads of ideas and concepts. Doesn't something have to be widely accepted by a neutral group or at least accepted before it goes into wikipedia. Methinks John Shelton Reed is a bit into the American South and maybe needs some peer review. Alec Station (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, there needs to be coverage in secondary sources, but those are cited in the article too. Reed clearly is into the South, as you put it, but I think the journals he's published in that we cite here are peer reviewed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see any journals only books, except the Harvard encyclopaedia that was refuted by a real anthropologist. Seems like he's confused between culture and ethnicity. Alec Station (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        True - sorry, Alec Station, I confused the sources with some others I read while researching this. Books by university presses are generally peer reviewed, however, and Reed and others have published on this in peer-reviewed journals, such as this and this. I've also just found some more secondary coverage in the New York Times. Whether Reed is right or wrong to consider Southern an ethnicity doesn't come into it for me - that's not for us to judge; we should just present what the sources say, including the criticism. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Very clearly, white southerners is an identity which is peppered throughout Wikipedia already search results revealing 2,283 occurrences. I would also like to point out that per Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL that black southerners is also a notable identity and this search is revealing at 2,141 occurrences so that is a worthwhile article to make as well. To deny either group is a violation of MOS:IDENTITY.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per new findings to allow for wider input and article improvement.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a notable concept. (But is there a better criteria than "I know it when I see it" for concepts? Please comment here: Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of concepts) Article name change and additional work make it a keeper. Creating an article now will dissuade (or at least allow a good response) for future attempts at poor article starts. Will attract vandals for sure, and will be hard to maintain NPOV, but those aren't reasons to delete. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not ethnicity or encyclopaedic content KiwikiKiWi (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- KiwikiKiWi, can I push you to cite some policies that your delete vote is informed by? The subject appears to meet WP:GNG, as far as I see it. Whether or not Southerners constitute an ethnic group is clearly open to debate, but this article does at least now attempt to reflect that debate. As I mentioned above, the article doesn't say that Southerners are an ethnic group, but that they are considered by some authors to be an ethnic group. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Every theory by "some authors" doesn't deserve an encyclopaedic article. This claims it is by one author and it is disputed by experts. I believe the policy is related to fringe theories. KiwikiKiWi (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, fair enough (although more than one author makes the claim, and there is secondary coverage). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Working for big names does not mean inheriting their notability. JohnCD (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treeline Catering

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

Fails GNG and CORP Sulfurboy (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could only find a single mention in secondary sources, and it's an interview with the owner. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty clear advertising page, fails GNG and CORP, as per nominator. The only reliable source is this [13], but that is not sufficient to make a page. mikeman67 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article as it seems the company is significant enough to do work for Facebook and a few other big names. At least it has a reliable source. Perhaps there's more if searched extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.22.146 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Aguirre

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

Unsourced name-dropping and resume language "over twenty years of experience in the music industry". No indication of notability. CorporateM (Talk) 04:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The current references do not establish notability, but only that this person and his career exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Knapp

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

Knapp's milestone is certainly credible, but I question the ability to which his accomplishments merit an article of their own. As per WP:NPF, he is not known outside of Wikipedia to the point where an article is required. Userify?. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunshineisles2: I will recuse myself from an actual !vote on the topic for obvious reasons but I will ask what you think is different for this nomination versus the other two or what you made of the consensus the first two times? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Justin -- the previous nomination(s) used a justification of "notable for one event", whereas I feel that while you have accomplished much, I don't feel like you're a very well recognized figure outside of the immediate Wikipedian community. Many users don't know that there is a running tally of individuals with most edits to their name, let alone who is #1.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPF is explicitly about people who are "notable enough for their own article" and is guidance for how to write in such cases. It is obviously not a reason to delete the entire page because the notable aspects remain. Andrew D. (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Andrew, this is the third deletion discussion and the reason given for deletion is based on a misreading of policy. Bosstopher (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep Ordinarily I'd side with a one event delete, but being a gamer I just can't bring myself to delete and article about the guy who holds the high score. Dethrone him first, then we can talk :) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:BLP1E requires the subject to be low-profile. The subject was willing to be interviewed, which fails WP:BLP1E. There is quite a bit of coverage; meets WP:BASIC. Esquivalience ^t 21:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is too early due to WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated television series of 2017

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

Unsourced article for future series - fails WP:GNG. See WP:CRYSTALBALL Flat Out (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it should be kept because animation is such a lengthy process so surely these are already in production. KiwikiKiWi (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would first refer to WP:NFF which states that

"In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced"
"films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (...) should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable (...). " I do think this ought to apply to animation movies, as well.

The guideline is about standalone articles though. I think 1 applies because it is grounded on WP:CRYSTALBALL: many films get cancelled at a relatively late stage of the production, in which case we want neither a standalone article nor a mention in another article. I believe 2 ought to apply (which condemns the whole thing) as well but I agree that is more borderline. Tigraan (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Futarama said it best in these situations: "Painstakingly drawn before a live studio audience", and while it is true that these projects typically can't be thrown togather and shoved out in a few months 2017 does seem a little...far for an article on the subject matter. Admittedly at the moment 2017 is close enough to justify some discussion of the matter, but I can't help but feel this is too much in the realm of WP:CRYSTAL at the moment to fully support. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that animation is a long enough process that some of these are already in the production pipeline today, the problem is that for any number of potential reasons some of them might still fail to ever actually debut anywhere (e.g. turning out to be bad enough that no television network actually wants to pick them up, studio goes bankrupt, and on and so forth), or may end up getting delayed until 2018, 2019 or 2020. When it comes to television series, we do not start an article as soon as we can lean on one source announcing that the show has entered the production process — a television series does not become an appropriate article topic on Wikipedia until it has been officially upfronted by a television network as something that is definitely going to air rather than just being planned to maybe air. And if the series themselves aren't appropriate article topics yet, then we don't need a list of them yet either. Delete as WP:CRYSTAL, without prejudice against recreation in 2017 when we actually start seeing real upfront announcements. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL; let's wait until networks actually announce shows before we create a 'year in' article about them, and all of the shows mentioned have either no sources to their airing or like the fate of Murder Police, might never see a screen. Nate • (chatter) 03:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G7. Jenks24 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Bunny: Hare Beyond Compare

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

The cartoons are notable but the laser disk release of a collection has no inherit notability. Fails WP:GNG - Unsourced WP:OR Flat Out (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the creator has requested speedy here Flat Out (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7. Jenks24 (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daffy Duck: Duck Victory

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

Non notable release, the cartoons are notable but the laserdisk release of a collection has no inherit notability - fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the creator has requested speedy here Flat Out (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tuan Le (Computer Scientist)

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

Receiving best paper award at a single scientific conference is not notability. I do not consider that even a credible assertion of significance. I would have deleted this as speedy A7, but the speedy tag was removed before I got to it. As far as I can tell, he still has not received his doctorate. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe the page should not be deleted because Tuan Le is a formidable force of nature in delay tolerant networking. His accomplishments are profound, especially considering his young age. In my opinion he is notable enough to justify having his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.105.8 (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — 75.161.105.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Does not meet general notability guidelines or notability for academics, award is relatively minor --CutOffTies (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a DTN researcher I strongly urge you to reconsider. Tuan has made numerous fundamental contributions to community based routing as applied to DTN. In the community he is know as the Claude Shannon of Community Networking. Mull over that for a second , please. HayastanRepublicanGuard (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — HayastanRepublicanGuard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mulled over Still say Delete --CutOffTies (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe the article should stay. Tuan is very young, but he is a titan in our field and his body of work constitutes notoriety, in my opinion. I previously worked with Tuan and, though I was fired, having nothing but utmost respect for his achievements. GanapathyONDABEAT (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — GanapathyONDABEAT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete There is nothing on this page that even remotely suggestions Wikipedia-level notability at the moment. The 10 papers are self published sources, which begs the question why a csd deletion on promotional grounds was not entertained in this case, and the only other remaining citation in his article at the time of this publication notes that he went to conference alleged to be notable but lacking substance, a fatal flaw for any article here since content apart from context is meaningless. Frankly, I've read obituaries that contained more information than this article, although I will concede that this second attempt to create an article on an at the moment unnotable collage student is a massive improvement over the original article, which was located at Tuan Le (Student) and was deleted on A7 grounds. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir, ICNC is aa top tier conference in networks. From their website "International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communication (ICNC), technically co-sponsored by IEEE Computer Society and IEEE Communications Society, financially sponsored by Technology Innovation Association, is a PREMIER conference in the computer and communications fields. ICNC 2015 is to be held in Anaheim, California, USA, during Feb. 16-19, 2015." It is unprecdented for a Ph.d student to win best paper award at such an esteemed conference(30% acceptance rate). Frankly I find your dismissal of Mr. Le's accomplishments both ignorant and condescending. HayastanRepublicanGuard (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally agree with Hayastan Guard (Ayo!). It is foolish and misguided to assert that a man who, having published the best paper at a PREMIER conference, is not notorious enough to justify a page on a 3rd rate encyclopedia. I can personally vouch for his formidable achievements. GanapathyONDABEAT (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @HayastanRepublicanGuard and GanapathyONDABEAT: You have my apologies for any perceived personal attack but my comments stand: From where I sit, according to Wikipedia's standard for notability, your doctor in training isn't there yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I am not in the field of computer networking, but I have a technical background. Even I think this page is not a glitch. Basically, I do not understand what all are you saying, as the achievements of this man are clearly enough for notoriety. I bet ten lakhs that other computer networking researchers would agree. Though he does not have PHD degree yet, he is a highly respected member of the community. It is not required to have a PHD degree to be a successful and well known researcher. Glitch glitch11 (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Glitch glitch11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
ADMINS BE ADVISE WE MAY HAVE A SOCK: Both HayastanRepublicanGuard (talk · contribs) and GanapathyONDABEAT (talk · contribs) are fairly new accounts concerned only with this article and this deletion discussion. Both also share a few other traits of similarity, including the absence of userpages, a failure to indent comments, and tendency to back each other up; the latter account also made a previous attempt at creating this article at Tuan Le (Student). There is presently insufficient evidence to make a conclusive case for socking here, however I urge the participants here to keep a watchful eye out on this discussion; if more new-ish accounts emerge or isp editors suddenly take a keen interest in this discussion it may warrant SPI-related action. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the SPI, I have struck all comments from sockpuppets. Be aware that the first comment from IP 75.161.105.8 may be from the same user. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I still believe it should have been speedied as an A7, but clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I believe that because there is no clear consensus, the article should be kept as is. I see no reason to delete it, as Tuan Le is one of the true fathers of the field of Delay Tolerant Networking. Augia. Glitch glitch11 (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this !vote as user has already !voted above, one account = one !vote, that is the rule. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note is the fact that the article on Tuan Le has never been challenged, yet he is not a notorious figure. While the father of socially-aware delay tolerant networkings page is under question, which is a shame. Glitch glitch11 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of complaining about other articles or adding puffery to the article, you should make policy and guideline-based arguments that he meets the notability guidelines for academics or general notability guidelines. In answer to your question about the poker player, winning two World Series of Poker bracelets and two World Poker Tour titles clearly establishes his claim towards notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. His articles are too recently published to have significant publications, so WP:PROF#C1 seems out of reach, and there is no evidence of passing any of the other WP:PROF criteria. Certainly a best-paper award is not enough by itself. In addition, most of his publications are with a single more-notable co-author, Gerla, so even if they were highly cited it would be difficult to disentangle their contributions and determine how much of their notability should reflect on the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice CV. Smart guy. But a grad student who, according to the link in the article, just passed quals a month ago is highly unlikely to be notable. No evidence that he passes the criteria for academics. WP:TOOSOON. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A7 would probably have been appropriate. Anyway, fails WP:GNG (couldn't find significant coverage) and WP:TOOSOON. APerson (talk!) 03:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:JzG as per WP:G7. (Non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 14:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Road Runner vs. Wile E. Coyote: If At First You Don't Succeed...

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

No notable release. The cartoons are notable but the laserdisk release of a collection has no inherit notability - fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the creator has requested speedy here Flat Out (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NEC HYDRAstor

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

Advert made up of vendor websites, press releases and other primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 03:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of this article are currently: 8 research papers, 5 professional press releases, 4 vendor websites, 2 independent blog entries. This is quite good proportion, as for article about a commercial product. Vendor sources are cited only as sources of technical details. We have tried to strip the article of anything that could be considered advert, and make it as informative as possible. But it is article about a product, and anything written about a product could be considered advert. Please suggest what changes you think should be done, instead of outright deletion.--AI~plwiki (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by "we"? CorporateM (Talk) 07:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Tlasica. We have created this article together. --AI~plwiki (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Awards appear to make this product notable. Stand-alone article justified under WP:NPRODUCT. ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Deco

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

The subject has released one digital song and has had a few mentions on the interwebz--that's it. Not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the nominator has evaluated things correctly. A few blogs have noticed that the young woman is attractive, as are millions of women. The moniker is clever, but that does not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the company does not qualify for a Wikipedia article as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdgeWave

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

Came up in one of my routine searches for articles that mention Network Products Guide, a pay-for-play award. Started trimming the promotion, but noticed almost all the sources were primary (the company's website) and the few secondary sources don't appear to mention the org. CorporateM (Talk) 03:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused as to why it would be deleted? It's a company website and all information is verifiable. Considering almost all companies have similar Wiki pages, why would this is any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, What do we need to do to update this page to meet guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? The company?

For a company to merit an article in Wikipedia, there must be significant coverage of it in reliable secondary sources, independent of the company (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). Furthermore, articles must be based primarily on such sources. Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations.

Most companies do not have pages on Wikipedia. If you find a similarly sourced article on another company, the essay "Other stuff exists" may help you understand why that doesn't matter in this forum. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What determines "significant coverage"? 5...10.... 15 articles? The company, and it's security experts, has significant coverage. I would be happy to provide sources and links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Significant coverage, and in fact the rest of the guideline, is a good read. In general number does not matter as much as the quality and depth of how the sources go. Specifically simply press releases (that is mostly reposted as-is) and routinal reportage (like board member or personnel changes) almost never count to notability. According to my own search, the subject's collaboration with Huawei [14] might suggest a slightly better potential than the thousands we turn away via speedy delete, but is still lacking in very compelling evidence of importance to solidly keep. PS. If you are working for the company you have an inherent conflict of interest where there are more things to be aware of. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. What can be done to improve the page to have it notability? EdgeWave has partnered with the USTA to provide security for past 7 years^[1]. If that is the sort of notability that's needed, I'll update sources and provide more references. - Sean

^ http://timesofsandiego.com/tech/2014/08/27/san-diego-company-provides-wifi-u-s-open/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source does not help prove notability because it is not independent of the company; it's a regurgitation of this press release. Worldbruce (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything but press releases and routine announcements (company X bought company Y). Note that there are two accounts, Memerick and Swreynolds that are single purpose accounts having edited only this article. It would be good for those users to read conflict of interest and sockpuppetry, in case they are not aware of those policies. If those do not apply, then "userfy" may be a solution, with a pointer to the articles for creation process, where they can get some guided experience in editing and article creation. LaMona (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of press releases and info from the company website that fails WP:ORGIND. I would usually consider U-T San Diego (the erstwhile Union-Tribune) an acceptable source, but in this case even its first two and last paragraphs are lifted straight from a company press release. The 1999 Windows IT Pro article appears independent, but says almost nothing about the company (or predecessor as it was then). The brief merger announcement in Infosecurity Magazine also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All in all, does not meet WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the company does not qualify for a Wikipedia article as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdgeWave

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

Came up in one of my routine searches for articles that mention Network Products Guide, a pay-for-play award. Started trimming the promotion, but noticed almost all the sources were primary (the company's website) and the few secondary sources don't appear to mention the org. CorporateM (Talk) 03:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused as to why it would be deleted? It's a company website and all information is verifiable. Considering almost all companies have similar Wiki pages, why would this is any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, What do we need to do to update this page to meet guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? The company?

For a company to merit an article in Wikipedia, there must be significant coverage of it in reliable secondary sources, independent of the company (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). Furthermore, articles must be based primarily on such sources. Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations.

Most companies do not have pages on Wikipedia. If you find a similarly sourced article on another company, the essay "Other stuff exists" may help you understand why that doesn't matter in this forum. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What determines "significant coverage"? 5...10.... 15 articles? The company, and it's security experts, has significant coverage. I would be happy to provide sources and links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Significant coverage, and in fact the rest of the guideline, is a good read. In general number does not matter as much as the quality and depth of how the sources go. Specifically simply press releases (that is mostly reposted as-is) and routinal reportage (like board member or personnel changes) almost never count to notability. According to my own search, the subject's collaboration with Huawei [15] might suggest a slightly better potential than the thousands we turn away via speedy delete, but is still lacking in very compelling evidence of importance to solidly keep. PS. If you are working for the company you have an inherent conflict of interest where there are more things to be aware of. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. What can be done to improve the page to have it notability? EdgeWave has partnered with the USTA to provide security for past 7 years^[1]. If that is the sort of notability that's needed, I'll update sources and provide more references. - Sean

^ http://timesofsandiego.com/tech/2014/08/27/san-diego-company-provides-wifi-u-s-open/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source does not help prove notability because it is not independent of the company; it's a regurgitation of this press release. Worldbruce (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything but press releases and routine announcements (company X bought company Y). Note that there are two accounts, Memerick and Swreynolds that are single purpose accounts having edited only this article. It would be good for those users to read conflict of interest and sockpuppetry, in case they are not aware of those policies. If those do not apply, then "userfy" may be a solution, with a pointer to the articles for creation process, where they can get some guided experience in editing and article creation. LaMona (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of press releases and info from the company website that fails WP:ORGIND. I would usually consider U-T San Diego (the erstwhile Union-Tribune) an acceptable source, but in this case even its first two and last paragraphs are lifted straight from a company press release. The 1999 Windows IT Pro article appears independent, but says almost nothing about the company (or predecessor as it was then). The brief merger announcement in Infosecurity Magazine also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All in all, does not meet WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 17:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Balzaretti

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 02:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This actor was well-known in Mexico. Acted in scads of plays, films and telenovelas, won an Ariel Award (Mexico's most prestigious film awards). That his career mostly predated the rise of the web shouldn't be held against him. Vrac (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to his Ariel Award win for Best Supporting Actor, he was nominated for his work in two other films, once for Best Actor. The article had been completely unreferenced which I've remedied to some extent but it may take someone with better Spanish language skills than my own to take it further. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The award plus the sourcing now showing in the piece seems sufficient for passage of GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meeples' Choice Award

(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 (awards)/Wikipedia:Notability (websites) requirement. Prodded in the past, deprodded by User:Andy14and16 [16] with "remove prod, completely verifiable" rationale. As far as I can see it, this award, now defunct (?), received no independent, reliable coverage, and survives only through BoardGameGeek wikia, where it belongs - but is way too minor for us. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An award given out by an internet forum, that only seems to be mentioned (or regurgitated as listicles) on other internet forums and blogs does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG, specifically self-published sources. Most forums merely indicate these awards exist, but mere verifiability does not guarantee an article's retention. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, no independent sources turn up in web searches. Kraxler (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to lack of participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aksi Cepat Tanggap

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

My searches only found News links and some at Books; Highbeam and Thefreelibrary found nothing. As I'm not from Indonesia or speak the language and wondered if the sources were enough for notability, I asked User:Crisco 1492 for his input and he doubted this was notable so I'd like to hear from other comments. Crisco 1492 You're welcome to comment. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been able to find very little on this organization, and none of it very detailed. If we had an article on the parent organization (Dompet Dhuafa) I'd recommend merging, but we don't. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While participation is low in this AfD despite multiple relists, the consensus is clear that there isn't in-depth coverage for the subjects. —SpacemanSpiff 05:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aseem Ahmed Abbasee

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

The subject lacks in-depth coverage in secondary, independent reliable sources. All cited sources just name mention once or so only. sami ^talk 05:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:1 of the editor on this page is named as Aseemahmedabbasee and it is a clear attempt to gain publicity....original author of page is Myselfanwer and this user is responsible for creation of page Yaseen Anwer, further this user Myselfanwer is involved in creating pages about people linked with Poets Corner Group...it appears to be an attempt to gain publicity and advertise this group and people linked with it....further no independent notability can be established for this person/page...Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to RLV Technology Demonstration Programme. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Space Shuttle Programme

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

This page just gives the information about the already present RLV-TD and also some unverified reports about a "Hyper-Plane" project. The Indian Media Reports the RLV-TD as "Indian Space Shuttle". This could have led to confusion and therefore the creation of a separate page. I thus think this article is worth for deletion. M.srihari (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

Comment: RLV Technology Demonstration Programme, the target of one of the links above, is in an even worse state than the article under discussion. Maproom (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, That's true. Serious Repair work need to be done in that page. Perhaps, with some government Approved Data(http://www.isro.gov.in/technology-development-programmes/reusable-launch-vehicle-technology-demonstration-program-rlv-td). And, Your views on Indian Space shuttle?(http://www.pc-tablet.co.in/2015/05/23/9082/india-builds-indigenous-reusable-space-shuttle-test-july-2015/)M.srihari (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

Delete Indian Space Shuttle Programme. The articles Indian Space Shuttle Programme, RLV Technology Demonstration Programme and Avatar (spacecraft) are highly confusing and an ordinary reader cannot perceive the difference between those projects. If Avatar and ISSP are two different projects, there has to be more than a source suggesting that one of the project, apparently ISSP, was abandoned. But there were no such news of such an abandoned project and to add to this, the word Indian Space Shuttle Programme is the name of a non-existing program!?
In the end of 1980s and beginning of 1990s India had plans to develop the small Space Shuttle named Hyperplane that would to be orbited by non-reusable launchers. Then plans differed to project Avatar (spacecraft) as a single-stage system.
are the only lines in the article which suggests avatar is different from ISSP. If that's the case, the first sentence doesn't have a source, and the second sentence is highly confusing. I suspect a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Avatar will also be a single stage system after the test flights. ISSP, as stated in the source, is noted as a vertical take-off vehicle. Coincidentally, RLV-TD is also a vertical take off vehicle. Avatar is an SSTO and RLV-TD is an TSTO. But even this could be challenged by the primary source (ISRO) which states,
RLV-TD is a series of technology demonstration missions that have been considered as a first step towards realizing a Two Stage To Orbit (TSTO) fully re-usable vehicle.
since RLV-TD is the first step towards Avatar, does that mean Avatar is a TSTO? The images used in the sources of ISSP are identical to the Avatar or RLV-TD. As only one source suggests that ISSP is different from Avatar which does not coherently explain the aspects, I consider this a WP:CRYSTALBALL and support the deletion. P.S, I reserve the right to change my decision if someone comes with a better explanation/source and clears the dubiousness. --JAaron95 (Talk) 08:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC), edited--05:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no knowledge of an Indian space shuttle and so I have no !vote at this time. Note though that this is not a space shuttle, it is an article on a space shuttle, and it is not about a space shuttle itself, it's about the programme around one. So it does not matter if there was a space shuttle or not, there can still be a an article about it. If "Let's build a space shuttle" became a topic of debate in the Indian parliament or ISRO, then that's enough for an article. If it then turned into no more than a political scandal (with no aerospace work at all), but maybe some bribery or pork-barrelling (these things happen a lot around large government programs) then it could still be a notable topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RLV Technology Demonstration Programme and possibly rename Indian space shuttle programme. This project/ship appears to be commonly referred to as a space shuttle, and that is a better descriptive title than the generic "RLV technology demonstration." [17] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to RLV Technology Demonstration Programme, it one and the same. Don't need two redundant articles. N2e (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two articles since there's a bit of non-overlapping content, once that's done, the title should be that of this article since this is the more generic name while the other is project specific. —SpacemanSpiff 19:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles. No reason for essentially redundant articles, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-notable; effectively something that never actually happened. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was never more than a concept, thoroughly fails WP:GNG, no actual content in article. Scr★pIron^IV 17:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as some users suggested because the program itself is not notable. This topic is closely related to "Avatar" project and RLV-TD, so it is better to merge. Supdiop ^talk 10:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; this article is about something entirely theoretical, but still possibly contains some nuggets of information—not enough for an article, but perhaps for a section of an article, such as noted above. Or, as SpacemanSpiff suggested, merge RLV Technology with this article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page may be created out of good faith instead of vandalism, but is highly unnecessary.Mao Martin (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Mao[reply]

Note - The above user is a confirmed sockpuppet of M.srihari (nominator). Supdiop (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to RLV Technology Demonstration Programme. The information here doesn't need to be in a separate page. APerson (talk!) 18:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page is a duplicate of an entry in the the World Heritage Encyclopedia: INDIAN SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAMME. Which is released under CC by SA. I don't know enough to say if there is new content here, main new thing is suggestion "In the end of 1980s and beginning of 1990s India had plans to develop the small Space Shuttle named Hyperplane that would to be orbited by non-reusable launchers." Can't find any evidence yet in a google search that it did. If it did, then presumably not a major initiative. If that's so, I'd go with merge, and mention this in one of the other articles. If it didn't, then there doesn't seem to be any new content here at all. Users may search for "Indian Space Shuttle Program" - so I wonder if a redirect might be better than a delete if there is nothing to preserve. Robert Walker (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note though that this page is an entry in Template:Indian space programme so if decision is made that it is no longer needed, a redirect would be better than a delete, or that template should be edited.
Comment Another thought - this title is better than the other two as a general article on the Indian space shuttle program, as it covers them both rather than just one or the other project. Maybe this article should be edited to summarize the other two projects, plus any information about a previous space shuttle plan if there was one? Basically take the ledes of the other two articles and merge them back into this one. They are all rather "stubs" - depending on some enthusiast with detailedd knowledge of the Indian human spaceflight program to expand them. So maybe we should just keep them all separate but improve this one in that way... Robert Walker (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robertinventor:: World Heritage Encyclopaedia is a mirror of our article(s). A merge and using this title does appear to be the best option.—SpacemanSpiff 04:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the name "Indian Space Shuttle" is a media buff. Using it as the name of a page or a section might be confusing as the name space shuttle belongs to that of US RLV. So, naming the section as Indian TSTO might be helpful.Mao Martin (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Mao block evasion[reply]
Merge with RLV Technology Demonstration Programme, which is not a great article, but if the two concepts are one and the same, that other title is more neutral. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nathan Moore (U.S. musician). – czar 22:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise Me Mr. Davis

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

This article is nearly 5 years old and there is still not a single reliable reference. No indication of notability, and fails WP:NMUSIC. mikeman67 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rather lavish attention for a group/record that Allmusic only indicates existed (i.e. no write up, no rating, no review). It appears to be either vanity or fan writing. The references are, at their best, to an interview. Otherwise, they're gig notices and reviews in small press. Therefore, I have to agree that the band/record does not pass notability for musicians. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Nathan Moore as it seems he is always mentioned with the band with my searches finding this, this (some more magazines, though I'm not familiar with them) and this. There's nothing to suggest this has significant, notable and independent notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 18:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Could you clarify if you mean Nathan Moore (U.S. musician), or Nathan Moore (English musician)? And when you say, "move", do you mean "redirect" or "rename"? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean "merge". Kraxler (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nathan Moore (U.S. musician), this band is not independently notable. Kraxler (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and request that the closing admin turn the page into a redirect immediately, without waiting for the content to be merged. The page history will still be there for editors to merge the content from. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's so urgent that the usual process of simply tagging for merge isn't sufficient? It's been here for 5 years. Another few days won't hurt anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly Twists

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

Created by SPA, article has list of non-reliable sources. Appears to be advertising type page and my own search came up with no significant coverage. mikeman67 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 (Talk) 16:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not familiar with some of the sources listed and my searches found nothing significant here, here and here. The only possible move target is Pentland Group but it seems they're only a minority stakeholder so deleting may be best for now. SwisterTwister talk 16:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional advert, no coverage in independent sources Kraxler (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travertine Mart

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

Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. All references on the article are either unreliable sources that are very promotional in nature, or simply passing mentions of the company, separate from the substantive content of the story. There only seems to be one potentially reliable source, and a story about a company being used in a single episode of a DIY Network show is not enough to establish WP:N. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Unfortunately, there is no significant and notable coverage and my searches provided no help here, here, here, here and here. The article is neat and sourced but there's not much solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 16:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to lack of participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bitraser

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

Article cites two sources, one is a recycled press release and the other is nugatory. There is no evidence of the significance of this product. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Though this product is relatively new in the market, so source of evidence require some time to put on the page. Also what other kinds of evidence require to prove notability? Please suggest so I can find some of those. Amitpandey21 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a guide to Wikipedia:Notability. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete as my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant aside from some links at News. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added few more references to make authenticity of this page, please review & suggest. Amitpandey21 11:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Africa Command#History (2000–2006). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magharebia

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

Redirect to USAFRICOM. Not notable. It was a news website operated by USAFRICOM and ~~could be~~ is now included in that article. Current article content is not worth merging. Website blanked early 2015. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC) updated Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website magharebia.com was created in 2005. It is currently blank, as in the domain is active, but there is no HTML or any other code on any page. This was done sometime between January and April 2015, see Internet Archive. There are have only been a few minor mentions in The Washington Post over its entire existence: WaPo search. The website could be a small mention at USAFRICOM, but the current article is not worth merging. I found only one Google News mention of the closing of the website here, dated February 13, 2015. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or simply mention at USAFRICOM and move to that - My searches here, here, here and here found nothing to suggest solid and in-depth coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added material to United States Africa Command#History (2000–2006). This should be sufficient coverage of Magharebia and allow for ~~deletion~~ redirection of this page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Langoor (company)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. All references on the article are either dead links, unreliable sources that are very promotional in nature, or simply passing mentions of the company, separate from the substantive content of the story. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing to suggest solid notability aside from some of the current links. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Thanhoffer

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

Fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. Other than the Bangalorean article, written by the user who created this article, there are no sources that discuss Thanhoffer in a reliable manner in anything more than just a mere mention of him. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The subject meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent sources. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Cafasso

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

Subject of biographical article fails general rules on notability. Commenters are reminded that merely having reliable sources is not enough for a biography. This particular individual appears to fall under WP:ONEEVENT and fails both WP:PERP and WP:PERSISTENCE due to lack of coverage beyond contemporary news sources. Legitimus (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Legitimus (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have to demur from the nomination, because this appears to be a serial fraudster whose career in these matters may not be over. In other words, he got RS coverage for frauds, but then he got them again. Further, I can see, thanks to the Outfoxed role and the ongoing conversations about parallel worlds of "experts" employed by left and right "bubbles" in the US, his being a searched term. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cafasso inherently falls under fringe rules. His comments in "Outfoxed" are clearly an example of fringe. His other involvements have almost all been fringe. There is not the sourcing to establish notability against those rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person's commentary being fringe, which I'm granting for the sake of argument, does not mean they are not notable enough for an article. Can you quote the rules you are referring to? Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the subject of a long profile in the New York Times meets WP:GNG by itself. There is other coverage in RS as well. The article needs work, but Cafasso is notable. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (NAC)--Antigng (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Lake House

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

Notability not established, no references, WP:OR, external links are to tangential topics or forums/blogs. Vrac (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sources exist to verify the claim that this was a leading Poconos resort in its day. [18][19][20] The case would be stronger if there a non-local source could be identified. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep also per article stating it was a premier resort in the Poconos —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to "keep" arguments above, it is significant that the resort was deemed eligible for protection under the "Pennsylvania Historical Museum Commission Bureau for Historic Preservation". That probably means that there exists documentation of historic architectural, social or other importance. I'm not very familiar with Pennsylvania's rules, but in other states the designation of eligibility is a high standard, and the only difference between historic-register-listed places vs. these ones is that the owner(s) feared listing would reduce their property value. There's mention of archives of photos which probably have other documentation too. So it's most reasonable to believe there exists plenty of coverage meeting wp:GNG, although probably not available online. --do ncr am 03:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Selling News

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

There's no significant coverage of this publication beyond passing mentions. The third-party sources are attempts at generalizing from example and don't cover Direct Selling News itself in any detail. Huon (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an industry trade publication, we're not talking TIME or Forbes here. I believe there are ample sources provided. Further, the sources are not attempts at generalization, there are numerous sources that utilize Direct Selling News when covering the industry, especially with regards to company size and growth.

A quick perusal of the Trade Magazine Stubs page showed 228 entries, the vast majority of which were significantly less robust. Virgil06 (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Virgil06: So is that a keep vote? SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but somewhat leaning delete when I saw mostly press releases here with other searches finding results here, here and here (mostly press releases in the last one). Sources say this is "largest trade publication in its industry" and has achived "Top 100" and such so I'm not sure if it makes it notable in its industry or marginally notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Paul Banks (singer)#Solo project. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody On My Dick Like They Supposed To Be

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

Little content provided, appears to be non-notable mix tape. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the creator of this article has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, it is unlikely much feedback will be received from them. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 00:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Paul Banks#Discography as it seems this is not notable but at least received somewhat coverage here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Girl Scout Cookies . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Brinton

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

This article is highly promotional; many claims contained in it do not appear in the source material, and there are no inline references. I do not believe the subject passes WP:N. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Girl Scout Cookies#Sales as she's obviously best known for her time with the Girl Scouts with my searches finding multitude links here and here but nothing to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a Merge proposal? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not, it's probably better as a simple redirect as the current info at Girl Scout Cookies suffices, I think. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous sources here but I agree article seems WAY too long, please trim 90% of the fat; basically should only be a few lines saying EB holds record. If article is not trimmed maybe it should be merged as above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has good coverage, as above, but a lot of work needs to be done to use these in the article matching sources to unsourced statements and removal of information that goes into too much depth without reliable sources, which I have started. If it comes down to it I also support merging to Girl Scout Cookies#Sales but more than a few sentences as some information relates to her record being beaten. — Jordan Mussi ^Talk 16:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge -sourcing is great. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Girl Scout Cookies#Sales, as that is what she is chiefly known for. If kept, the article needs a complete rewrite because it reads more or less as hagiography at the moment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep or Merge. There's no doubt the sources are sufficient, but this is written more like a promotional essay than an encyclopedia article. If kept as a stand-alone article, needs a lot of editing for style and trimmed to a fraction of the current size. But, a merge to Girl Scout Cookies isn't out of the question either. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glom (software)

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

Non-notable software, previously deleted by PROD then restored. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent WP:RS references. A search turned up incidental mentions and blog entries but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Comenius University. Redirects are cheap. Jenks24 (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Problem Solving Contest

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are primary and unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comenius University: Fails WP:ORG currently (some local coverage may exist, but not sufficient per WP:AUD), however a redirect and mention would be suitable. Esquivalience ^t 22:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not establish notability. You'd think a notable internet contest would have a presence on independent internet sources. It doesn't. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Blackwell

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

This article needs to be deleted because it lacks notability, and fails to meet the guidelines for that aforementioned issue. This article is just an example of unwarranted sense of self-importance. Why don't we go ahead and make a Wiki page for every person on the Earth too? Everyone's pets, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.98.207 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. No opinion. ansh 666 20:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as she has received some coverage as shown here and here but there's nothing to suggest she has independent notability aside from the company (further searches at Highbeam and Thefreelibrary found nothing of course). SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no additional references and thus nothing that would contradict the conclusion reached by SwisterTwister or support a finding of notability. Donner60 (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current "sources" really don't meet WP:RS -- further, the article does not say what, if anything, LB is notable for. My news sweeps did not reveal anything much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anjunabeats

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

Spotify considers AnjunaBeats to be a major proprietor of Trance music. Is that notable enough to warrant a minor Wikipedia entry? SpotifySpotlight Mochaman69 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth makes this notable? This is near advertising. I can't find anything indicating notability in the first few pages of Google results. Laun chba ller 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is better to mention somewhere else like a list because I'm not finding any good coverage to suggest independent notability here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Whether or not it is a hoax, it clearly fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalika Temple

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

I cannot verify the existence of this temple. I've found many temples with similar names throughout India (including at least 2 Maha Kali Mandirs), none of which are in Reasi. Google Earth and Maps reveal nothing; I looked up Reasi bus stand and there's no evidence of a temple nearby. The only information I can find is Wikipedia mirrors, and I also cannot find any images of this temple other than the one on this article. The closest I've found is a Bawe Wali Mata; some sources include information from this article (it seems to also be known as Kali Mata Mandir (note the word order and spelling), hence the possible confusion), which does seem to be real, but I don't think it's the temple this article is referring to, as it's not in Reasi (the article originally said it was in Udhampur, and I can't find any evidence of one there either). Therefore, I think this may be a hoax. If it is, it would be one of the longest-standing ones, having been here for more than 8 years. Adam9007 (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it does exist, its notability cannot be demonstrated. Paul B (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Delete as a hoax. As mentioned above, none of Google (Search, Maps, etc) can confirm that this even exists. I am not tagging it with {{db-hoax}} because it is not blatant to me. Just because there's nothing on the Internet doesn't mean that it is a hoax. For example, some private companies, organizations, and other private places/areas don't have content on the Internet. I think that more research needs to be put into this first, but I too would question the truthfulness. {{hoax}} is staying put for now, but no speedy delete yet. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Most prominent" temple, but no internet footprint? Seems highly unlikely to me, hence why I think this is probably a hoax. Adam9007 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Although there is some support for pure deletion, none address why a redirect would be inappropriate. Rlendog (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natchitoches Parish Detention Center

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

Another editor thought this absolutely empty article about an obviously non notable government organization did not qualify for speedy A7, so here we are. John from Idegon (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed. Absolutely no notability as per WP:GNG and WP:FRINGE. BTW, who was it that thought did not qualify? I see no interaction on the page- just you adding then removing the CSD tag!!! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It had been listed for CSD in May by another editor, and then the tag removed as inapplicable.[21] I agree that it doesn't fit into what we mean by "organization" in the criteria, because (AFAIK) we don't consider units or agencies of governments within that term, and even if we did this is a facility. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable lockup belonging to a sheriff's office of dubious notability itself. RS interest is limited to routine and incidental coverage from the local papers. (Arrested people are booked there). • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, which already mentions it, and broaden the "prison" section to law enforcement generally (and also redirect Natchitoches Parish Sheriff's Office there). postdlf (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a plausible redirect to the parish or the sheriff's office, this is not eligible for deletion (WP:R). Content is mergeable. A7 is absolutely out of the question. A prison is clearly a building. A building is not an organisation. Might well be notable. Not opposed to actually keeping this. The "find sources" links above do not produce all the sources, firstly due to it having other names, and secondly due to Google's problem with speech marks. For example, a search for Natchitoches Parish Jail (without speech marks) in GBooks produces quite a few relevant results that don't come up when speech marks are used (including some that should come up). Reliable coverage is not limited to newspapers, local or otherwise. There is stuff in GBooks, in particular. Had a capacity of 67 in 1981: [22]. (Presumably that means 67 inmates). James500 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In fact, in view of the coverage in more than 120 results in GNews for "Natchitoches Parish Detention Center" alone, and the coverage elsewhere, I am positively in favour of keeping this. James500 (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of these ghits are passing mentions, usually saying suspect X "was booked into the Natchitoches Parish Detention Center." No in-depth coverage about the facility. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A statement to the effect of "X was detained in the prison" is coverage about the prison. It might even be worth mentioning in the article if X is sufficiently famous. Significant coverage is more than one trivial mention, but hundreds of brief mentions might contribute something to notability. I would have thought that the fact that something was constantly in the press was an indicator of notability. It suggests that the prison is impossible, or at least difficult, to ignore. "Overwhelming majority" isn't all of them, so what about the others? The coverage in GBooks looks detailed. For example, the National Jail and Adult Detention Directory contains what looks like an encyclopedia article on the prison. The material in The Last Hayride is not a trivial mention, which, to me, means something like an entry in a phonebook. Neither is the coverage in Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, which gives statistics, over no less than four pages, about the inmates who claim to have been sexually abused there. James500 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of those news sources being "about" the jail is not consistent with consensus interpretation of GNG. News stories saying that suspect X was detained there don't become more than trivial and incidental mentions just because there have been hundreds of them because that doesn't in any way help us write an article about the jail itself. And judging from the Gbooks view, the National Jail and Adult Detention Directory is just that, a directory of all jails, which just lists contact info, year of construction, and the names of the sheriff and warden. That's far from an "encyclopedia article". The Last Hayride material talks about the jail only regarding a former sheriff's policies there in the context of a single parish sheriff election. I don't think that or statistics from a national DOJ survey (Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates) provide a basis for a standalone article on this jail, not when you imagine what a spotty and ultimately trivial article would result. I'd expect all state or federal prisons to merit articles, but this is merely a county jail (LA calls counties "parishes"), which the aforementioned Directory said had a mere staff of 5 in 1995 (while prisons may have hundreds). Given all of that, the level of appropriate coverage for this jail would seem to be one or two sentences in an appropriate article noting the jail exists and relating core facts such as capacity, and/or inclusion in a list of prisons/jails/detention facilities for the state. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus interpretation of GNG. If there was any consensus, it would by now be included in the guideline in express words. And where would this consensus come from? Show me the specific RfC in question if there is one. What the news stories have done is to compile a lengthy list of people detained in the prison, and the circumstances of their detention, presumably because they consider it important. Otherwise, why keep mentioning it? It would be technically feasible for us to reproduce that, thereby providing a means of expanding the article. BLP might prevent us from including that immediately, but (barring major advances in medicine) it won't apply forever (because, in the present state of things, people do eventually die), and it doesn't affect the notability of a place for which there are other sources. The National Jail and Adult Detention Directory also includes, in addition to the things you mentioned, rated cap, number of staff, number of COs, planned changes (namely a new facility), size of "op budget" (nearly a quarter of a million dollars), "pop" (presumably population/number of detainees), size of cap budget and total admissions: [23]. That looks like a detailed encyclopedia article to me, and some of the articles in the book (for bigger prisons) are even more detailed. For our purposes, a "directory" is a bare list with no annotations other than contact details, like a phone book. It will not mention age or size (whether in terms of numbers of people or the amount of money). Just because a book labels itself as a "directory" doesn't mean it is one for our purposes. Whether The Last Hayride "talks about the jail only regarding a former sheriff's policies there in the context of a single parish sheriff election" is irrelevant, as GNG says that the topic need not be the primary subject of the source. That book discusses the prison directly and at great length. I can't see any grounds for excluding the DOJ statistics either (which I note were republished by a commercial bookseller). I am not convinced that coverage of criticism based on the presence of pornography in, or the absence of religious services from, the prison is a trivial subject (even if federal law is the cause). Statistics on sexual abuse certainly will not make for a trivial article. I don't think that an article based on the available sources would be "spotty", but in any event, I don't see that as a valid objection, as there are many historically important topics for which only "spotty" information is available. And there are other sources in GBooks. I think an adequate description of this jail would take more than one or two sentences (unless they are unusually long sentences). I don't think the number of staff is the relevant number. I think the relevant number is the maximum capacity (which seems to have been 67 prisoners in 1981). James500 (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - As the nominator, redirecting to the Parrish would be a completely acceptable outcome for this. John from Idegon (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I don't even see the need for a redirect —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:R, our guideline, we only delete plausible redirects if they are positively harmful. This doesn't meet any of the criteria for deletion. It does however satisfy many of the criteria for keeping, including navigation, facilitating accidental linking, avoiding creation of duplicate article, preserving useful page history etc. James500 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monster High characters

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

Basically, commercial and fan trivia of no encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Nothing particularly commercial, info verifiable, and fans are people, too, and deserve to be informed. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three sources in the article, all WP:PRIMARY from either the doll line's website or a YouTube channel promoting a paint-by-numbers YA tie-in? For such a long article, this is beyond unacceptable. This has managed to get much worse than it was in 2013. At most, redirect to Monster High#Characters, where the main characters that actually appear as more than vague in-jokes three people would get are sufficiently summed up rather than 100 words about some mummy cat a septunary character may have owned in webisode #149. But as it is, three primary sources and no others in an article would guarantee delete in most cases. And in response to Staszek, Monster High fans are well-informed; there's an entire wiki about the franchise; we're not here to be the only source about Monster High minutia. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge The list can be trimmed to the six original release characters who get prominent marketing on the official website, and whoever else is designated as main from the TV series and videos, but that can be summarized on the main franchise article. However, the franchise does have 70+ characters with dolls, and has grabbed a notable share from the Barbie franchise. And since I placed the primary and secondary source on this article, I would like that to be retained as useful information. You can exclude the youtube video or convert that to a cite episode. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and don't merge. It is common in articles to spin off "List of ..." to keep the article from becoming too big. This is a popular doll franchise. We have List of Barbie's friends and family and List of Bratz characters. As Wikipedia attracts more female editors, there will be more articles about female interests. Dolls are an active area for adult collectors. Wikipedia is already home to everything you could possibly want to know about the 721 Pokemon characters. See Category:Lists of Pokémon. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing them with briefer descriptions as with Barbie's friends and family could work. I would still limit the list to the ones with actual dolls and the main characters from the novels and cartoons, which my 2015 edits have done. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. It is a good page to list the characters of Monster High regardless if either of them have dolls or not. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be limited to the ones with dolls and major characters from the books and cartoons. It should not be an exhaustive list of guest stars, pets and parents. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Davewild (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhauli Nag Temple

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

No evidence of notability. Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Whereas the temple is possibly historic and notable, I was not able to find any reliable English sources describing it in any detail.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Diatribe

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

The band's only album was released in its own studio, so it doesn't seem to pass criterion #5 from WP:BAND. There are a lot of links that allegedly support the content of the article in a rather unidentified way, but it's not clear which statement is supported by which source, or which of these references make the band notable. Many of these are a passing mention, others are not reliable sources, some I can't even access because of content filters (which says a lot about them). In short, the only claim to notability is WP:GNG, and it's unclear which sources account for notability and how. - Andrei (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some link has been added to the article of the indenpendent labels who released the band's albums.

- Errorofmind (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They also have an album review in the Hungarian offline Metal Hammer magazine (which is an evidence that the band counts and they are notable): * Omega Diatribe album review - Errorofmind (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narding Anzures

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

Delete: as non-notable entertainer. Quis separabit? 15:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - My searches actually found more about him such as News (where it says his name was Bernardo), Books (where a 1990 book says "one of pre-war movies* top child stars", Newspapers Archive, (one link about the incarceration) and Highbeam (one link about Lilian Valdez). It's possible some sources are archived, non-English (though the amount of coverage I found was surprisingly in English) and offline. Essentially, he may not be notable and probably received the best coverage for his child acting years (10 years length, 1937-47) until also receiving coverage for killing Lilian Valdez. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Am willing to userfy if requested but no evidence has been produced here to refute the delete opinions that the notability guidelines have not been met. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venture Mfg. Co.

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The BizJournals.com ref is the only one that comes up. I could find no other coverage. Jbh ^Talk 13:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have edited the Venture Mfg. Co. Wikipedia page as per your suggestions and Wikipedia guidelines. To the most extent, we are following the suggested guidelines. We hope that no negative action will be taken by Wikipedia. We are in the process of sourcing stronger references for the page. As we collect more reference links, we will add them to the page.Paul Hollis (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Hollis: From the wording of your statement it seems you might be associated with or employed by the subject of the article. If this is the case please read the Wikipedia policy of conflict of interest. Undeclared paid editing ie by an employee, is prohibited by the WP:Terms of Use. Please see Meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh ^Talk 16:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft if needed - Unfortunately, this company has not received good solid coverage and my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing good aside from business listings at Books. SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of the article Paul Hollis is the same as the President of the company. See 'declaration' here. Jbh ^Talk 15:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hassan El-Feky

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

Non-notable person. No sources can be found to assert notability for this artist. Being the son of a notable artist is not relevant. The proposed deletion was removed (without edit summary comment) by an IP editor, so taking to AFD instead. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no RSes provided to substantiate claims. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this requires sourcing. Those sources reasonably might be in Arabic and/or offline. Sources may focus primarily on other topics, yet cover this subject in adequate depth. So, for example, sources covering his relationship with his father would be both relevant and useful, even if they principally focused on the father. But in the absence of any sourcing, this is irrelevant cannot be kept. Le petit fromage (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it - the article was updated and offline references added. I suggest keeping it. Any further tips/advice are welcome. Karim M. Ayyad (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — K.ayyad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "offline reference" (singular: one magazine article, cited twice) that was added is

El-Baz, Z (2001). "Surrealistic and creative: Mohamed Hassan, the Pharaoh of the mountain". Nisf Al Dunia. 587: 123.

Nisf al-dunya is an Egyptian women's magazine. A search of their website (here) for El-Feky's name (in Arabic) shows no results. I don't speak Arabic, so I may not be navigating the magazine's website correctly, and it is possible that the magazine does not have archives as far back as 2001, so assuming good faith that this article does exist, it is still only a single article, and in a popular magazine, not in an arts-centric publication, so it still does little to bolster El-Feky's notability as an artist.

Delete - web searches in Latin script turn up nothing, we can't speculate whether there might be something in Arabic script, either the creator of the article adds some sources in Arabic, or somebody else who can read it does it. So far there's nothing, one off-line source of unknown depth. Kraxler (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touring Europe With A Blast From The Past

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Jbh ^Talk 13:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NALBUM. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose instead of redirecting to Cloudscape's discography as my searches found nothing to suggest good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf Strohmayer

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

There are an OK number of GScholar hits, but it doesn't quite add up to WP:PROF or WP:GNG for me. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully we can get it resolved one way or another now. Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His top-cited work, "Space and Social Theory" (about which I also found a couple of book reviews [24] [25]) is an edited volume, a type of publication we generally give less credit for (or require stronger evidence of notability, to put it more positively). His remaining citation counts on Google scholar, 44, 22, 17, 17, etc, are not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remember stumbling upon a small entry on him in some encyclopedia-like book some years ago. However, I can't find the title at the moment, and I was generally puzzled by its choice of entries (~~no Torsten Hägerstrand, for example~~), so I wouldn't consider it a good reference anyways. I know where I could find the physical copy (Frankfurt University Library), but it's probably not worth the effort. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Academic who lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So I finally went to my alma mater's library and found the book: Encyclopaedic biography of world great geographists, by Chandra Dip Singh. This revision of the article is a direct copy of Strohmayer's entry there, and considering it was edited by user "Strohmayer" about one year before the book was published, I'd say both entries are written by Ulf Strohmayer himself. Btw, I was wrong about Hägerstrand (there is an entry on him in that encyclopedia), but there're still some "geographists" (sic) missing from the book who I'd consider much more important than Strohmayer. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe I should assume the obvious: That this book actually contains copies of WP articles. I'm going to ask someone in the German WP to check the book in the Frankfurt university library. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Tarrant

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

I couldn't verify that he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Teacher who has exhibited, but this seems to just be a coi advert. Tagged for notability for over 7 years, unresolved; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder if he meets WP:ARTIST. Mhhossein (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Not to be confused with New Zealander architect Guy Tarrant who was an artist in his youth.[26] Colapeninsula (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is ripe for wiki-lawyering, but if you accept that his show Confiscation Cabinets at the Victoria and Albert Museum's Museum of Childhood, London was an art show (i.e. that Tarrant was acting in his capacity as an artist when he created it), then he meets WP:ARTIST thanks to coverage of his work in legitimate publications.[27][28][29][30][31][32] If you don't accept that it's art (even in these days when curation is art[33]), then he may meet WP:GNG with all that coverage, but most is about the exhibition not him. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete So far this is a wp:blp1e and it is too early to know if there will be a 2nd Event. The exhibit looks to have been clever, and may on its own be notable, but the person himself is not (yet). LaMona (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources in the article are mostly about the exhibition, not about Tarrant. Web searches turn up social media, and mentions of his exhibitions. Well, he assembled/collected the items, but that doesn't quite make him an artist. Kraxler (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No one espoused outright deletion after sourcing was found. Instead, the question became what kind of article can be written. These are normal editing discussions, and can continue on the talk page. If consensus arises to merge that can be accomplished outside of AFD. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parkroyal

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, unresolved. I couldn't verify that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It is an international business and the hotels look very nice, it is listed on the usual Tripadvisor, laterooms etc., but I couldn't verify notability. It was speey deleted at AfD in 2007, but this was for copyvio/advert, which may have been solved; I also cannot see for sure if it was the same company. Boleyn (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts which also needs considerable work but could meet WP:GNG. Flat Out (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH with ease. Simply selecting the News link atop provides plenty of sig cov in rs: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. See also, section D of WP:BEFORE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Review: High-tech Parkroyal Darling Harbour". NewsComAu.
^ "Hotel of the Week - Parkroyal Darling Harbour, Sydney". The Australian.
^ Pooja Thakur Mahrotri (15 January 2013). "Raffles Place Room Shortage Eases With Parkroyal: Southeast Asia". Bloomberg.com.
^ "Parkroyal on Pickering, Singapore - a slice of jungle paradise in the city". South China Morning Post. 14 March 2015.
^ "Parkroyal Parramatta's $25 million extension". Spice magazine.
^ "A breath of fresh flair". The Australian.
^ "Pan Pacific to introduce Parkroyal brand in RI". thejakartapost.com.

Also, http://blogs.wsj.com/scene/2013/06/07/singapores-new-urban-oasis/, which discusses Parkroyal on Pickering's design. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)'s sources are from reputable publications in Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, and the United States. The subject is clearly notable.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Parkroyal to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts. Yes, Parkroyal technically meets GNG and CORPDEPTH, but is it really a stand-alone article topic? Seems like a WP:PERMASTUB to me, as there is "little important to say about the subject." What could an article for a minor hotel brand include if it was developed into the best article it could be? As for Northamerica1000's sources above. Numbers 1, 2, 4 and 6 are hotel reviews. Are hotel reviews really "significant"? #3 has some news reporting, but the article is focused on the general market conditions for hotels in Singapore and the parent company, Pan Pacific, more than the Parkroyal. #7 is a disguised press release and I have doubts that #5 is a reliable source [34]: "SpiceNews is a free bi-weekly newsletter for the events industry that curates everything new, inspiring and relevant in hotel and venue openings and refurbishments, special events, event suppliers and services, destinations, airlines, as well as the meetings, incentives, conference and exhibition sectors." "Curates" and "everything" are contradictory, and it looks like "everything" wins out. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at North America's list of sources, and for the most part, agree with Mnnlaxer that a bunch of travel reviews doesn't meet the bar of WP:CORPDEPTH. Redirect or selective merge as suggested. We certainly don't need the table of how many rooms each property has. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mnnlaxer says the topic does meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said "technically", which means I don't think the subject is notable even though it passes some criteria. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts; while the article may technically meet WP:CORPDEPTH, most of the coverage is simply related to hotel reviews, the article does not appear that it can be expanded beyond an incomplete stub, and any relevant information can be added to the Pan Pacific Hotels article. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with a merge of Parkroyal to Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts. I also disagree that Parkroyal has no potential at growing beyond a permastub. From http://www.parkroyalhotels.com/en/about.html: "The PARKROYAL portfolio comprises 17 hotels, resorts and serviced suites in gateway cities across Asia and Australia, including those under development." The article can be expanded by discussing the history, architecture, and reception of Parkroyal's 17 hotels. The sources Northamerica1000 has pointed out are a good starting point for that. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote doesn't prove anything, it is from the company. The article can only discuss those things if there are independent, reliable sources for them. those sources are a good starting point for marketing materials for the Parkroyal. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote verifies the uncontroversial fact that Parkroyal has 17 hotels. Those 17 hotels can be discussed in the article using as a basis the independent reliable sources that Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) has listed above. News.com.au, The Australian, Bloomberg Businessweek, South China Morning Post, The Jakarta Post, and The Wall Street Journal are all independent reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VOX POP (debate)

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

Do not meet the requirement. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-notable event. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 10:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn following finding of reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BNS Durdondo

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

~~Non-notable navel vessel. Two of the three refs are link dead and the third doesn't mention the subject. Some stuff in google, but nothing reliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)~~ Withdraw per reliable source found by User:Worldbruce. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three links are now working. The sources describe pennant number P-8128 as BNS Dordanda, so the title of the article may be incorrect. It may be a case of different ways to transliterate a Bengali name. Worldbruce (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the links are repaired, article should be kept. And for spelling controversy, Dordanda and Durdondo have the same pronunciation in Bangla. Sf-000 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The problems seem to be fixed so I suppose there's no need to delete the article. I'd suggest a rename if the website seems to be using BNS Dordanda. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 23:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note the links have been repaired to https://web.archive.org URLs, but none of these sites are reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the absence of a deletion sorting for ships, I've pinged WikiProject Ships for their input. Worldbruce (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Precedent suggests a strong consensus favoring presumptive notability for named warships. I cannot remember an AfD that resulted in the deletion of an article about a named warship that was proven to exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ad Orientem I'm happy to withdraw my nomination if there's a reliable source which can be used to prove this ship exists, but I'm not seeing one. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stuartyeates. See this list. The website appears to be pretty authoritative on all matters pertaining to the Bangladesh Armed Forces. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page 11 of this US Department of State budget document for 2014 includes a line item for one student from the BNS Dordanda taking the course "OJT-Cutter Transfer Training (High Endurance Cutter)" at Coast Guard PACAREA Alameda, California. Worldbruce (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angola at major beauty pageants

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

Content fork from Miss Angola (that has better sources). Based on related sources. The Banner talk 09:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive Concentration

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

WP:TOOSOON. Article is a summary of a single arXiv preprint that, according to GScholar, has been cited exactly once, in another arXiv preprint. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per nom - essay/summary of original work that has not been found notable at least yet.

This being said, my web search led me to think "adaptative random forests" is a real subject, with papers being published and dating back to 2006 (alas, all papers were paywalled, so it might be a completely different thing). My !vote comes without prejudice against the (re)creation of an article about that. Tigraan (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Beckerleg

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

Apparently not notable by our standards. Two in-house awards from his employer, one minor, one perhaps less so, are not enough to justify his inclusion here. One hit on Scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article doesn't indicate any claim for notability, no independent coverage, just another recently deceased engineer, Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Kraxler (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be an article created by a family member, clearly a good guy who worked hard but nothing that makes him stand out from the crowd and makes him notable enough for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boosted K-Means Clustering

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

Non-notable research paper. I dream of horses (T) @ 08:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom, this is a summary of a research paper; if the theory is found notable, some cleanup is required. Now, with 48 cites in a journal with an impact factor of 1, I do not know how to evaluate notability in such a specific field. 48 cites could be a lot, or under the average. Tigraan (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think 48 cites of a research paper that is 11 years old is that impressive or indicates particular notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corbet Woodall

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

Non-notable newsreader and actor (who mostly played newsreaders) and my searches found nothing significant here, here, here and here (all passing mentions and the last two Highbeam and Thefreelibrary have the same results and Newspapers Archive search found nothing). As a possible move target, the only possibility is List of The Goodies guest stars. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Woodall was "known to millions in the early 1960s" as this obituary states. This gives some detail on his posts as TV and radio presenter, and this lists appearances in The Goodies and in films. This reminiscence contains information on his later broadcasting career. He figures in a work of fiction as a "familiar face". The article should stay and become better referenced: Noyster (talk), 14:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; agree with Noyster, a familiar face to Britons in the 1960s and 1970s, even if we didn't always know his name. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have said - a prominent face on British national TV in the 1960s/70s, definitely meets notability requirements. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Supermarket

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

No assertion of significance, notability is vague (or nil, as no references are included). If the article is about a well known landmark, it does not emphasize on the land mark rather than the subject itself. Delete, as a proposer. JAaron95 (Talk) 05:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG per ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. Also, I feel that an assertion of importance is existent in the article, as the market/mall being one of the first supermarkets in Petaling Jaya. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Landmark neighbourhood mall in Petaling Jaya to reopen its doors". The Star.
^ "Nostalgic new mall launched". The Star.
^ "Malls start refocusing on suburbs". The Star.
^ "Jaya Supermart Collapse: 'Something not done right'". The Star.
^ "Jaya Supermarket demolition done without approval". The Star.
^ "Firms charged over lack of safety in supermarket collapse". The Star.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AutoVirt

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

What appears to be a non-notable software that didn't make much of an impact in its few years of existence. My searches found some results here, here, here and here. The article is sourced so I'm not sure if this can make it passable and moving elsewhere is not possible as there's no good target. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article created during the company's active life. All I am seeing is routine announcements (funding, partnership, demise) which falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chang H. Ahn

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

I'm not sure if this man is notable or if the company is either (if it is, an article can be started and this moved there) but my searches for Chang Ahn were not exactly fruitful here, here, here, here and here. My searches found several results for Rexahn themselves but, again, I'm not sure if they could be notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of passing WP:GNG can be turned up. As it is, the article provides none. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article's only source is the subject's company's website, no other sources can be found, except directories and social media Kraxler (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox Fitness

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

I'm not sure if this is notable as it has received a lot of coverage as shown here, here, here, here and here but nothing actually significant (no notable and in-depth coverage). This has probably received a lot of attention because it's New York although it seems they have been expanding locations. It seems it started expanding to operate hotels now but I'm not seeing anything specifically notable about this so it'd probably be better to move to The Related Companies, the parent company. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - hugely, hugely famous company. I don't know why you couldn't find anything. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. A ton of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that I don't think all of those links could be considered significant, notable and in-depth coverage as compared to Gold's Gym or any other company. Some of that coverage is a little promotional/fluff and such. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be a deletionist, but this one isn't even close. There's literally hundreds of reliable sources there, and hundreds more reliable sources about most of its subsidiaries. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikimandia and these news sources [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] as well as these book/mag sources [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] - The sources aren't perfect but notability is there - IMHO the article needs improving not deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 19:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MAM USA Corporation

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

I was going to PROD this but then I thought there may be a slim chance good sources aren't in English. Multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no coverage even in the slightest to suggest this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too promotional, in my opinion. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was never tagged as sourceless (which it should've been). I have tagged the page with {{unreferenced}}, but I do see how this may not be notable. Also, it has been tagged as a possible advertisment since 2010. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morrissey Hospitality Companies, Inc.

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

Non-notable company with my searches finding nothing particularly significant and notable here (both News and Newspapers Archive found the same results), here and here. Some of the sources mentioning some of the properties could improve the article but I don't think to the notability level. I could've easily PRODded this but I wanted to give users an opportunity to comment. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entry reads like an ad for the company with nothing notable or outstanding about it. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Would you like to comment? I think it's an obvious case of non-notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete not notable--only announcements are likely to be found. DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muvizu

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

Promotional article of non-notable product. A quick google search doesn't come up with any reliable sources. All references (other than the ones that 404) point to their own site. Been tagged for notability for two years. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A google source found five references. ([57][58][59][60][61]) While 3 of them are from the same website and I'm not certain about the reliability or usability of the last one, I believe there are enough references to support a semblence of notability. Pishcal — ♣ 01:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Pishcal's findings appear to demonstrate notability. --Jpcase (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tachikawa-ryu

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has serious reliability and verifiability problems. The overwhelming majority of this article traces back to John Stevens who is not reliable. Mr. Stevens believes that Tachikawa-ryu persists to this very day as some sort of secret underground sex cult. Additionally Stevens’s “Tantra of the Tachikawa Ryu” is a work of erotic fiction and certainly not a reliable source. The Tachikawa-ryu article on Japanese Wikipedia may or may not have reliable sources, but they aren’t doing this article any good, and there’s no indication that they ever will.

Additionally, parts of the article are written from such a ridiculously in-universe perspective as to be totally incomprehensible. This article has been tagged for years; it’s high time it got deleted. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh 666 02:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adds Japanese {{Find sources AFD}}, and definitely reveals multiple books and news dedicated to the school (on various stances, I might add). It should be noted that I find after a cursory read that sourcing here is much deficient compared with the vast amount of text in the body. I have no objection to a WP:TNT to start over if editors with expertise here thinks so. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument was made during the last deletion discussion four years ago. Since then these allegedly reliable sources have not found their way into the article. If there are no editors with the language skills, willingness, and competence to fix the article then all the sources on Earth aren’t going to help. Should we really keep a bad article around indefinitely because it might get better? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added two external links and three literary sources, one of them by the renowned Buddhologist Faure. Otaku00 (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read those “two external links and three literary sources” before you put them into the article? In the PDF you linked to the author argues that the manuscripts which can definitely be traced to Tachikawa-ryu do not include any “perverse” teachings. He argues that the skull ritual and other sexual elements attributed to Tachikawa-ryu were wrongly attributed to it and that they should, instead, be attributed to a different unnamed school. The PDF that you linked to directly contradicts the article as it currently exists. It suggests that virtually nothing is known about Tachikawa-ryu except its name, the name of its founder, the date of its founding, and that it was heterodox. If anything this seems to make an even stronger case for deletion because the current article doesn’t describe Tachikawa-ryu, instead it describes the unnamed school that Tachikawa-ryu is wrongly conflated with. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to withdraw the nomination. The article is in terrible condition, but I now believe that the state of the scholarship is such that it might permit a small but encyclopedic article to be written about Tachikawa-ryu. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claret Samal Foundation

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

Non-notable foundation, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 04:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 04:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I only founded sources such as this, this, this and this. I'd say not notable, but I'm not sure. Mhhossein (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (with no possible target for moving elsewhere) - Existing since 2009 with continuous issues including copyvios (without the slightest improvement such as better sources) is concerning and that fuels my thoughts of deletion but my searches also found no significant coverage here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Tsalmpouris

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

Not a notable basketball player. Averaged a measly 1.4 points per game for a good but not great Iowa State team. Seems to be his only claim to relevance was him being the seventh seven-footer in the school's history. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios is a notable player in european basketball circuits. He plays for the Greek national team and shows great promise. He only had low stat averages his freshman year because of a deep Iowa State front court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.112.137 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear he played for the Greek U18 team, not the national team. But if you can find enough sources to establish notability, by all means go ahead. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be at best a case of WP:TOOSOON, and even then only if he improves significantly. I did a quick google search and found nothing more significant in terms of sources that what was used within the first 5 pages of results. FIBA and Iowa State sources wouldn't be independent leaving only a blurb on his euro exploits from a beat writer in the Des Moines Register and one feature article in the same paper that only highlights his lack of notability by pointing out how much of an event it is when he finally gets off the bench. If he's notable in European Circuits, perhaps some English-language sources from there could be found, but otherwise it needs to be deleted. SCMatt33 (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's considered to be one of the top talents in both European players and US college players. Being rated in the best players of both Europe and NCAA sophomores, and also a high NBA draft prospect in the coming years. But the article is full of errors. I am trying to fix it.Bluesangrel (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is not considered one of the top sophomores in the country, I don't know where you got that information. He did absolutely nothing his freshman year at Iowa State. Perhaps the situation is different in Europe, but as of the moment, the article gives absolutely no indication of notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is considered to be one of the top ranked NCAA freshmen according to draftexpress.com. He did not play a lot because of being a true freshman and being in a stacked front court in Iowa State. If you would actually know about the scouts rankings, and not just the ones that are from before anyone knew who he was in USA, then you would know he is rated as one of top talents in NCAA. Actually, he's ranked that way even in draftexpress.com despite not having played at all basically. He simply was not going to play hardly at all as a true freshman, in such a loaded front court. Especially since he came from being such an inexperienced player in Europe, where he only had played in a small town and not even in the Greek youth program. I would wager money even he is considered a much bigger prospect in USA than he is in Europe. Saying he averaged 1.4 points per game is pretty meaningless on that point, since they never intended for him to play much his first year. Regardless, I can back up that he's definitely considered one of the top NCAA talents. If you want some confirmation, draftexpress.com has him ranked at #62 in the NCAA freshman rankings (which is the highest of the ranking groupings, as each class higher you go the players are less likely to get drafted into the NBA, and remember there are 60 draft picks) and from my personal knowledge of international basketball, I believe that draftexpress.com has the strongest bias against international players of just about any ranking site out there. Here is the NCAA freshman ranking list at draftexpress.com [62] Tsalmpouris was at #62, and most of the players ranked above him already got drafted into the NBA, and the ones that did not are now on NBA mock drafts for the next draft. So yes, he is considered to be one of the top NCAA talents. Regardless of how much playing time he did or did not get as a true freshman in a stacked Iowa State front court. That much is a true issue.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how highly regarded he may be by some (and your evidence doesn't make me think that it is), you have not produced anything which would make me think that he passes WP:GNG. The fact that he never played in a youth program and does not appear to be a big import does not make it seem like he is all that important. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely stating that he is in fact considered one of the top NCAA talents and prospects and that your opinion that he is not isn't correct. An opinion can be anyone's opinion, but it does not make it right. What the other editor said about that was correct. All I was saying, was the other editor that mentioned that particular thing, which was questioned and claimed as being untrue was telling the truth about that. He is considered one of the top NCAA talents and prospects. We can keep arguing about an individual's personal opinion on here claiming otherwise, but I don't find that to be very constructive. I was not doing anything other than backing up that in fact what that other editor said on that matter was true. Simply because they said something true and they were being called out on it, as if they were lying. And now looks like I am also. If the article does not meet the standard, just say so. If an article does not meet the criteria, say it does not. And we can agree on it. But it's unnecessary to argue and dispute over something trivial like the fact that the player is considered a top NCAA talent, when he is and to accuse on some claiming that. The player can be a top NCAA talent and prospect, while also not meeting the article criteria. It's not mutually exclusive. There is no need to add on other unnecessary commentary. Let's keep it civil please.Bluesangrel (talk)

Comment - if people think Tsalmpouris meets WP:GNG, please link some sources that establish this. I haven't had time to do my own research, but I can tell you he's not so well known as a college player that this is a "no brainer." Rikster2 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't see how he'd meet WP:NBASKETBALL with a few college games, and national youth games as his sole experience. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to West_Nyack,_New_York#Landmarks_and_places_of_interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rockland Center for the Arts

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

fails WP:ORG Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 4 NY Times sources, unfortunately there all just notices about events, so show they had a few events, not any actual notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to West_Nyack,_New_York#Landmarks_and_places_of_interest or mention at Maxwell Anderson as an alternative to deletion. The best my searches found (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) was this and this. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to West Nyack, New York § Landmarks and places of interest. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC) I'm also okay with a redirect. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Nyack, New York § Landmarks and places of interest. I added info on Maxwell Anderson and citations there. Nothing else noteworthy in current article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Banish (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banishment (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. "Banishment" redirects to Exile. That page's hatnote should contain a link leading to the only article with the (almost) exact name, The Banishment. The other "entry" is a link leading to Banesh, a village in Iran alternatively spelled "Banish". "Banish" redirects to Exile as well, btw. Potential people looking for the film by its main word "Banishment" type in that word and end up at Exile, where they have to click on a link to take them to the dab page instead of directly to the article. People looking for the village by its alternate name type in "Banish" and end up at Exile as well, where they have to go to a dab page to finally get to the page they're looking for. Isn't disambiguation meant to direct readers to the desired page as quickly as possible? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 6 valid entries (probably lots more), plus 3 very valid see alsos. Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those moving to keep, how is "Banishment" a disambiguation for "Banish" and "Banished?" Is a Persian speaker likely to have "-ment" as a suffix for "town?" I get that there is a movie called "Banishment," but that's the only actual disambiguation on the page currently. That's probably enough for a "keep," but those others are a bit lardy. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Your above comment, Hithladaeus, is more an argument that the title should be Banish (disambiguation) (which redirects to the dab in question) rather than Banishment (disambiguation). With the page how it currently is, I'd agree, but not with the page as it was originally constructed. This dab is for the two similar words, Banish and Banishment, per WP:DABNAME: When a disambiguation page combines several similar terms, one of them must be selected as the title for the page (with the "(disambiguation)" tag added if a primary topic exists for that term). Putting similar terms on the one dab is quite normal, and in this case, nothing would be gained from separating to two dabs, or adding to the already distracting number of hatnotes at Exile. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I said, having a movie by the same title would be an argument for "keep" anyway, so that's how it was looking. What you're suggesting is that we've got a dual dab with a hidden redirect. (That's also a reason why this might be a reason for this debate to not take place here. It's not really an article for deletion, is it?) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the one entry be an argument for keep, since the hatnote at the page the term redirects to, Exile, would be sufficient? ps. it says at WP:DAB that AfD is the place to nominate these pages, so that's why it's here. Also, Boleyn kept insisting that was the way to go, so.. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 19:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only count 1 valid entry. The others will probably belong on Banish (disambiguation)--provided the two people with the last name "Banish" even qualify (which they don't), since WP:PTM states that articles on people should only be listed on a dab page if they are reasonably well-known by their surname. Those two "entries" don't have an article of their own. Might as well search people on Facebook for "Banish" and starting listing them. Should we also include some black people with the name "Banisha"?

So to recap, one entry for an article that is ambiguous with the term "Banishment" and two entries for "Banish". Readers can easily be redirected to those pages with a hatnote on Exile. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 19:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that Banish (disambiguation) didn't redirect to this page until it was created about half an hour ago by Boleyn.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 19:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, before I commented at the AfD I looked at ways to improve the page per WP:ATD, bearing in mind that Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. Boleyn (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd rather have redirected the page to elsewhere and put the one entry in the hatnote on Exile, but since you just revert everything and the discussion led nowhere I was left with no other choice. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a surname and dab page in one, categorised as such, like many dab pages are. Therefore the surname entries are clearly valid, and both meet MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Banish (disambiguation) per the discussion above. Most entries on that page are known as "banish" and it makes more sense to use the root word. Other than that, this disambiguation is fine per Boleyn. Tavix | Talk 03:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Banish (disambiguation), and banish the film to See also. A redirect hatnote from Exile to The Banishment makes more sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While were at it, shouldn't Banished be redirected to Exile and its entries merged to Banish (disambiguation) once it's renamed? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sounds like a good idea. It bothers me that there would be no directly linked articles (if Banishment were to be jettisoned). Clarityfiend (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should the contents of Banished be merged into this? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, per WP:CSD G5. — Earwig ^talk 23:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing... Dina Rae

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

Non-notable album. I can’t find significant coverage of the album in independent reliable sources. —teb728 t c 01:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC) —teb728 t c 01:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dina Rae (singer). The content appears to be there already. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I am totally eff'ed the CD my friend gave me was on a Tesco CD-R and it don't even have a track listing so I am freestyling on (some of) the song names so if we redirect I won't be peed off but can we just please keep And? Kandiwell 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable album. Article created by sockpuppet of banned editor MariaJaydHicky. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Creation by blocked sock, with an AfD that was clearly headed for delete. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Even C It

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

Non-notable song. I can’t find significant coverage of the song in independent reliable sources. —teb728 t c 00:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC) —teb728 t c 00:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's because it was a promotional song, that Motown sent to for radio air play ONLY Kandiwell 10:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per admission by article's author that the song is not notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have a look at Ciara's That's Right it's a promotional single too; if Can't Even C It goes so should That's Right Kandiwell 20:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reason "That's Right" is notable is because of its reviews. (What reviews does "Can't Even C It" have?) I bet that "That's Right" was not "sent to for radio air play ONLY". Ordinarily the title of a non-notable song would be redirected to the article on its notable album, but Introducing...Dina Rae is even more insignificant than "Can't Even C It". —teb728 t c 21:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have the single but it not really as known as And? or the Eminem + Dina Rae Superman collaboration but IF and only IF you (Kandiwell or anyone) can find more information IE background + shizz then yeah keep it Losthirsty (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Losthirsty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note The author, Kandiwell, has been blocked as a sock of banned MariaJaydHicky. I suspect Losthirsty as well, but there hasn't been anything official done. Primefac (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The song exists, and that's about all that can be verified. Primefac (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable song. Article created by sockpuppet of banned editor MariaJaydHicky. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5, sock of User:MariaJaydHicky. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Sadharan Bima Corporation

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all primary or unreliable and thus unsuitable. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article references two books published by the University of Dhaka. The company is also covered in depth in Karim, Muhammad Rezaul (2012). "Sadharan Bima Corporation". In Islam, Sirajul; Jamal, Ahmed A. (eds.). Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh (Second ed.). Asiatic Society of Bangladesh., which I've always found an excellent indicator of notability for Bangladesh-related topics. It's also covered regularly in the press such as in this series of reports about the reintroduction of crop insurance:

Jahangir, Rahman (23 February 2013). "Crop insurance: A blessing for our farmers". The Financial Express.
Jahangir, Rahman (26 April 2013). "Motivating farmers for crop insurance". The Financial Express.
"Special allocation for crop insurance sought". The Financial Express. 2 June 2013.

The article needs improvement, but the topic meets WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep , company is notable, ^[1] is large state owned corporation. topic meets WP:CORP Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "SBC warned as Tk 4.0b premiums lie in arrears".

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 Socialist Party (England and Wales). I have kept the article history in case there is anything to merge. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party Wales

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

Generally no citations to any of the claims. Page is not for a political party, only a regional branch within a political party that has not had any media attention or general notoriety. Any useful information from this page can be put into the actual political party page, the Socialist Party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drowz0r (talk • contribs) 00:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful with the page Socialist Party England and Wales.

Page does not contain enough reliable information or citations to have it's own dedicated page. Nothing improved since 2008, including citations. No media attention or general notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drowz0r (talk • contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[CD-2001-1] Dowbenko, Uri. "Book Review". Conspiracy Digest. Retrieved 2 July 2015.

[Hatonn1994-2] Gyeorgos C. Hatonn (April 1994). Taking Off the Blindfold. Phoenix Source Distributors, Inc. pp. 97–. ISBN 978-1-56935-038-6.

[Farrell2006-3] Joseph P. Farrell (2006). The SS Brotherhood of the Bell: NASA's Nazis, JFK, and Majic-12. Adventures Unlimited Press. pp. 392–. ISBN 978-1-931882-61-3.

[Hatonn1993-4] Gyeorgos C. Hatonn (1 December 1993). Retirement Retreats: Or Which Concentration Camp Do You Prefer?. Phoenix Source Distributors, Inc. pp. 100–. ISBN 978-1-56935-027-0.

[Hatonn1994b-5] Gyeorgos C. Hatonn (1 June 1994). Criminal Polit Buros and Other Plagues. Phoenix Source Distributors, Inc. pp. 2–. ISBN 978-1-56935-041-6.

[Perez2010-6] Douglas Perez (1 January 2010). Paradoxes of Police Work. Cengage Learning. pp. 118–. ISBN 1-111-79025-6.

[GR-20061106-7] Chin, Larry (2006-11-09). "Bush administration's Trojan Horse gift to America and the Democrats: Former CIA Director and Iran-Contra insider Robert Gates". Global Research. Retrieved 2 July 2015.

[WW-20140520-8] Summers, Ken (2014-05-20). "Man without a Country: Who Was The Mystery Man from Taured?". Week in Weird. Retrieved 2 July 2015.

[MPA-20150702-9] Smith, John Barry. "Rupture at Midspan Latches of Cargo Door in Flight Probably Caused by Wiring/Electrical Fault". montereypeninsulaairport.com. Retrieved 2 July 2015.

[10] Flying Magazine. July 1992. pp. 104–. ISSN 0015-4806.

[SE-20150702-11] Simkin, John. "Rodney Stich". Spartacus Educational. Retrieved 2 July 2015.

[Ramsay2012-12] Robin Ramsay (3 February 2012). Conspiracy Theories. Oldcastle Books, Limited. pp. 37–. ISBN 978-1-84243-819-0.

[Gorightly2003-13] Adam Gorightly (2003). The Prankster and the Conspiracy: The Story of Kerry Thornley and How He Met Oswald and Inspired the Counterculture. Cosimo, Inc. pp. 200–. ISBN 978-1-61640-622-6.

[Fenster1999-14] Mark Fenster (1999). Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture. U of Minnesota Press. pp. 274–. ISBN 978-0-8166-3242-8.

[Gilman1982-15] Richard M. Gilman (1 December 1982). Behind World revolution: the strange career of Nesta H. Webster. Insights Books. ISBN 978-0-910087-00-1.

[BursteinKeijzer2010-16] Dan Burstein; Arne de Keijzer (18 November 2010). Secrets Of Angels And Demons. Orion. pp. 237–. ISBN 978-0-297-86490-5.

[17] ttp://timesofsandiego.com/tech/2014/08/27/san-diego-company-provides-wifi-u-s-open/

[18] ttp://timesofsandiego.com/tech/2014/08/27/san-diego-company-provides-wifi-u-s-open/

[19] "Review: High-tech Parkroyal Darling Harbour". NewsComAu.

[20] "Hotel of the Week - Parkroyal Darling Harbour, Sydney". The Australian.

[21] Pooja Thakur Mahrotri (15 January 2013). "Raffles Place Room Shortage Eases With Parkroyal: Southeast Asia". Bloomberg.com.

[22] "Parkroyal on Pickering, Singapore - a slice of jungle paradise in the city". South China Morning Post. 14 March 2015.

[23] "Parkroyal Parramatta's $25 million extension". Spice magazine.

[24] "A breath of fresh flair". The Australian.

[25] "Pan Pacific to introduce Parkroyal brand in RI". thejakartapost.com.

[26] "Landmark neighbourhood mall in Petaling Jaya to reopen its doors". The Star.

[27] "Nostalgic new mall launched". The Star.

[28] "Malls start refocusing on suburbs". The Star.

[29] "Jaya Supermart Collapse: 'Something not done right'". The Star.

[30] "Jaya Supermarket demolition done without approval". The Star.

[31] "Firms charged over lack of safety in supermarket collapse". The Star.

[32] "SBC warned as Tk 4.0b premiums lie in arrears".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Isitt}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destiny: The Tale of Sonali and Amir}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quarto Miglio}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Togbe Delalom Kocuvie-Tay}}