Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 28: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:54, 28 August 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 August	29 August >

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial Air Defence Force

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

This Wikipedia page does not have enough relevance to be its own article. It can easily be added to the Military of Algeria or the Algerian Air Force articles rather than being expanded. Khazar (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. This is a full service branch, equivalent to the Soviet Air Defence Forces. It is not repeat not part of the Algerian Air Force. It is unquestionably notable - references including Library of Congress Country Study. It has many many GNG compliant references, though searches might find more at Defense aerienne du territoire. Needs expansion, not deletion. If anything, might be considered for redirecting for a while if it's not big enough, but there's no question of deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SIGCOV, passes the General Notability Guideline as far as I can see. Anotherclown (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What a ridiculous nomination. Of course a major branch of the armed forces is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that this is a viable stand-alone topic, which should have the coverage required to develop it into a comprehensive article if someone is keen. I wonder if the title should include the word "Algeria" in some way, but that might be a discussion for another time and place. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 3 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Abdominal Acupuncture

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

No sources in the article since it was created, no evidence of reliable source coverage, fails WP:GNG. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost incoherent article pushing fringe medicine. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article is basically a promotional article for some new alternative medicine intervention, specifically on the theatrical placebo called acupunture. I can’t help but note that that aren't sources (of any kind) to bake the claims made by Jorge Ayoubof — the creator of the new technique described in the aforementioned article — about the efficacy of this fringe practise. No scientific literature is provided by Jorge Ayoub. There are no peer-reviewed sources mentioning 'Brazilian Abdominal Acupuncture', just self-referential materials published by Jorge Ayoub. Almost all the article has been ripped-off from here, thus violating WP:COPY. This article is beyond salvation; it's not worth the trouble. Toffanin (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs refs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can find no sources except the inventor's website and WP clones. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:57, 2 September 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 per WP:CSD#G7. Jenks24 (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Vaughn

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

Non notable college football player who never played a game in the nfl according to nfl.com. Fails wp:athlete, prod disputed. delete' Pokerkiller (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not notifying me about the prod or are. Real classy stuff but in the end I agreed and asked for the article to be redeleted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G7. User:Hell in a Bucket is the article creator, and concurs with the deletion. Let's not drag this out unnecessarily. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage for athletes in the pre-internet era can be difficult to find. I've searched newspapers.com and google news, though, and don't find any significant coverage. For this reason, deletion seems appropriate for failure to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 07:23, 29 August 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. Sandstein 08:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Núñez (hacker)

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

Vanity, only two facts about this person: he was jailed in the US and is the owner of an PR web enterprise. Didn't find an independent source that validate his relevance per se, only an HOWTO note regarding the cleaning of online reputation (spanish) and a bloomberg note on the data breach in NASA with an old felony of Nuñez (hacking). Oscar (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article literally includes links to interviews with and commentary from him. Ironholds (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds So are you considering keeping? SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds, why 'World of Hell' is not enough for a criminal case of a member of this group (the only member with an article, btw)? Maybe to me it's obvious after I saw him listed as notable people in Caracas next to Simón Bolívar.--Oscar (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people lists are just that; lists of notable people. Not lists of important people, or lists of people ranked by importance. And you just answered your own question; because he's notable. We are not in the practice of aggregating and deleting the articles of notable people. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete as although there are some good news sources here, my searches found nothing to suggest better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that second search include two books and BusinessWeek? Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this. On the one hand, as Ironholds points out, there are sources. On the other hand, the subject material suggests the quality of sources has to be super-BLP high and that it might be nicer to Señor Núñez if Wikipedia didn't give high prominence to something that's long in the past and not particularly well-remembered. The article's title sounds as unpalatable to the subject as Oscar Wilde (sodomite). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into World of Hell. Sources do not rise to the level of meeting notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 16:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person seems to have a gained notorious reputation for subverting law and order. The Bloomberg article [1] suggests that his reputation probably extends beyond his native country. RoseL2P (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was well known in the hacking scene worldwide back to then, as you can see from the many articles even in mainstream media. --ElfQrin (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only served a few months in jail, so seriousness or severity of criminal activity is not present. He hasn't done anything sufficiently notable with his life since then, unlike some hackers who go over to the good side and work with the govt (like Penelope Garcia on Criminal Minds, LOL). So, overall, deletion is appropriate. Quis separabit? 15:43, 26 September 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. Sandstein 09:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bundi

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

Non-notable Kenyan doctor. His claim to fame seems to be being the "KCSE best student in Kenya in 2002." I have not done research on his "over 50 published papers", so it is possible he may meet notability that way. Natg 19 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When did it become OK to nominate an article for deletion while trumpeting the fact that one hasn't bothered to check the validity of the claims of notability in the article? Did we delete WP:BEFORE and remove the references to it in deletion policy when nobody was looking? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:56, 28 August 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, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a hard time seeing what The Big Bad Wolfowitz is pointing at. Of this person's works, I've found about 20 citations overall. He fails WP:PROF, and I've also been unable to find independent coverage about him. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copying comment from article creator on Paul Bundi:

I believe that wikipedia should recognize any hero who is recognized in his or her family.DT Paul Bundi is one of the most recognized young doctors here in Kenya.if you ask.is he internationally known? I will say NO.but I suppose wiki puts into light persons who have got a reputation in their home lands as scholars,doctors,authors,politicians,athletes, etc..I will say Paul Bundi has an honour as a author ,scholar and a doctor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erigits (talk • contribs) 10:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. International fame is not necessary — I would settle for significant coverage of the subject (not by the subject) in major national-level outlets such as the Daily Nation. But even that much seems to be lacking. The comment by Erigits above that we should have articles on "any hero who is recognized in his or her family" is obviously far from the standards we have set here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 7 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Alexandre Bois

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that Ligue 2 is fully pro. While this is of course true, it is also not relevant since he has yet to make an appearance in that league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no professional appearances Spiderone 09:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 3 September 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 List of hospitals in the Philippines. Courcelles (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Zamboanga City

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

as per WP:NOTDIR. This list contains no notable entries and including community health centers is just pushing it for content. LibStar (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into List of hospitals in the Philippines and then redirect. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Lugnuts - No need for a seperate article when it can be merged in to the main one. –Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hospitals listed with articles. If we had articles on some of these we could list those, but Wikipedia is not a medical directory. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 29 August 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve uncles

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

Non-notable unsuccessful political candidate for minor political party. Gets a few mentions in passing in articles covering the election e.g. here but nothing substantial that comes close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Finishing second-last, with 5% last time makes me doubt that any serious offline sources exist. Valenciano (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Uncles is a leading English Nationalist Politician in England, second only to Robin Tilbrook of the same political party English Democrats

The following press articles have been written about Steve Uncles

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

There are more articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by English4Truth (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: English4Truth is as you might have guessed the same as English Truth, who created the article. They're a very new user who had to create a second account as they found themselves unable to log into the first, see User talk:English4Truth. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete we dont normally have articles on candidates only those elected, already mentioned as much as needed at England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2012 and presumably will get a mention at England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2016 when its created. No prejudice against re-creation if he wins a seat or position of note. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I agree with Bishonen. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google and Google News searches for ("steve uncles") didn't turn up any in-depth coverage: only passing mentions and brief pieces. As highly unsuccessful (5% of vote) candidate for county-wide office, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Note that a Steve Uncles article, with proper capitalisation of the surname, was deleted in 2010. — Ammodramus (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Bishonen clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for office don't qualify for Wikipedia articles if their candidacy is the strongest notability claim you can make — he'll likely qualify for an article if he wins the election, but he doesn't get one just for being a candidate in it. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per SNOW. Quis separabit? 22:22, 3 September 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) 09:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newkia

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

Non-notable company (and its parent?). "planning to release a phone in late 2014"; by now, too keep that in the article, and thus the whole article, would be violating WP:CRYSTAL.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this may've actually folded as my searches found no recent news aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 1 September 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, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient independent coverage. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - There was a spate of coverage up to around November of last year. While I know that notability isn't temporary, right now it seems the company is dead, and since the company is dead, there isn't enough coverage coming out that would warrant a separate article. If Zilliacus had an article, I would have suggested a merge to there, but there isn't one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:10, 11 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shahaan Shaukat

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

Does not appear to be a notable musician. A search for reliable sources came up empty. I would have nominated this for speedy deletion, but there is a claim to notability: he won a "Radio Excellence Award" from an unspecified entity (although according to my search it was from a radio station). However, the award does not appear to be notable either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable coverage exists at all. Even Google news turns up 0 hits. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Exactly, my searches found nothing at all aside from social media and such. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability test—just an attempt to become famous. sami ^talk 05:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete self promotion. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 04:33, 3 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AM Law Firm

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

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

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

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

I do not find that the references are sufficient for this firm to pass WP:CORP. Additionally, the article feels as if it is the firm's web site and is a brochure, not an article about them. Fiddle Faddle 12:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 28 August 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, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that the article does not meet the terms of WP:CORP . It has enough references and in my opinion this firm is notable as it has a strong coverage as in Local media so in international media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria step (talk • contribs) 08:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — Maria step (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Maria step appears to have a WP:COI, potentially as a senior staff member of the organisation. Fiddle Faddle 09:08, 10 September 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) 04:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useful article. I found interesting cases here like burberry against jazzve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduard Melikyan (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 September 2015‎ — Eduard Melikyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy delete as spam. We are not a web host for new law firms. In particular, this stub fails every one of my standards for notability of attorneys and law firms. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a bit too promotional in tone and quality. If it's indeed the coverage of reliable secondary sources independent of the subject itself, then could be target for quality improvement. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 18 September 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. Sandstein 08:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bob kargbo

A Sierra Leonean Movie, Actor Scriptwriter and Producer based in The Netherlands.His movie "Unpredictable Journey" Won Best Original Screenplay of a feature film at 2019 London International Filmmakers Festival http://www.filmfestinternational.com/london-iff-2019-winners/

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:GNGACTOR. I added one source [8], the only one currently used in the article that I consider reliable. However, it focuses on the subject in a the manner of a local story. The article had major WP:NPOV, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:PEACOCK issues, which I cleaned up for the most part. The article had inappropriate social media and wordpress external links which I removed per WP:ELNO (also removed one spam link). I removed the nonsensical awards section, though it was unsourced, and didn't really do anything to help establish notability. Anyhow, that long-winded comment aside, I can't seem to find much else about the subject; I don't think the one reliable-ish source I added quite does it. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there are no sources apart from this. WP:GNG states that there should be multiple sources, covering the subject and this doesn't seem to be the case here. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 18:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 22:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found and added an award that he had received but cannot say that this pulls him over the line of WP notability. gidonb (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Is not enough Resources available for this article(Toomass (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find enough sources to put this person over the hump of WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 19 September 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. Sandstein 08:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Tunisian Republic

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

Article cannot be attributed to reliable sources, appears to be an original concept or a neologism. Lappspira (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It could be a totally plausible historical narrative in the future, but for the time being it should be deleted as there are no sources whatsoever (put aside reliable).Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 17:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator and Toffanin. Also, the name of any page on the topic should EITHER be a variation of what the 1959 government called itself or, if that name is in use by the current government, a what the current government or other international organization such as the United Nations calls it. No page should be written until or unless either the world as a whole or the current government in particular starts to talk about the 1959-2011 "regime" as if it were a distinct government/regime/"nation" in Tunisia's history. Also, it would be right and proper to discuss any such page creation on Talk:Tunisia, as it would be a de facto split of the current article about that country. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:18, 29 August 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Park School

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

No references at all; article does not explain why school is notable beyond the fact that it exists. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. ubiquity (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The article has no references. I wasn't able to spot any sources either. Doesn't seem to fulfill WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 18:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per general consensus is that primary schools are not "presumed" to be notable, and zero evidence that this particular primary school meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 29 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matei Boilă

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

Delete: as non-notable politician. Quis separabit? 12:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: as notable politician (WP:POLITICIAN), was senator thus held national office. Crispulop (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google news gives numerous results on the subject. I think it meets WP:GNG per Google results. There is also an article on the Romanian Wikipedia] about Matei Boilă. That could help the development of the English Wikipedia article as well. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 18:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians. Ineligible for "speedy keep" but ripe for an administrator do an early snow close, as in there's a "snowball's chance in Hades that this will be deleted for the reason given in the nomination". @Rms125a@hotmail.com: consider withdrawing the nomination and speedy-closing it yourself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK: I withdraw the nomination but I don't know how to administratively close it out and someone else should do it. Thanks. Quis separabit? 03:03, 29 August 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) 10:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectika (festival)

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

PROD contested by IP without giving any reason. The subject hardly has any coverage given the annual recurring nature of the event. Fails WP:NEVENTS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: National level news paper The Times of India took notice of this festival which is rare for any college festival. That Times of India(TOI) news is of 2014, TOI also took notice of it in 2013 also. National level Hindi news also taking their note. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 13:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are various notability points mentioned on WP:EVENT and "took note" is not one of them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:EVENT is saying that event should be "Worthy of Notice". The Times of India (TOI) is not only largest selling English daily in India but also in World in terms of circulation. TOI finds it "worthy of notice" and "took note" of this event. This event is not notable unless someone proves that these news are paid news.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 04:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have been interacting on many pages for now; thanks for hounding, and its quite clear that you lack competency to understand many a simple things; sorry to point it out. There is no in-depth coverage, or lasting effects of the event, or coverage outside geoscope, or diversity of coverage, etc etc points that are listed in guideline. Also, the minglebox link that you are posting is not WP:RS. http://www.minglebox.com/aboutus is a student's portal. Dainik Bhaskar which is a newspaper with headquarters in MP cared to write exactly 10 sentences about this event in Raipur. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't WP:ACCUSE, there are other boards to raise this "hound" issue, not here. I will clear myself regarding sources, 2013 Times of India, 2014 Times of India. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 05:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Perhaps if more sourcing is added, a lot more , then it can be kept. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the TOI mention is insufficient for this article to meet WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs), 13:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 11 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2147483659 (number)

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

A deletion proposal was removed without explanation. That PROD said "Clear fail of Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)", and that seems to me to sum it up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I spent a little while looking for a good redirect target. The number is surprisingly important, but not notable enough. Having said surprisingly it is a CITRIX error number and the next prime after a Mersenne prime, these are both due to it being just above a a 2 power, XB000000B). It is also a member (the 32nd) of a complete sequence, documented at (sequence A203074 in the OEIS), again linked to being the next prime after a 2 power. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe redirect to Complete_sequence#OEIS_A203074 All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as prodder. I still don't think it passes Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). "Next prime after a power of two" (or various nearly equivalent formulations) is one sort-of-interesting property in which it's only the 30th or so entry, and can be expressed more simply as "smallest prime number not expressible as a signed long", but what I want to see is two or more actually-interesting properties in which it's in the first five numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Depending on byte length of course. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete or redirect. It's not like it's 8675309 or some such. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don’t see it being discussed at the suggested redirect target, which also is a hidden anchor, so anyone stumbling across it and following the redirect will be likely confused as to what bit of that article is relevant. No other plausible target suggests itself and it is certainly not independently notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not notable, per above. PianoDan (talk) 13:33, 1 September 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 Mawlid. Sandstein 19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet's Day

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

This was a non notable one off local festival kind of thing celebrated by an almost unknown mullah in Bangladesh two years ago. Calling it a ceremony or festival is ridiculous. I can't find any mention of it being celebrated ever again. As WP is not a newspaper, this should be deleted. It fails GNG very poorly FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may not be big in your circle, but was observed again this year in Bangladesh, and received (in addition to the 14 sources cited in the article) sufficient press coverage to meet WP:GNG: [9], [10], [11], [12], etc. Worldbruce (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with Mawlid was proposed outside of AfD in February 2015, but was scuttled in June by a major contributor to the article. I could endorse a forced merge and redirect if there's support for that. Worldbruce (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mawlid. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 01:59, 30 August 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, 4 September 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) 03:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mawlid, as per above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:30, 19 September 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 Danger Mouse (musician)#Danger Mouse albums. Sandstein 09:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Years (DJ Danger Mouse)

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

No sources on the page + No sources that can be found using google, google books or google news = No article. Simple as that. 和DITOR E tails 10:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 3 September 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, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect over to Danger_Mouse_(musician)#Danger_Mouse_albums CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - well-known DJ with many CDs; this itself may not be notable. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 12 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Namakagon

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

Not based on WP:RS, website for book states it mixes fact and fiction, other information indicates Tanner died in 1846 and was positively ID'ed, book by itself is not sufficiently notable. GregJackP Boomer! 09:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable as there's more than one book about him. For example, see Chief Namakagon and The Legend of Silver in Northern Wisconsin. Andrew D. (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That book is a self-published vanity press book. According to WorldCat, the book is held by exactly zero libraries worldwide, has no ISBN, and the author has only been self-published for all three of her books. Second, the author of the article has a WP:COI, admitted here. This will help the sales of his novels, which, as noted above, are fiction, not history. Third, there are no sources, other than the aforementioned COI editor, who has linked Namakagon with Tanner. All other sources on Tanner show that he died in 1846. To publish this as a hidden alias would be fine, were there sources (see, e.g., Billy the Kid and Brushy Bill Roberts). Here there are none. Finally, as shown in the COI link, this is WP:OR, research of the editor that has not been published elsewhere, besides his self-published series of novels on the issue. GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically the article is for a fictional character in a series of self-published books. The character is based on some vague historical facts, but it remains a fiction, and a self-published one at that. Note that info about the book has been inserted by the same editor in the article for the lake of the same name, Lake Namakagon. This should be removed (which I will do now) since the article for the lake should not be used as an advertisement for an insignificant book. LaMona (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I nom'd the article (using the incorrect template; sorry) before User:GregJackP. Concerned that the cited Ashland newspaper source was prob. a parody, but ironic intent may be hard to detect more than 150 years later. Namakagon was not a personal name; it appears to come from the Ojibwa for "lake rich with sturgeons" (see: Lake Namakagon). Even if a local "chief" legend were to prove notable, better sourcing and complete rewrite would be needed, without extraordinary claims about John Tanner (captive). — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 20:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 1 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine hadley chase

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedly Delete - I don't even see evidence that this person exists outside of this Wikipedia page. Both of the links in it go to nothing for me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Obviously the article creator was trying out Wikipedia features OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 18:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 3 September 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 per WP:SNOW. Subject was a member of a national legislature. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbir Ahmad Usmani

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

COmpletely unsourced, promotional article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The outcome of this AFD will hinge on whether this institution is shown to be an "independently accredited degree-awarding institutions" or not and whether "independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists" (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Alternatively, if those criteria aren't met but other criteria in WP:CORP or WP:GNG are met, then the page will probably be kept. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC) struck per below davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to comment on a different discussion, perhaps the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamiah Islamiah Talimuddin Dabhel? Your observation would be highly pertinent there, but this is a biography... Worldbruce (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly that one. I must've had both windows open at once. Striking comment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources can easily be found and added, and "promotional" content can easily be removed. These are not grounds for deletion. Subject is very notable for his role in Pakistani politics and his Islamic scholarly contributions. --Axiom292 (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable biography. Can be improved by adding references. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 04:53, 31 August 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. After two relistings, no consensus has formed herein. Closing with the option of WP:NPASR, per lack of adequate input here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiah Islamiah Talimuddin Dabhel

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

non notable school of Islamists. If we started giving article space to every islamist school there will be almost 1 thousand articles created every day for the next ten years FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Institute is more than 100 year old and has 1000 students. Seems notable.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 21:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The outcome of this AFD will hinge on whether this institution is shown to be an "independently accredited degree-awarding institutions" or not and whether "independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists" (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Alternatively, if those criteria aren't met but other criteria in WP:CORP or WP:GNG are met, then the page will probably be kept. As examples of a type of college in the United States which, at least as of 5-8 years ago (my wiki-history is very dated here), could fail at AFD due to lack of accreditation were: 1) Bible colleges, if their accreditation was from only one church/denomination/sect and their credentials were not recognized as "degrees" by any government or other recognized accrediting agency, 2) schools, including graduate schools, that only offered certificates and diplomas but not actual degrees, and 3) all-but-unknown-outside-their-locality community- and junior-colleges that were part of a larger system, such as a county-wide or regional community-college system, provided those schools didn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG in their own right (ironically, high schools had an easier time fighting off a "result: redirect" than non-independent associate-degree-only community colleges, mainly because they had sports teams). Having said that, unless the school has been exceedingly obscure for the past 100 years given its present size, it is unlikely, but not WP:SNOW-unlikely, that this institution will fail to meet WP:GNG even if it fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for some reason or another such as lack of being an "independently accredited degree-awarding institution". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending evidence from independent, reliable sources that this school meets either WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:CORP, WP:GNG, or any other relevant notability guideline. Being "100 years old with 1000 students" is highly suggestive that such sources exist, but not conclusive enough for a "free pass" on finding them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:09, 29 August 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, 4 September 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) 03:59, 11 September 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. Sandstein 09:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tutku Burcu Yüzgenç

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

WP:NHSPHSATH Says that amateur players at the high school/under 18 level need substantial independent and non routine coverage to be notable. A separate standard for international Under 18 volleyball players would be incredulous. These articles are all stubs made solely because these people participated in U18 volleyball youth championship and the WP:ROUTINE reporting and statistics that goes with that.

There have already been discussions apparently that U-18 volleyball teams are non notable
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran men's national under-19 volleyball team
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peru women's youth volleyball team
There was also a discussion on TfD where they decided that the templates would be deleted:
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 11#Template:Dominican Republic women u20 volleyball team 2009 World Championship
Also the talk page on WP:VBALL seems to indicate that the project doesn't believe youth amateur players to be notable
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volleyball#Notable_versus_Non-notable
and their discussion on general notability of volleyball players
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volleyball#Notability_guide_for_volleyball. Particularly note the quote from one editor "participating in a Senior World Championship is enough for being notable. Note: This means Senior competitions, not Junior Championships neither world not continentals" Savonneux (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above. --Osplace 11:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating because of these issues:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fails WP:NHSPHSATH. The Undead Never Die (talk) 23:51, 31 August 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, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not quite sure why this needed a relist given unanimous support toward deletion, but there's no evidence of passing WP:NHSPHSATH or WP:GNG for any of these. ~ Rob^Talk 23:26, 5 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CleveMed

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

Maybe notable or maybe not, the article is rather promotional either way and my searches found nothing to suggest immediate improvement here, here, here, here, here and here. Considering this is from December 2008 with hardly any significant edits, I hope we can get a consensus. Notifying Ukexpat for comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Looks a little borderline to me. I have no further comment - my involvement was limited to moving the article into draft space and then some post-move clean up after the draft was accepted by someone else. ukexpat (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; can't find extensive coverage about this. Fails GNG and CORP. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:44, 3 September 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. Sandstein 19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grama Vidiyal

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

Nominating again for clearer consensus as I'm still unsure of its solid notability with my own searches finding nothing particlarly outstanding here, here, here, here and here. Pinging the most still active users @DGG, Molly-in-md, Richhoncho, and Kafka Liz: for comments (unfortunately almost all other editors not active or as active anymore or else I would've pinged them). SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If it is the larges microfinance organization in India, it's notable. But it would require updating and rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still not seeing much that establishes real notability, and the writing is atrocious. *If* the article is kept, it needs some serious work. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, and get input from Wikipedians with more relevant local knowledge (for example, Wikiproject India). I hesitate to delete articles about which I know very little, from a country that speaks English but is on the other side of the planet. — Molly-in-md (talk) 19:28, 31 August 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, 4 September 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) 03:58, 11 September 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. no evidence of even significance, let alone notability. A7. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cadsoft Corporation

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

My searches found nothing good at all to suggest improvement, here, here, here and here. This article has surprisingly stayed since December 2005 with absolutely no significant edits since then. Pinging tagger RJFJR for comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't think I am the one you wanted. Looks like user:Crecy99 is the one who added the tags. I just did some early wikification. RJFJR (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 28 August 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kibow Biotech

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable to Wiki standards and as my searches found nothing good here, here, here, here and here until I found Scholar results here. However, as I'm not familiar with this field, I hope a consensus can be made for this sparsely edited article from July 2009. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of notability, and considerable promotional content. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 2 September 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, 4 September 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) 03:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Biotech company of unclear notability. The refs provided cover papers by authors associated with the company and are not independent. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 04:49, 11 September 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 "keep" opinions are weak: the first is merely an ad hominem, the second is all about WP:WAX. Sandstein 08:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Urzúa

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

non-notable politician, sits in the town-council of a small commune in rural Chile. Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians. Sietecolores (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination is full of bias: "small commune in rural Chile". Nothing else needs to be said. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest potential commenters (and User:Vrac) to consider that much of the material that may serve as reference for this article is offline. Since I don't have the time to add the material myself, I suggest Chilean or Spanish-language editors to review content from the El Cóndor, Pichilemu and El Expreso de la Costa newspapers. I may provide some press clipping to whoever interested, there is material on Urzúa and I believe they pass the notability guidelines for politicians. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Much more would be needed to be said to save the article from deletion since it does not pass notability tests for politicians. I suggest Diego Grez takes this content to his own webpage Memoriapichilemina. -Sietecolores (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop your uncivil behavior, Sietecolores, and start putting out real reasons, and not just stupid accusations. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as local politician fails WP:NPOL.Vrac (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searched Google and Google News for ("marta urzua" pichilemu). Found lots of passing mentions of Urzua in Spanish-language press, but no in-depth coverage. According to the WP article, Pichilemu has a population of 13,000; as a council member from a city of this size with no in-depth media coverage, Urzua fails WP:POLITICIAN. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NPOL criteria #2 and #3, there appear to be at least three sources for the article, and I suggest that Spanish-language editors take a look at Chilean sources. The town may officially be small, but it apparently is a resort community, potential for systemic bias here (woman, third world, etc.) is significant. Further, there appears to be a precedent of these council members having WP articles, dating back at least to 2010, see: Category:Pichilemu City Council members. There is a surprising amount of information on Pichilemu here, see Portal:Pichilemu and Template:Pichilemu. I know nothing about this community nor its status in Chile, but seems that with articles on 36 mayors, a portal and a template, we either have notability or at least notoriety. Keep. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No Urzua does not pass criteria #2 and #3 she has very limited coverage by Chilean newspapers (see here for example) and sources for the article are 2 government-related sites showing election results and the municipal website. That is not coverage that confer notability. And point #3 says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". The issue is crystal-clear. –Sietecolores (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a long list of other councilors who held the same office have articles on Wikipedia, why are they notable but not she? Other councilors of the same community listed on her page: Aldo Polanco, Roberto Córdova, Juan Cornejo, Viviana Parraguez, Andrea Aranda, Patricio Morales, and Pichilemu political controversies#Víctor Rojas - Ogress _smash! 16:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment It doesn't matter how many but whether. --Keysanger (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate all of them for deletion, right now, a textbook example of WP:OTHERSTUFF: "You cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.". Kraxler (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, town councillors of small towns are not inherently notable, and coverage of this and the other town councillors who have articles here, is limited to their little hometown. Kraxler (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article without any encyclopedic relevance. --Keysanger (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Person received 179 votes is not enough to make them notable on anythingmore than a township scale IMO. Collect (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, comment note that sources from El Expreso de la Costa are not independent as the article creator works there. see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Memoria_Pichilemina 78.149.122.149 (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the sources be independent from the subject they cover? Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article should be independent of the subject. Kraxler (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where there's a COI problem or a failure of independence here. As far as I know, it hasn't been established that El Expreso de la Costa or this article's creator has a significant connection to Urzúa.

Questions might legitimately be raised about the reliability of the source, if El Expreso is a very small paper at which the article's creator, as employee, is subject to very little fact-checking or other overview. Per WP:NEWSORG, "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." However, I think we should presume reliability unless there's a reason to suspect otherwise.

I question, however, whether coverage by a local media outlet can confer notability on a figure of only local importance. Although WP:GEOSCOPE refers to events rather than persons, the principle merits more general application. Without such a standard to exclude purely local coverage, we could establish notability for every small-town mayor, council member, and high-school wrestling coach in the United States alone. WP:POLITICIAN seems to set such a standard: while pols holding lesser offices, e.g. Kim Davis (county clerk), may indeed be notable, we should presume that they're not unless this notability has been established by sources beyond local ones. —Ammodramus (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the fact that the sources show she is notable, it could use some fixing though SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 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. Sandstein 08:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felisa Wolfe-Simon

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

This person authored a paper in a high impact scientific journal ("Science") that was later shown to be incorrect. Aside from this single mistake, she has done nothing particularly notable. The mistake in the Science paper is discussed in Hypothetical types of biochemistry#Arsenic as an alternative to phosphorus and probably some other articles. To some limited extent, the mistake made in her paper is thought provoking, but she isn't. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Too much has been written about her to call her not notable, i.e.: Time Magazine called her 1 of the 100 top most influential people in the world in 2011. Another long profile by Popular Science here A Google search produced many more references. ABF99 (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand where you're coming from here, Smokefoot, (a kind of WP:BLP1E for scientists?) but I think ABF99 has it right. shoy (reactions) 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to GFAJ-1, which seems to be the article covering the controversy (although it should perhaps be renamed). shoy (reactions) 20:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Science Journal retracted the paper, and I don't care for Time Magazine's ethics of following suit. Her work was mistaken and debunked, and was not influential at all. Should we also make a biography on whoever said the Moon is made of Cheese? BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The Science paper has not been retracted [13]. --Paul (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I worry a little bit that the article stigmatizes her. As a female in a male-dominated science world, she was (almost unfairly) propelled to Time-mag like fleeting luminosity, and she must rue the notoriety conferred by Wikipedia. Based on Chemical Abstracts search - she stopped publishing at that Science paper in 2011 except for a rebuttal that made things only worse. She has 11 publications, including the rebuttal. But editors here have a better sense than do I which way to go.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Smokefoot says. Felisa has taken her website down; one wouldn't think she'd be keen to have a Wikipedia page either. To Shoy: there's been stuff written on her strain of bacterium but there's preciously little sustained attention on her person. 144.92.4.49 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No lasting impact, fails WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sometimes scholarly work can be a notable failure. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo. Science expects giant flame-outs, and people who make such are notorious, and yes, even notable. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I share Smokefoot's concerns about this article. This is basically one event, even if it's one event that got a lot of media coverage. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we all realize that cases like this are tricky. However, the subject has a reasonable publication/citation record. Although I count h-index of 11 (WoS, typically considered borderline), she has a couple of reasonably well-cited first author papers (including the science paper) with >500 total citations. Regarding questions of whether she is still active in science – these are irrelevant (we still have a page on Einstein, but he's no longer active). WoS shows the Science paper is still being cited frequently, some of which are in the context of post-publication review, no doubt related to the controversy. However, I don't think it is our job (or probably within our ability) to judge the context of these citations. That they are there renders her notable. I'm not aware that she has requested article deletion, so I likewise don't think we have any judicial say at the moment to delete the article on those grounds either (as has been hinted at above). Agricola44 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete with some merging. I was almost going to go for a weak keep as cases like this where scientific results are noticeable overturned and reported upon can be notable per WP:FRINGE (and interesting to boot). However, the content on the Science article would fit much better in GFAJ-1. Beyond that, there's not a claim to fame for this researcher, so I would delete the bio page once information is incorporated into the GFAJ-1 page. Most of the current content there seems to be in this page as well, so there likely isn't too much needed to be moved over if any unless I missed something in my quick skim. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her work is in a mainstream area of science. It just happens to be that a particular aspect she had proposed is wrong. This happens in science all the time, though not typically to this scale. FRINGE does not apply in this particular case. Agricola44 (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per the nominator and David. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agricola et al. - she's been covered in enough RS and her work has gone beyond this one massive debacle. She'd probably pass WP:PROF even without it, though I'd have to do some digging. Keilana (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess? A person listed in a time top 100 most influentual people in the world is considered for deletion on wikipedia due to non-notability. Clearly One great publication is wrong. I'll errr on the side of keeping --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:10, 5 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnoskull

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Lots of AllMusic listings but no reviews in a basic music RS search. Only hits in Google Books were mentions, nothing in-depth. Perhaps there's coverage in non-English sources? There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 16:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice as it stands - it really needs anything at all in the way of (third-party, verifiable) references - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete for now - I can't translate any of this but my searches regardless found nothing better aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- [14] ... yeah, it's a bit skimpy. That said, the coverage there is (book mentions, etc.) strongly suggests there should be usable RSes ... but where are they? - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: some print sources "Hypnoskull"&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 here. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything more than passing mentions at that link, so I'm not sure why you posted it. – czar 22:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Beyond the fact that there doesn't seem to be anything beyond passing mentions or listings, and although it seems like a band this old would have some coverage, the page has had fewer than fifty edits in ten years, and only 500 views in the last three months. I don't think the article will be missed, but I agree with David Gerard above that this should be without prejudice against recreation, if anyone cares enough to try later on. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:57, 4 September 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. Sandstein 08:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Sen (business person)

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

The article did not meet the notability guideline for biographies. . Shlok _{talk .} 06:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources and evidence of meeting inclusion criteria. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tata are "quite large", to say the least. Mr Sen has a very senior role within Tata. Anything else is cleanup. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:BLP. Sourcing is a matter of urgency, not one-day-someone-might-clean-this-up. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between "Is Mr Sen a <foo>" and "Mr Sen is a <foo>, but does that make him notable?". Our problems in this AfD are almost all of the second form. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point, Lord Copper. If he is notable then there will be non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. No such sources are included in the article. I did, incidentally, check Highbeam, but there are only namechecks. I will admit that my circle of acquaintances does not encompass companies this big, but I know one former Fortune 500 CEO who made the cover of Time, which counts, and I know others of similar seniority who have no coverage in RS at all. I also know one who is quite a bit further down the tree but has non-trivial coverage due to his hobby. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn for Fortune 500s, http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=23335673&ticker=874170 It's not hard to find more. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no "B" in this BLP. We can vouch for his position, but per WP:CORP he's not necessarily notable for it, and he doesn't inherit from Tata Steel. The sources are also not independent - having a Bloomberg Stock listing isn't proof of notability; it's a management reporting requirement sourced from the company's filings. Nothing else in there is biographically useful. I'm also skeptical of the Indian Institute of Metals medal meeting criteria in this case - the IIM article states that it rents its office space from Tata Steel, and doesn't mention the medal at all. So I question the independence of the award with on other justification, and I question the notability of the award when it's not mentioned. His "so many papers" linked from that other guy's page amount to exactly one co-authorship on a peer-reviewed journal. The other sourced are from Tata, so they aren't independent and only speak to existence. Show me something arm's-length, and that's a different story, but I'm not seeing it so far in my searches. MSJapan (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing is verifiable by reliable sources. The sources are not even wrong -- one links to a different person, possibly a mentor. Even if this could be made into an article, it needs to be destroyed and started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BLP. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 09:40, 3 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rin Ogawa

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

Appears to fail pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails PORNBIO and GNG Kraxler (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claim of notability appears to rest on multiple appearances in various non-notable erotica releases, which satisfies none of the potentially relevant SNGs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:02, 2 September 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 Persian leopard#Conservation. I'm counting Мандичка's !vote as a Merge to make life easier, After being up for 4 weeks & barely any !votes I'm closing as Merge - I think this has had the life dragged out of it enough for one month! . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Leopard Conservation Society

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

I can't find any more evidence of this group aside from here and here and, although I can't speak for the Armenian side, I'm not seeing any signs od improvement and none has been made since August 2007 (author was blocked shortly after as an account by a community banned user). SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the correct name is Caucasian Leopard Conservation Society. I'm finding Russian sources (from Armenia) so I'm leaning toward a merge with the Caucasian leopard#Conservation. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had also considered this would be best moved elsewhere like that but I never saw a good target. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (quip) @ 16:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Persian leopard#Conservation (note that this is the same target as the one proposed by Мандичка who uses a redirect) Kraxler (talk) 02:49, 15 September 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. Sandstein 09:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madoka Ozawa

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

Appears to fail pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable, famous, popular, historical figure in that Japanese industry...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And reliable sources? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG with the following Chinese sources: [15], [16], as well as the Japan Sugoi source cited in the article. The article is well-referenced to sources such as JMDB for information about filmography. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell us what the hinews.cn article is about and how the source meets RS? Its in Mandarin, were you able to read it before citing it authoritatively as an RS?
- JMDB isn't a RS and it damages your assessment of the sourcing to assert that it is.
- Please tell me how this from Japan Sugoi is a RS or sufficient to pass GNG. It has no by-line and doesn't look like a proper RS. In fact, the site runs on wordpress and is licensed under t CC-SA 3.0 which almost certainly means its a personal website.
- Taipai Times is already there and might be one source but you need multiple sources to pass GNG
- So, in summary, one possible source and that's it unless you can explain the hinews.cn one better. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The hinews source says that she was active in the industry from 1997 to 2004 and that she starred in some classic Hong Kong Category III (mainstream) films. (WP:PORNBIO #3 may apply.) It also has some cruft about her appearance and demeanor, and calls her "Ai Iijima's successor." Then there's some praise of her acting skill. It concludes by mentioning that she became a professional writer after her retirement from pornography.
JMDB is perfectly fine for basic filmography information. I wasn't claiming it should count toward notability.
You are right about Japan Sugoi. My mistake. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, and the sources in the article and posted here appear to be tabloid pieces, not in-depth coverage, thus also fails GNG. Kraxler (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sammy1339. While most of the current references appear to be primary sources, both Hainan Daily and Taipei Times are reliable secondary sources and the relevant articles are non-tabloidesque, significant coverage, enough for a claim of notability and also enough to start building a decent start-class article. Also possibly passes PORNBIO#3 per Sammy1339's analysis. Cavarrone 19:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. a much closer case than usual, but ultimately the RS coverage just isn't sufficient. The Taipei Times piece can't be dismissed out of hand, but it's more about her agent's efforts to generate publicity than the subject herself, and contains little or no significant biographical content. In the absence of a solid claim that the subject at least approaches PORNBIO requirements, and given that none of the supposed next career steps mentioned in the Taipei Times piece seem to have panned out, I don't think the case for notability has been made. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Times article mentions her agent, but indeed it is 100% about Ozawa. Among other things, the article refers to "the phenomenon that a former porn star from Japan could create such huge buzz among Taiwanese audiences and whether there is a change in social values about sex", her "tremendous popularity" and her "received overwhelming public adulation and huge media coverage" which suggests more coverage is available in native language. This article alone is a solid claim of notability for the subject IMO. Cavarrone 17:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But where is there any other evidence of that "huge media coverage"? I don't even see any other coverage in Taipei Times. This isn't the sort of article where notability is based on a single potentially reliable source, when that source makes claims that should be easy to corroborate -- but aren't. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they are hard because we are talking about Taiwanese news sources (not the easier to find and check) and because the article is not a week old but dates back to 2003! Yet the article underlines the media coverage even in the summary "... a string of public appearances that won her massive media coverage..." to the point of questioning a professor at the National Central University "whether there is a change in social values about sex". Except Ozawa's agent is so powerful to force then Magistrate Lee Chu-feng to publicly welcome the actress' visit and to declare her presence could boost tourism on his region, I see some notability here. And on the other hand, Hainan Daily is fine in explaining why she is not just a random adult actress but one of the notable ones. Cavarrone 19:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe" not. The China Post has online archives going back to the relevant data, and it doesn't turn up any result for the article subject's name. Same for Taiwan News. The Hainan Daily piece is just standard website clickbait, and is so superficial that just about its only biographical content is that, after she retired from porn she started a blog. There's just not enough here to support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not or maybe yes. Online archives are often incomplete, I know it because I regularly use online archives of news sources like Variety or Corriere della Sera and they go back even older, but the older you go less things you'll find. Eg. searching for a very common word such as "actress" in a January 2003-January 2004 period, The China Post returnes only 42 matches while the word "film" gives only 68 results, i.e. irrealistic numbers for a complete archive. To make a comparison, if you makes the same search for the year 2014, you'll find 284 matches for "actress" and 783 matches for "film". Taiwan News is apparently even worst, over the same period of time it gives exactly 0 matches for both the words. I am not saying I am nearly certain these newspapers covered the actress back in 2003, but I am reasonably certain the Taipei Times piece is not deceptive when writing about Ozawa's media impact. About Hainan Daily, if the above Sammy1339's summary is correct, it says more than the blog thing. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree this time (while I think both of us agree it's a borderline case). Cavarrone 05:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are right about that but the reason why on-line databases get weaker with age is that the people uploading to digital conentrate on the stuff that is really important. So not making the cut probably supports the deletion case. I respect the view you have put forward but have you considered that this is a BLP and that we are expected to retain on evidence of sources not the difficulty of finding old ones. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 12 September 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. No more comments after two relistings. Pretty clear kicking the can down the road seven more days won't do any good. Courcelles (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ibrahim Artan

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ahmed Ibrahim Artan (2nd nomination)

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

This page was previously created as Ahmed Haaji Ibrahim Artan Beeldaaje and was nominated in a previous AfD discussion. (As of this writing it does not show up in the "AfDs for this article" box.) It was moved to its current page name during the earlier AfD. The result of the AfD discussion was delete. Article was twice re-created and speedily deleted (WP:G4). This new version does not improve much upon the original, but it differs enough that I brought it here instead of using CSD again. There are a few more sentences in the body, but it still faces the original issue of citing references that are in the Somali language and cannot be verified (in English). Of these sources, one does not appear to be a news article, nor anything else that would serve as a reliable source (in any language), and was apparently written by the subject himself (link). The article cites one English language source (link), to support the assertion that Ibrahim Artan Ismail is the subject's father. However, the source only mentions Ibrahim Artan Ismail's political role, nothing about any familial relationship. I deleted (diff) another English source (link) that ostensibly corroborated the subject's clan affiliation; however the source didn't mention anything about that and I removed the sentence in question. That source did quote the subject as a "Writer and Political Figure" but I am not sure about the notability of the source itself and it would appear to be WP:SPS. Delete. Gyrofrog (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. All of the Somali-language sources appear to have been written by the subject himself. They might be allowable within WP:ABOUTSELF (except item 5 stipulates "the article is not based primarily on such sources", which this article is). On their own I'm not sure these references sufficiently establish notability, which was another primary concern in the earlier AfD. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations to non-English sources are explicitly allowed by WP:V, and there appear to be other Somali-language sources available to support the subject's notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more concerned that four of the five sources were written by the subject himself, as these would presumably establish his notability. I'm not seeing these other sources, at least not via the above "find sources" links. To put it another way, I'm unable to verify this or previous iterations of this article, which say the subject is a diplomat, or was a presidential adviser (which would indeed be notable). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The search is complicated by the fact that the subject appears to use many different name variations, which makes it hard to search. A326, can you weigh in? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A326, in response to my question at their talk page, offered this link. It does mention "Ahmed Haji Hajji Ibrahim Artan," but I am unsure in what context. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria Ahmed Ibrahim Artan is a Somali athor and polition well known as Ahmed Haaji Bakiin. (Haaji Bakiin)is a father's nickname, and he was the owner of hotels and bares called Bakiin in the capital city of Somalia his father is Polition as well Ibrahim Artan Ismail. The father has 32 children including Ahmed fortunately Ahmed became well known then the athers. Family name Artan was a Somali ruler. He led the Ali Saleebaan Sultanate during its Golden Age in the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. Along with Sultan Yusuf Ali Kenadid of the Sultanate of Hobyo and Sultan Mohamoud Ali Shire of the Warsangali Sultanate, Beeldaaje Artan was one of the forth prominent rulers of present-day Somalia at the turn of the 20th century.people call him Ahmed Haaji Bakiin, Ahmed Haaji Ibrahim Artan Beeldaaje , or (Ahmed Ibrahim Artan wich is his birth name) Gyrofrog have requested to delete that article before , and it seems he's personal attack. Gyrofrong I let you know that person from well known family and he's well known polition person who most of the people know him. We need his article to stay , and we need you to get away please.A326 (talk)--A326 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intent to attack anyone. I do want to clarify that I did not make the earlier nomination for deletion, and that I made one (not all) of the three speedy deletions. I'm not out to attack anyone or anything. My concern is that I've seen this content repeatedly re-created, while the issues with the article have yet to be addressed. As for his other name, Ahmed Haaji Bakiin, I'm not seeing much on Google other than blogs, Facebook, Google+, or things that the subject wrote himself – nothing that I'd use as a reliable source. If he's well-known, I would expect there to be more about him (written by someone else) online. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrofrog there a lot of reliable source that written by Somali language. There millions of articles which has source written by native languages such as Arabic , Amharic and hebrew itc So that person is Somali.[17] [18] A326 (talk--A326 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote your talk page ( As per Wiki History Log alot of Somalia history is or has being Omitted, Vandalized or used for personal instead of Real facts of history) it seems you hatred for Somali people that's why you are always attacking.Hatred A326 (talk--A326 21:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had clarified this at User talk:A326, but since my name is linked with it here as well: I did not write that statement on my talk page. Another user left it there for me, though I don't know if it referred to a particular article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria There are a lot of sources written by Somali-language, and we need you to support the article thanks A326 (talk--A326 22:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on it, but since we don't speak Somali we need your help to find reliable sourcing to support the article. Would it be possible to add a few more, either here or in the article itself? Ideally some that are not written by him. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Somalia notified. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles need to have sources other than the subjects own works. Beyond that being "an advisor" to the President of Somalia (which one is unclear) sounds notable on first glance, but without further explanation could mean anything. Presidents can have a whole lot of people giving them advice, and not all such people will be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be better for people to work on fleshing out the article on Ibrahim Artan Ismail with more indepth details. For example, from that article one would suppose he has no children.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria The resourcing we have is here [19] [20] [21] [22] Also I'm still working on that article I don't have all his life history but I'm searching a lot more about his life history positions that he held and book that he wrote so I need more chance to complete all the resource. In election time probably I'll get more resource written by English, news will talk about his early life and positions that he held during that time. please I need more chance promise I'll write more about his life and I will bring more resource.Please I need you guys to remove deletion tag on the article. hopeful Thanks A326 (talk--A326 14:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria Here tody news about Somalia [23] A326 (talk --A326 16:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrofrog did you see the link ? A326 (talk--A326 18:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the link into the article. However, the impeachment issue does seem to have garnered a fair amount of coverage (Google news), so I must admit I'm curious why only this one source saw fit to quote this person. (Note that when you add "/link" to the end of a link, it breaks it. Do it like [http://somewebsite.com link], with a space before the word "link".) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

with space ok thanks link A326 (talk--A326 19:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A326, now I see where I misread the linked news article: it's written in such a way that it kind of implies he advised Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud. When I re-read it I can see that isn't what it says. However, you changed the president's name to Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, who isn't mentioned in the news article. It doesn't specify which president he advised; John Pack Lambert had already mentioned this among his concerns. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was the adviser of Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed during his tine in office letter he served in same position during Sheikh Sharif Ahmad late 2012 president Hassan appointed a anther person on that position. Thanks A326 (talk--A326 20:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the link doesn't say anything about that. We can cite that link to say he was an adviser (which it specifies), but not for whom (because it doesn't specify). We would need another source about him advising Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on balance I think the additional sourcing is sufficient to indicate notability, and I'm hopeful that A326 will be able to continue to improve the article using available Somali-language sources as well. (A326: note that the tag won't be removed until the AFD is closed, which usually happens after 7 days). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria thank you very mach I'll work more about it.A326 (talk--A326 19:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional time for discussion and evaluation of foreign language sources. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:12, 28 August 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. No consensus to delete after stubbing. Sandstein 09:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article was subject to a deletion discussion in February 2014, which attracted very little participation, and was closed as "no consensus", but there were really no arguments for keeping which stand up to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; the creator of the article and an IP editor both claimed notability on the basis of the recording being on a notable label, but notability is not inherited from association with a notable company. Neither in the article's cited sources nor anywhere else that I have seen is there any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - those sources are ... borderline at best - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now keep per Torchiest. Nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources appear to be WP:RS, they are simply blogs, wordpress sites, event listings or fan made sites with no editorial oversight. Me5000 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think a couple of the current sources are decent, and I've found the following additional sources:
That last source is more about Jim Semonik, who appears notable enough to have his own article. A few other options would be to create that article and redirect this to it, or create a single new article for the entire series, rather than trying to have separate articles for each volume. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last option, I suggest - David Gerard (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Torchiest, David Gerard, I just wrote up the worst stub in the world using three of the listed sources. Let me know what you all think. JamesBWatson, Me5000, you too--I'm inclined to close this as merge if that's cool with y'all. Oh, please improve the article while you're at it. :) Drmies (talk) 20:17, 11 September 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 clear. One keep argument argues there's sourcing, but this point is disagreed with. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Arnet

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a person whose most substantive claims of notability are as the executive director of an organization of exclusively local notability, as a former member of a school board, and as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election to the state legislature. All of the reliable sourcing here is sitting on the latter two claims, both of which fail to satisfy WP:NPOL — school board trustees don't get articles just for being school board trustees, and candidates for office don't get articles just for being candidates. Which means that her eligibility for a Wikipedia article rests entirely on "executive director of the Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania", but that claim is supported exclusively by primary sources that cannot contribute toward deeming her notable, with not a single citation in the entire article to a reliable and independent source that's covering her in that context. While this was kept in an earlier AFD discussion in 2008, Wikipedia's sourcing and notability rules are very different now than they were at that time — we're a lot stricter now (especially when it comes to a WP:BLP) about what constitutes legitimate sourcing and what is or isn't a suitable claim of notability, and this doesn't meet 2015-vintage content standards. I'm willing to withdraw this if reliable sourcing can be piled properly onto her directorship of a non-profit organization, but if that can't be done then she has to win the state-level election later this year before she's eligible for an article. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if things change in the future. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article has much cruft, needs more references, and needs severe pruning. Sources can be found here. Meets the WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purely local coverage of her in the context of either the school board or her candidacy for an office she doesn't hold yet doesn't count toward WP:GNG at all — it falls under WP:ROUTINE, because all school board trustees and all candidates for office always generate local coverage. So such coverage does not demonstrate notability — for coverage of a school board trustee or a non-elected candidate for higher office to flip from ROUTINE to GNG, it has to nationalize or internationalize. The only ways she can get over GNG are to either (a) have generated coverage specifically in the context of her directorship of the Women and Girls Foundation, or (b) win the state senate seat when that election happens. But A hasn't been demonstrated here, and B is still in the future and thus can't be met today without violating WP:CRYSTAL. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a host for election campaigns, so far only very strictly local coverage, and quite trivial Kraxler (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails wp:bio, all news coverage is trivial and local in nature. Pokerkiller (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN at this time. Could have been redirected to an article about the 2016 Pennsylvania elections, but such an article does not appear to exist yet. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 11 September 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. You don't nominate articles within hours of the previous one closing as it's disruptive, Well it's been a week and still no one gives a toss so i suggest you don't nominate this for a third time as you could end up blocked!, Rant over. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sardha Wijesoma

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been previously nominated for deletion, with the decision being to close the AfD with no consensus. I believe that the article in fact fails criteria #1 of WP:NACADEMICS, in that the criteria states "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". It has been previously argued that Wijesoma is a widely cited scholar, with 349 citations. WP:ACADEMICS clearly states that "To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books." I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence provided to satisfy this requirement. WP:ACADEMICS also goes onto to state "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1". In any case none of the evidence relating to Wijesoma's research is included within the article itself (i.e. 'demonstrated by independent sources') Dan arndt (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Stop wasting the community's time. No one supported the initial nomination in the three weeks since you made it. Reopening the discussion not even three hours after it was closed borders on abusive. There are appropriate steps to take, but this isn't one of them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I thought I was wasting anyone's time I wouldn't have nominated the article. I do think that the subject lacks any credible notability, the fact that the previous nomination was not supported, is more likely a combination of apathy and that I didn't provide a clear explanation of why I thought that the subject wasn't notable - the second part I have tried to correct here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz if you believe it should be kept at least have the decency to explain why . Dan arndt (talk) 15:08, 29 August 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) 02:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram and Bashir

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

This orphaned article doesn't have much information and has stayed the same since May 2007, and my searches found nothing good with one of the best links being Allmusic. At best, this would be best mentioned elsewhere (but the only linking article is "List of Kurds") as they aren't independently notable, also considering they only ever released one album. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as insufficiently notable musicians. Both fail GNG. Quis separabit? 01:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except by accident, we have no practical way of finding sources for topics like this. If the original editor doesn't give them, we're stuck. The article was added in May2007, and May 2007 was when it should have been dealt with. Instead, various editors have been doing touch-ups, without looking at the problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails wp:gng Pokerkiller (talk) 21:20, 10 September 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. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed VEVO videos

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

Contested PROD. This article appears to extend from List of most viewed YouTube videos, but only using videos that are on the VEVO service (which by the licensing between VEVO and YouTube , will end up on YouTube within a few days). PAtterns of behavior at the YouTube list show the frequent push of IPs and infrequent editors to push specific videos up the list as soon as positions change instead of at the ~5 day interval the list is updated with. This feels like a means to get around the enforcement of that 5 day interval and still promote favorite videos. In addition, while I can readily find sources (beyond YouTube) that show interest in tracking the most watched YT videos, that's not the case with VEVO, and I would believe this is due to the fact that nearly everyone associates VEVO with YouTube. MASEM (t) 03:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~. ~~The nominator explained why, and I agree with him. A list for YouTube is fine, but not for VEVO.~~ Merge to Vevo article. TVShowFan122 (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with both of you guys.

Reasons why this article should not be deleted:

I worked for 4 long, hard hours making this.
I was not tracking, i found the resources.
Not everyone associates VEVO with YouTube.
TVShowFan122, there is already an article on the most viewed YouTube videos so I decided to make something different.

Randomstuff207 w (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Randomstuff207 w, I know there is a list for YouTube, I frequently edit it. However, while I believe the article on Vevo should stay on Wikipedia, a specific article on its most viewed videos is just not needed. Maybe make it a section of the Vevo article then? TVShowFan122 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not all the viral YouTube videos are on Vevo: Gangnam Style isn't - nor is Charlie bit my finger, or Wheels on the Bus. Unreal7 (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is a different subset of videos, my basic point is that we can point to third-party sources that show interest in tracking the top YT video, but nothing of the same ilk for Vevo. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: VEVO and YouTube are separate sites, the view counts for VEVO and YouTube are different and not all YouTtube videos are on VEVO. MLA2000 (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:15, 4 September 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. Nobody apart from a WP:SPA opposes the deletion. Sandstein 08:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamra-Tacoma Capital Partners

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

Fails WP:CORP. Two or three independent sources merely establish that the company lends money. No true in-depth info as required by notability guideline. Brianhe (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Company is not a lender; Private equity firm with reputable sources inclusive of Bloomberg. See CIVC Partners, Olympus Partners, Pamlico Capital and Morgenthaler for ref. ContentCrea (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article is a quotation from the Tamra-Tacoma web-site and is just an advertisement for Tamra-Tacoma. The article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.12.160 (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lending and equity are much the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.29.26 (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. There is a favorable opinion column focusing on the company at http://www. examiner.com, which is on the WP blacklist for some reason. I don't know if this is enough to keep this article, though. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: There's actually an explanation as to why it's blacklisted, it has been notorious for allowing itself to be confused with the San Francisco Examiner and other reliability issues (believe me, I've found some good stuff that can be used here at Wiki but there's need to be uplifting and covincing consensus for removing it). SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing convincingly good, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:09, 28 August 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. Jujutacular (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Cultural Institute Pakistan

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

No useful, looks like advertising. We have Google Cultural Institute and I don't understand why we need this. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 20:13, 14 August 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 August 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first paragraph is a close paraphrasing of this page's first paragraph. Adam9007 (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several reasons for keeping this page separate than the global Cultural Institute (CI) one:

- that global page [[24]] is so very basic without any details or focus on any of it's exhibits
- each geography is a different challenge and CI was executed in Pakistan (PK) very differently and that needs to be shared
- there are few very interesting project-related stories which will be added to this page as soon as CI is launched formally in PK
- considering Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia, this page can be a great source of very localized information about the project beyond what Google 'officially' would share
- general local users in PK don't get the background and context of what this project is and there's no other platform to explain that better
- existing content can certainly be improved so will work on that
- not being a very regular Wikipedia contributor, please guide if this is the right page to share feedback to counter deletion of proposed page: [[25]]
--Badar76 (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to above Keep comments:

- the global CI wiki page[[26]] is not at all properly maintained on Wiki [ e.g. like Street View [[27]]
- there are several examples of region/product/event Google related pages e.g. Google China [[28]], Book Search Settlement Agreement [[29]], Coverage of SV [[30]], Google Bus Protests [[31]], Oracle vs. Google [[32]]
--Badar76 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even sure if this institute exists. The Tribune article is about the signing of an MOU between Google and the Punjab government to allow Google 'access to heritage and cultural sites'. No mention of any institute nor any indication that it's a state-wide initiative. bizmanagement.pk seems to be a spam website and doesn't disclose any actual information on the institute. punjab.gov.pk is merely a local website for the Punjab government and in the article I was only able to find a single picture of a meeting between the managing director a Punjab organization and Nelson Matteos (maybe I missed something though). Two of the other references are blog posts (and even, they don't mention any 'Google Cultural Institute Pakistan'). After an examination of the sources and my own research, I am very skeptical of this institute's existence. Even if it does exist, then it is most likely is not notable enough and almost definitely is not a national initiative. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ Please, no keep twice.. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Google just launched Pakistan project online and I just added the link to the page -- please check and verify!
- Biz Management website, as the local executing partner, can't disclose any info until PR embargo is lifted (another 12 hours to go)
- In the Punjab Government newsletter PDF, scroll down to Page # 6 and look for "Posing for Explore Punjab" section -- you'll Nelson Mattos pic there
- The other two official Google blog posts never were about CI; if u read carefully, they are part of the project background/context and related to MapMaker and how it helped Pakistan
- Again, for the last point, the best evidence is Google's own launch -- just added the link to the main page -- kindly check
--Badar76 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the very first sentence is adspeak evidently copied from somewhere, and nobody has been interested enough to fix this, why are we even having this discussion? It is not evident form the article or the sparse sources what this "Institute" is even supposed to be; the sources describe some sort of cultural collaboration between Google and Pakistan but do not seem to describe an "Institute". Fails WP:V, borderline G11 speedy deletion case. Sandstein 08:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searches returned nothing to indicate that this organization meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 5 September 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 procedural closure. Nomination by blocked sock, not much input, already relisted twice. May be speedily renominated, provided WP:BEFORE is observed. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V. Jayashankarr

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

Non notable. The references included are very poor. Wikipediaismadebypeoplelikeus (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete if this can't be improved as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is a blocked sockpuppet – please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:46, 31 August 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 16:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zina Yazji

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

Television anchor in the mid-east. Searches on news returned a very few brief mentions, but nothing in-depth, and not enough of a non-trivial nature to satisfy WP:BASIC. The other searches returned zero results. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article isn't well sourced right now, but I'm finding a good deal about her resignation from anchor of a Syrian program. Her voice in support of Assad seems to have made quite a splash. She also made a list of most powerful Arab women in 2013. Given the influence of news anchors, I'm in favor of keeping and improving this article. Fuzchia (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:08, 28 August 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. Nobody opposes the deletion. Sandstein 08:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Chebbani

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

I do not see notability here; the references do not appear reliable for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a book entitled Arab Detroit: From Margin to Mainstream, which may or may not mention Chebbani. I used to have a copy but got rid of it or at least can't find it. I would advise searching that book before making a decision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll check the book at my local public library in the next 3 or so days to see if it mentions Chebbani.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (then draft & userfy) unless it can be improved as my searches found nothing better here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:08, 28 August 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. Soft delete, no objections to deletion in 21 days. Courcelles (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Physics Olympiad

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

Article does not meet wikipedia guidelines 495656778774 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I had a look on zh.wp and it does not have its own article there, just a paragraph in another on national contests for schools zh:全国中学生学科奥林匹克竞赛#物理学, which suggests to me it is not notable. The refs there are to documents at The Chinese Physics Society but that’s almost all in Chinese so difficult to use here, but it does not look like a reliable independent source anyway.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:55, 29 August 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. Nobody actually wants to keep, so... Sandstein 08:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanwa Denshi (video game)

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

This does not look like it will pass WP:ORG as this is more like a business to business brand and hardly anything else as I only heard of the joystick brands who it supply to. As I tried looking [33] and [34] this article does not say how they are notable, all it says that their products is arcade quality, their buttons is fitted on [x] brand joystick or that they are a leading brand but not how just like this article, so in other words, more like Wikipedia assisted notability. Donnie Park (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current article is 100% OR, so removing unsourced content means removing the entire page. No comment on notability, as being a Japanese company makes it hard to tell if there are Japanese sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Checking Japanese sources, it seems it does get decent coverage in the gaming press, especially at the major game shows, where it sets up a big booth: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], etc. There's even a video report on their booth from Famitsu, the major gaming magazine in Japan: [41]. I am not that familiar with the Japanese gaming press, so I would like to hear from those who are. Michitaro (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commment If this survives, as agreed with an IP user on the talk section, this article should be renamed Sanwa Denshi (arcade game component manufacturer) to avoid confusion with Sanwa Electronic who share the same kanji in its first four letters (三和電子) and use the URL sanwa-denshi. Donnie Park (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:08, 28 August 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. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Boy (novel)

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

I can't find references to support the notability of this book. King-Smith is a popular and prolific author, but I don't think he meets the standard that anyhting he writes is likely to be inherently notable. The topic here has been completely unreferenced for more than five years, and consists only of an in-universe plot summary. Mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dick King-Smith, as my efforts to find reviews in reliable sources were markedly unsuccessful. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Meets WP:NBOOK (4.The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country) as it appears on numerous school reading lists [42][43][44][45][46][47] and is taught in schools.[48][49] It has been used as one of the practice texts for the English Common Entrance Examination for year 6 students to move to senior school.[50] Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding links 1, 3–7 (link 2 is giving me a 404 error): I think just because it appears in a recommended reading list does not mean it is actually the subject of instruction at a school. No one needs to read or examine the book just because it appears on the list. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added two reviews I found in the article. I also found two potential reviews using Google Books, although I can't access their content: [51], [52]. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reviews of the book (Booklist, Kirkus, School Library Journal). The "Emergency Librarian" link is not a review, it's a list of books in which this is one. That it is on school reading lists is interesting but doesn't confer notability. The "subject of instruction" means that the book has been studied, as in a literature class where you study and discuss Moby Dick, for instance. For a children's/young adult book I would expect at least Kirkus and SLJ. LaMona (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/reply sorry about st margarets prep link, i can't get it to go to the reading list now (it has been removed). Regarding a book appearing in school reading lists and whether that means they are studied, i don't know about other editors but with the school i attended, students were expected to read at least the minimum number of books, from the list, usually 2 or 3 for the short inter-term breaks and more for the summer (end-of-year) holidays. On return to school our teacher(s) then gave lessons based on the books read, with the students who had read the book giving a report (when we had been provided with a large reading list to choose from, teacher would conduct a 'vote' to decide which books we would study, it was fun forming a voting bloc with friends to ensure our favorite book(s) from the lists were chosen.) That is why i have included these reading lists.

With regards to not appearing in kirkus, pw and slj, as these are US reviewers, a lot of english child/ya authors may not be covered by them ("but coolabah, they have reviewed a lot of king-smith's books, just not this non-notable one." - Drat!!!:))

As for ""subject of instruction" means that the book has been studied, as in a literature class where you study and discuss Moby Dick, for instance.", as more experienced editors, could you please provide a wikilink to the discussion that covers this as i have been unable to find this in the WP:NBOOK talkpage (including its archives).

In addition, Warning humor alert!(?), i don't think many 5 or 6 year olds attend "literature class" or "discuss Moby Dick", although i did find this slj review of an adaption - "Youngsters may come away with a barebones skeleton of Melville's classic tale, but the meat, and indeed the heart, of the story remain unfathomable to this audience.ALuann Toth, School Library Journal".[53] (sorry don't have slj access so had to use amazon).

Of course, i will probably defer eventually(?)(with much gritting of teeth and sheathing of claws.....

).

ps. you haven't really addressed the two references about it being taught in schools and being used for year 6 ceestudy, these alone should bring it over the notability line.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is virtually nothing in this article ABOUT the book aside from the summary of the plot. See: Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Articles_that_are_plot_summaries. That is, there are only two short statements by third parties about the book. I don't see evidence that it is "taught in schools" - which isn't the same as being on reading lists. And, yes, there is an extract (about one page) in the CEE document, but that document includes extracts from about two dozen works. Not itself enough for notability, IMO. It suffices that the author has a page here, and that lists his books. I note that there are other books by this author (e.g. The_Queen's_Nose) that have WP pages that are not appropriately referenced. (That one has only one third-party reference, although it may pass GNG because of the TV show.) LaMona (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou LaMona for explaining things (i thought i was on a slippery slope:)), have changed to ~~Delete~~, agree that the article would need to have stronger references to be kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's a review. Shirley Lewis is expressing an opinion about the book, hence she's reviewing it. Being part of a list doesn't preclude it from being a review. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a single sentence. So whether or not it is a review is moot - a single sentence is not sufficient to establish notability. LaMona (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added three more reviews, all of which are non-trivial, to the article. The Junior Bookshelf review article is 303 words long, the Magpies review article is 248 words, and the Books for Your Children review article is 112 words. I've really got to thank my university for their large collection of online databases. If anyone wants to see the reviews, I can send an email with their content. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks to the additional reviews by @Fearstreetsaga: I am definitely favouring keep, and seeing the value of the additional sources. Sadads (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have struck out my delete as article now appears to have strong enough citations to keep (but as not online they are difficult to verify, although this does not reduce their notableness(?)) :)) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:15, 4 September 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. sufficient consensus after the elisting DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Provinces Professional Fire Fighters Association

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

Basically I can't find much for this organization and I thought of PROD and speedy but comments from users may help in case this can be mentioned at IAFF's article (which seems to be affiliated with this one). My searches found nothing particularly good especially to make improvements (not even local notability), here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsources article on a non-notable professional association, no coverage anywhere, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. twister"s searches demonstrate clear lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:43, 28 August 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. Sandstein 08:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Cauchon

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

I'm not entirely sure he's notable and my searches found nothing to suggest improvement here, here and here (these three were the best results I found). For this sparsely edited article from February 2007, the time is now for comments. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 28 August 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, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: this individual is something of a personality in Quebec City, coverage isn't brilliant but he gets some press mostly about his Nordiques Nation stunts: NYTimes here, Le Droit here, Le Soleil here. Vrac (talk) 20:29, 8 September 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) 03:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically passing mentions in articles about Nordiques Nation events. No significant coverage of him.Jakejr (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I'm just on the other side of the line from Vrac. Not enough substantial coverage to pass WP:GNG, and not enough mentions to qualify for WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete Main google search is the wikipedia page itself, his twitter, facebook and the radio website itself. Doesn't really seem notable to me.Ljgua124 (talk) 00:19, 20 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crave (Cryptocurrency)

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

Fails general notability: zero coverage, sources point to web forums. Article creator is in charge of product. Blackguard 05:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks reliable sources independent of the subject. VQuakr (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - case of WP:TOOSOON. New coin, traded on some small exchanges, with market cap under US$25k[54]. Not finding enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet notability threshold. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 11:38, 1 September 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) 01:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western Flyer

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

What it really gets down to is I want this page deleted so I can create an article on the historic ship SS Western Flyer without having to DAB it. That said, this article legitimately should be deleted as it doesn't meet notability for WP:BAND. The closest it comes to is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart,", however its one appearance (#36 in 1996) was on a genre chart which I don't believe is covered by the WP:BAND catchall criteria. LavaBaron (talk) 05:11, 28 August 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 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Allmusic states that they have three separate singles that were popular enough to hit the charts: "She Should've Been Mine" and "Western Flyer" (from their first album) and "What Will You Do With M-E" (from their second album). The last of which even hit the 'Top 40'. As far as their other songs, it looks like their "Cherokee Highway" song got enough of a positive reception (even if it didn't chart in the U.S.) that Billboard commented on it due to the song's subject matter-- the group performed at the Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday celebration in Atlanta as a result. All of this makes me think that they're notable enough. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The MLK Birthday Celebration in Atlanta is a huge event at which dozens of, mostly local, bands perform during a 6-hour free concert in a park. This is not an event at which multi-platinum bands descend upon. It's a community festival composed almost exclusively of local gig bands, like any community festival or fair in a mid-major city. While it's a great event, I really don't think it's logical to assign it the status of an important milestone on the annual musical calendar that, once a band has played it, they have made it. Also, I'll again note, their chart-hitting songs were brief, low positions on genre charts. I'm under the impression a genre chart doesn't count for the WP:BAND "national chart" criteria. LavaBaron (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that they're notable because they played at that event. Like I said, it's because their playing at event and the socio-political related nature of the song that got them into the event (this reminds me of the "Same Love" single) got enough notice for Billboard to talk about them. Billboard is rather far from a mere local or community oriented newspaper. And it's not like they had no hits. They had three (two more than the many'one hit wonder' groups that have Wiki pages), one of which was a top 40 single that still gets airplay, and I fail to see how this group isn't notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not that they're notable because they played at that event. Like I said, it's because their playing at event and the socio-political related nature of the song that got them into the event ..." - so if my not-notable band writes a song that gets us invited to a not-notable music festival, we're now notable. Got it. LavaBaron (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a well-known band (with three hits, at least two more than your average country band) gets an invitation to a big musical festival based on a socio-political controversy such that the news is so important that Billboard reports on it, then that's worth noting. That's not a stretch at all. Once again, Billboard is not some cheap zine, for crying out loud, they're one of the most notable music related publications in the entire freaking country.

If you had a country band that wrote a song about, say, how traditionalist Christianity among southerners has contributed to homophobic hate crimes and criticize the culture attitudes in the south in your country song as you sing in support of equality, and the likes of Billboard thought that the ensuing discussions was notable enough to mention, with Billboard reporting especially how the controversy has led civil rights minded groups to promote your band in a big music festival... yeah, if that happened now, I would consider it strong evidence towards your group having a Wiki page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CoffeeWithMarkets. Another example of newspaper coverage is here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their gig at a bar in Wichita was mentioned in the Lakeland Ledger?! Man, what was I thinking AfD'ing this. LavaBaron (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very minor hits on a Billboard genre chart are not really convincing as a claim to notability, although they at least make the band borderline. There's a bit more minor coverage here. Neither of the two band members with articles have convincing independent notability. I think we need more evidence of coverage here, or at least something that gives us confidence that it exists. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think this is borderline based on what has been identified so far, but the likelihood is that further coverage exists, and I don't really see a benefit to the project from deleting this, so weak keep for me. --Michig (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:BAND with and two albums on a notable label, plus a Top 40 hit on Hot Country Songs. The sources from Lakeland Ledger, The Times-Leader, and Deseret News already in the article are clearly non-trivial, and additional coverage in Billboard here, here, here, here, here, and here, including reviews of three of their singles. MusicHound Country also has significant mention of the band here. I think this is clearly more than sufficient coverage to pass. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LavaBaron: Per WP:OUTCOMES, Hot Country Songs is considered a major enough chart to pass WP:BAND; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cole Swindell, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark McGuinn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenny Gault et al. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A one-line CD listing in a CD catalog constitutes "significant mention?" LavaBaron (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LavaBaron: The Google Books excerpt seems to be longer than one line from what I can pick up in Google Books. Also, did you miss all the Billboard references above? Reviews of three singles certainly convey a non-trivial degree of notability. And again, you have yet to comment on the Deseret News article or any of the other articles already cited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While those are nice, they don't meet WP:BAND criteria. There's a lot of chaffe being fired into the air and I don't have time to comment on all of it (e.g. the note in the Lakeland Ledger that the band was playing a bar gig in Wichita one evening in 1987 as "massive coverage"), which is why some of my replies may be absent a point-by-point rebuttal. Most of this doesn't pass the smell test on its own, it doesn't require my dissection or WP:LASTWORD. LavaBaron (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think "Charted single in the top 40 of a major chart" or "two albums on a notable label" = WP:BAND? You don't think that reviews in Billboard, one of the most definitive music magazines ever, is WP:BAND? Tell me how reviews of singles are "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising", "Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories", or "Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases", the only things excluded by criterion #1. Tell me how #32 on Hot Country Songs and another single at #38 on RPM Country Tracks are somehow not good enough for "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart", especially when I pointed out above that Hot Country Songs has a precedent for being a sufficiently widespread national music chart. Tell me how two albums on Step One Records does not translate to "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." I sure see a lot more blue links than red on Step One's list of artists, meaning that they meet the "roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" criterion. For the record, this is what the MusicHound book says: "…the band stakes out some solid country-rock turf with the title tune and the cautionary tale of racism, 'Cherokee Highway.' However, not all the songwriting is as substantive. Their second album… lapses into bland balladeering, with an occasional stab at Springsteen-style roots-rock. Trouble is they sound more like a Chevy ad than they do the Boss." That sounds like a review to me, and reviews are most certainly fine for "non-trivial coverage". Further significant coverage: here, here. New Country magazine often reviewed obscure acts like this, so I'll check the late 1996 issues if I can get my hands on them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of your treatise I already addressed (it was a genre chart). You typed a lot after that. To save time, I'm going to assume the rest of your questions are also repetition of what's already been addressed and stop there but, if not, let me know and I'll give it a skim. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I've shown you that there is precedent for this being a genre chart major enough to meet the criterion of WP:BAND. Can you show me any counterexamples where "just a genre chart" was not enough? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as precedent. LavaBaron (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LavaBaron: And you're not giving me any good reason why Hot Country Songs somehow does not pass muster, because it's "just a genre chart". Where has "just a genre chart" been a valid argument in the past? I've never seen anyone split hairs over which charts do and do not qualify for that criterion of WP:BAND like this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. LavaBaron (talk) 00:18, 3 September 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Bucks

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - USPDL-clubs, as a rule, do appear to be notable. (see this afd for example). The club also meets the club notability guidelines laid out at WP:FOOTYN having played in the Lamar Hunt Open Cup. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how it works. If this team is not notable, then this article should be deleted. Find sources. I could not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable. GiantSnowman 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fourth tier in England is notable. It's not in the US. Second tier barely achieves recognition in the US. Even if it were, this team is not. Please proved RSes that this team is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article clearly documents two decades of playing in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup clearly meeting the requirements laid out in WP:FOOTYN. Other past AFDs for other teams in this league started by the same editor have also established clear and near-unanimous consensus despite not meeting those WP:FOOTYN requirements. Teams at this level typically meet WP:GNG with examples such as [55]. Nfitz (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin: Please note that the arguments in favour of keeping do not use any guidelines or polices. The team does not have any reliable sources. being a member of a notable league does not make the team any more notable than being a non-notable band on a notable record label. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Closing admin. Please note that User:Walter Görlitz has a history of nominating teams in this league for deletion, despite precedent-setting near-unanimous rejection. Please also note that while WP:FOOTYN is neither a guideline nor a policy, it does represent community consensus and may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion. Nfitz (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have a history of nominating a number of non-notable subjects for deletion. The fact that this team is not notable while the league currently meets notability guidelines should not be conflated. If you can't keep classes and their objects separate, it's time to stop editing Nfitz. That seems to be the case for you and several other editors here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The applicable notability standards for sports teams (and all other organizations) are WP:ORG and WP:GNG, which this subject easily satisfies with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources in the U.S. midwestern regional media. Here's a sample: [56]; there are so many articles from the Michigan regional media, I'm not going to bother linking individual examples. Anyone interested can feel free to sort through the Google results. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG per Dirtlawyer. There is a decent amount of local attention for this team. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:43, 1 September 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WSA Winnipeg

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Equally notable as other teams in its division. Radagast (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not notable. There are no sources and I could find none. You must prove that they are notable, not simply pronounce it. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no indication that the subject or consensus on club notability has changed significantly since the last afd. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for inclusion has. WP:GNG and others. Please provide sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable. GiantSnowman 09:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fourth tier in England is notable. It's not in the US. Second tier barely achieves recognition in the US. Even if it were, this team is not. Please proved RSes that this team is notable. Finally, this team plays in Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this nomination makes no sense. This is the first level of soccer in North America that isn't fully professional. Players at this level are arguably shouldn't have articles. But teams? The last AFD was pretty clear. Nfitz (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin: Please note that the arguments in favour of keeping do not use any guidelines or polices. The team does not have any reliable sources. being a member of a notable league does not make the team any more notable than being a non-notable band on a notable record label. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The applicable notability standard for sports teams (and all other organizations) are WP:ORG and WP:GNG, which this subject easily satisfies with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources in the western Canadian media. Here's a sample: [57]; there are so many articles from the Canadian media, I'm not even going to bother linking individual examples. Anyone interested can feel free to sort through the Google results. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 1 September 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K-W United FC

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just as notable as the other teams in its league, none of which seem to have been nominated for deletion; is the current reigning league champion. Radagast (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not notable. There are no sources and I could find none. You must prove that they are notable, not simply pronounce it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable. GiantSnowman 09:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fourth tier in England is notable. It's not in the US. Second tier barely achieves recognition in the US. Even if it were, this team is not. Please proved RSes that this team is notable. Also, this team plays in Canada, not the US. Are you sure you know what you're discussing here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every team in this league is notable.--Coppercanuck (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this nomination makes no sense in light of the clear consensus in previous attempts of deletions of Canadian USPDL teams. This is the first level of soccer in North America that isn't fully professional. Players at this level are arguably shouldn't have articles. But teams? Teams at this level easily meet WP:GNG with numerous examples, such as [58]. Nfitz (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin: Please note that the arguments in favour of keeping do not use any guidelines or polices. The team does not have any reliable sources. being a member of a notable league does not make the team any more notable than being a non-notable band on a notable record label. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Closing admin. Please note that this user has a history of nominating teams in this league for deletion, despite precedent-setting near-unanimous rejection. Please also note that the claim that the claim that no guideline or policy has been used in favour of keeping is false, as WP:GNG is a guideline that was used in favour of keeping the article. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have a history of nominating a number of non-notable subjects for deletion. The fact that this team is not notable while the league currently meets notability guidelines should not be conflated. If you can't keep classes and their objects separate, it's time to stop editing Nfitz. That seems to be the case for you and several other editors here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 September 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forest City London

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As notable as other teams in its division/league. Radagast (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not notable. There are no sources and I could find none. You must prove that they are notable, not simply pronounce it. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable. GiantSnowman 09:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fourth tier in England is notable. It's not in the US. Second tier barely achieves recognition in the US. Even if it were, this team is not. Please proved RSes that this team is notable. Also, this team plays in Canada, not the US. You clearly do not understand the subject we're discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator says he can not find any sources on the subject; here's a couple from a very quick Google search: [59], [60]. Looking at Premier Development League#Current clubs, every other club in that league has an article; I don't see why Forest City London should be any different. The nominator claims the article "Fails notability criteria"; what notability criteria are these? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- One paragraph is considered to be fulfilling RS? The others are blogs!
Keep- this nomination makes no sense in light of the clear consensus in previous attempts of deletions of Canadian USPDL teams. This is the first level of soccer in North America that isn't fully professional. Players at this level are arguably shouldn't have articles. But teams? Nfitz (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin: Please note that the arguments in favour of keeping do not use any guidelines or polices. The team does not have any reliable sources. being a member of a notable league does not make the team any more notable than being a non-notable band on a notable record label. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Closing admin. Please note that User:Walter Görlitz has a history of nominating teams in this league for deletion, despite precedent-setting near-unanimous rejection. Please also note reliable sources such as [61], [62], [63]. Nfitz (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have a history of nominating a number of non-notable subjects for deletion. The fact that this team is not notable while the league currently meets notability guidelines should not be conflated. If you can't keep classes and their objects separate, it's time to stop editing Nfitz. That seems to be the case for you and several other editors here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Nfitz says, while we may not deem players notable because they played for this club, the club itself, like other clubs at this level, is sufficiently notable for an article. In addition to the reasons already stated, sources are apparent in basic searches, for example see the GNews and Google searches for <"FC London" Ontario> (links above).--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 1 September 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. This is an A10 deletion as even the original author has posted on the talk page that the other page should be moved to this title. —SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salkia

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

Replication of a pre-existing stub for Salkhia ~~(except that it has been misspelt)~~. [EDIT] On reviewing the spelling per WP:COMMONNAME, news sources seem to reference "Salkia". This being the case, the current "Salkhia" article should possibly be renamed as "Salkia" with a redirect from "Salkhia". ~~Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)~~--Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:11, 28 August 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, 4 September 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. Until somebody makes a stronger case with some of these sources? Sandstein 09:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nan Sathida Prompiriya

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

At best, she would appear well known and notable but without sources and my searches not finding any aside from possible results at The Bangkok Post, there's not much to suggest change and improvement (and I actually reviewed this in August 2011). SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Bangkok Post article cited in the article no longer exists (need subscription to access). Thai language search finds these news [64] (from 2011 news), [65] (from 2015), [66] (from 2013) --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:36, 30 August 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, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not thing much in news. Passing mention in the Bangok Post. The Nation ([67]) in passing calls her "award-winning singer Sathida Prompiriya". What awards, it does not say, and I'ld bet the author based that on Wikipedia article (and awards listed there are hardly impressive). That does not seem to be sufficient for passing WP:ARTIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if notability is only indebted to have winning a relatively unknown event once then that is not enough for her to have an article by her own. Note that other prize-winners of World Championships of Performing Arts lack own articles. Lappspira (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The news articles linked to by Lerdsuwa would indicate that the subject meets the GNG, having been covered in-depth by multiple third-party sources, including nationally circulated print newspapers. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:15, 9 September 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 G12 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalderetang Bibi

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

Nonsense, but not enough so for Speedy. Not enough content to keep. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:22, 28 August 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Cheng Kam Chung

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

I actually tagged this in August 2011 and it has gotten no improvement since and has only attracted more tags and issues. Based by this information, Chinese Wiki (which appears symmetrical) and my searches found nothing to suggest improvement and I somewhat doubt he's notable in China. I doubt, by any chance, his companies are notable although there are no articles for any of them and I'm not sure of the weight of his awards. Pinging fellow taggers @DoctorKubla, Boleyn, AdventurousSquirrel, and Wgolf:. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if his notability cannot be verified. This is an unref blp, which despite lots of editors looking at over the years, remains unreferenced and with no proof of notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: surely not notable.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 05:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failed the WP:BIO. STSC (talk) 17:11, 28 August 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8Legged Entertainment

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

My searches found nothing to suggest this orphaned article has good coverage (not even minimally), searches here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this [68] but it is simply a brief mention in a snippet about the founder. Nothing else I found would be considered reliable enough to establish notability. --TTTommy111 (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like notability just can't be established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:24, 28 August 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. Sandstein 09:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Tonight

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News source mentioning the video premiere on MTV Base http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/667770-halima-namakula-s-son-hemdee-to-shake-up-us-music-industry.html
MTV article about another Meaku song http://www.mtvbase.com/news/new-eddy-kenzo-featuring-praiz-and-meaku-dropping-soon/as3mgs

Digitalmedia90 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources you provided is not an evidence of notability, its just an evidence that the the song exist. Source1- does not say anything about the song. Source2- say "Eddy Kenzo has collaborated with Praiz and Meaku on a new song titled “Selfies”. According to the singer, the track is expected to drop real soon!". All of this does not establish notability. Notability is beyond a passing mention. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Source1- does not say anything about the song." Please re-read Source1. The video for On Tonight premiered on MTV Base, a major television network for music in Africa. I included Source2 here simply as a reference. User:Digitalmedia90 —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothin' better. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 11 September 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) 17:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juanita Baranco

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

My searches found nothing to suggest improvement and better notability and although I found a plethora of results to confirm her existence and local recognition, here, here, here, here and here, there's nothing to transfer improvement here (COIs don't concern me as much sometimes because they are often well intentioned edits, unless they are blatantly of concern but this was started by subject and nothing else has changed since). SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is listed as Georgia's 100 most influential Women for 2015 along with Rosalynn Carter. Sounds notable to me. Article needs improvement. I'll see what I can add. I have access to databases tomorrow. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a little bit of research and found that she made a significant difference in education and she's been written up as a major focus in many different journals. She is also a black woman who has made a difference in Georgia, both for students and in the business community. I think she's a keeper, but her article needs a lot of copyedit. I'm too tired to do that now. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why was this even nominated instead of just being improved? Even the nominator confirms there are a "plethora" of sources to confirm notability. Notability is not required to be national or international. Sources are required to be lasting and significant. If that is within her local community, it makes it no less significant. This climate of tagging files for deletion, rather than evaluating files or getting someone else to fix issues rather than fixing them oneself, really needs to be reevaluated. [69], [70], [71] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs)

Keep: Yet another case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, article needs work, but notability quite adequate. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clearly notable. Ogress _smash! 16:31, 1 September 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. Sandstein 09:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Banney

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

I'm not sure if this orphaned article is independent notable and my searches found nothing particularly good aside from this and this. Nothing suggests improvement for this which has stayed the same since December 2005. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject of numerous independent reliable sources. Refs now supplied.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The only good source is the recent article on him by 1233 ABC Newcastle, a local media outlet. I think we would need something more than that. Being covered in regional (provincial) media once doesn't seem to fulfill WP:BIO, nor WP:COMPOSER. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it seems to be approaching WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 12 September 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 Ungrateful (album). The consensus is that the subject is not notable and supports Walter Görlitz's original redirect action. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're Insane

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

Contested Speedy. Clearly fails any form of notability criteria: WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. I searched and found nothing to help support it either. The query above needs "Escape the Fate" to be added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Might be worth redirecting to the album. Definitely doesn't merit an article - an album track made available for download to people who pre-ordered the album, is just an album track, not a 'digital single'. --Michig (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried turning it into a redirect, but the article creator objected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I thought the move was a little too pre-emptive and wanted discussion first. I at first saw the reason it was redirected for being that it never charted, information on Escape the Fate's discography said otherwise, and had some decent size to it when it was redirected. So I re-created it thinking it was wrongly redirected. After I took a look at the sources for the positions, Billboard seemed to have erased it from its records. I checked for other sources. A couple articles claim it had peaked in the top twenty or thirty of Mainstream Rock charts, but I couldn't find a specific position to match the 27 on the discography. I was unsure what to do with this article at this point. Also, not that this matters much, but it was a radio single as well, not just an album track. ;)DannyMusicEditor (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Plausible search term considering it was released prior to the album and received radio play to some capacity, but there's not enough sourcing, or even content, worthy of having its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 1 September 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheStart

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article was previously deleted following a PROD, and then re-created, so I am bringing it here for discussion. The cited references are: a page at allmusic, a page on the web site of a company publishing the band's records, a dead link, and a page on a web site which allows "user-contributed text". I have not found any other evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourcing needs improvement, but they've released several albums under three notable independent labels. (WP:BAND, #5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanzzibar (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I also considered weak keep but the main issue is there's no good third-party coverage and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The group has coverage from sources such as Allmusic, and it seems to be notable enough. Their 2004 release was even highlighted by the music publication as an 'Album Pick'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to a lot on allmusic there is

Mauet, Sarah (15 December 2005), "TheStart help jump start new wave revival", The Arizona Daily Star

Thorne, Evan (12 April 2002), "Aimee Echo the highlight on The Start's 'Shakedown!'", Chicago Daily Herald

Iwasaki, Scott (2 November 2001), "Fresh start suits Start just fine", Deseret News

and a short review in

"Not quite the beginning", Mosman Daily, 19 February 2004

Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 10 September 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) 14:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cave

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

I see possible improvement here but I'm not sure if it's enough so I'm taking it to AfD for comments and consensus; my searches found quotes such as "[one of] Britain's leading mountaineers", "acclaimed, internationally acclaimed, well known and renowned author", "one of Britain's finest mountaineers", "top climber", "one of the greatest mountaineers of his generation", "one of the world's most respected mountaineers", "one of the most respected mountaineers in the world" and "world famous" in various sources from my various searches here, here, here and here. He may be very well known in the UK and his mountaineering but I'm not sure if this is improvement and time-worthy. If he is notable, I'm willing to make the improvements myself (the article needs improvement from its current state). SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable prizes for his books in his field. That's sufficient DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination does not contain any reason to delete — just some waffle about possible improvements. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 16:51, 4 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Business Awards

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

Almost totally unsourced and ridden with promotionalism throughout.

(1) No sourcing is given for any of the information about the organization. I find It is not even sourceable to their web site [72], which gives no information about the organization: only a list of judges and award winners. The only sourcing in the article of any sort for any of the material is the statements of a few of the many recipients that they have won an award. Looking for more, I find almost nothing except many other statements from companies they have won an award, published in press release or local news outlets. The two exceptions re two press releases: [73] and [74]. They have the same extensive text about the company as does the WP article. The WP article is not a copy of either--it was here first. Nor do I think they copied the WP article--it seems they both are essentially copies of some material the company prepares for its press releases. The second of the releases gives some additional information that the awards are primarily sponsored by "RSM International... a worldwide network of independent accounting and consulting firms. ", and other sponsors R|SM. The London Stock Exchange's " ELITE, the Pan European programme set up by London Stock Exchange Group to support high growth European SMEs"

(2) As for promotionalism, just read the article. Sections 1 and 2 contain essentially nothing else , and the rest of the article is just the list of awards.

(3). This article has been here since 2006. It was shorter then, but no better. It might seem incredible that material of this sort could survive this long, but it's not uncommon here: I would call it disgraceful rather the incredible. The reason I nominated here instead of just using G11 was to call attention to the problem. (& because the awards are used as contributing to notability in about 50 WP articles. Any article dependent on them needs to be considered for deletion). DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and work with WP:WikiProject Europe to find sourcing, especially sourcing behind paywalls (e.g., LexisNexis, ft.com) and in languages other than English. As self-serving as the article is (and that could be changed), it looks like more than a few companies have entered the competition and it's got testimonials (see http://www.businessawardseurope.com/about# "What other people think of the European Business Awards") from half a dozen ministers and unspecified support from a ministry of the British government (UK Trade & Investment). Alternately, redirect to a yet-to-be-written general article about business awards in Europe (see http://www.europaeischer-unternehmensfoerderpreis.de/, http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Le-palmares-des-Prix-Entreprises.html, Swedish Business Awards, as examples of other business awards in Europe). -- DanielPenfield (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many companies have entered the competition, and a great many seem to have put out press releases saying they won. Not everything supported in some vague way by the UK Government is notable, nor would I even regard that as an sign thatit's likely to be--any gov't and its agencies will be involved in many more non-notable thing than notable ones. Testimonials on a organization's page mean nothing -- or less than nothing-- a notable organization does not need them. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no convincing sources for notability, promotional tone throughout ("After rigorous face to face assessed in front of a judging panel, Ruban d’Honneur recipients are honoured and the names of the Award winners revealed as Europe’s top businesses at a glittering Awards ceremony"). I'd have speedy-deleted as purely promotional. Sandstein 09:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Sandstein. Purely promotional article about a purely promotional award. Searches did not turn up anything which would show this is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 12 September 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. Sandstein 09:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telsonic Ultrasonics

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP with no substantial coverage outside of specialist publications. Previous AFD closed as soft delete but contested by a paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure as this needs attention from familiar people and people with access to possibly non-English or otherwise challenging sources and my searches found nothing particularly good aside from this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searches did not turn up enough to meet notability guideline. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 11 September 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 Deleted via move to SwisterTwister's userspace. Sam Walton (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hunters (TV series)

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

Article about a forthcoming television series, sourced at this point only to a single announcement that the show has entered the production pipeline. Per longstanding WP:AFD consensus, Wikipedia does not create or keep articles about television series on the basis of a production announcement alone, as things can happen which can cause the series to be delayed, massively reworked or never actually air at all — thus making it a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Rather, a forthcoming television series does not become an appropriate article topic until it's officially upfronted by a television network as something that's definitely going to air rather than just being planned to maybe air. Delete, without prejudice against recreation once Syfy announces a definitive airdate. (I would also have no objection to sandboxing it in draft or user space.) Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -As stated by Nom, television series is still in planning stages and therefore does not yet qualify for Wikipedia. ABF99 (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (and I'm willing to store it at my userspace in the meantime) as it's still in production and details aren't clear. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 11 September 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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Cabal the Detective

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. Sourced only to the author's web site and a wiki-like site which allows user-submitted content. (PROD was removed without any explanation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as article meets WP:NBOOK and now has plenty of reliable sources thanks to Tokyogirl79. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NBOOK, several reviews have been added Kraxler (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Coolabahapple.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 2 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scoopler

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

The article appears to fail WP:WEB in that the sole references are both are from a single tech blog. It has been tagged for notability since June 2013, with no substantial changes/improvements undertaken since then. It was also put forward for an AfD in June 2013 but the tag was removed on the basis that the nominator did not supply a reason. The actual search engine only appeared to operate for two years (between 2009-2011) and there doesn't appear to be any demonstration of its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably because there's simply not much about this with this, this, this and this being the best results. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nom CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:14, 3 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force Power Afghanistan

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

Extremely irrelevant piece of non-notable information. Went to the PDF cited [75], and couldn't find "Task Force Power" or "FRAGO 10-213" when I ran a search. Might be made up as a hoax. Jcmcc (Talk) 03:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Well, it's not a hoax. "Task Force Power" is an actual military project, and it's mentioned by defense.gov: {Exp Federal Inc., Chicago, Illinois, was awarded an $8,017,418 firm-fixed-price contract with options to meet the requirements of the congressionally mandated electrical safety program, “Task Force Power.” Work will be performed in Afghanistan with an estimated completion date of March 20, 2017.} More details about it are here. However, the fact still seems clear that this is just one military project out of many that has no significant notability. So, while I have no strong feelings on this, I recommend deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find much in the way of coverage to indicate it satisfies the GNG, except for what has been mentioned above and one or two other minor passing mentions (not all reliable sources, though). In this regard, I'd say it should probably be deleted, but I would be amenable to maybe including it in a parent article, if a suitable one could be identified. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a hoax but lacks the req'd coverage to justify its own article per WP:GNG. I agree that the information that is available might be usable in another article per AR's comment. Anotherclown (talk) 02:38, 4 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 18:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ventom Network India

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

Delete: This is perhaps a very tricky AfD nomination with 97 references cited. I am still making this bold AfD nominating due 1) This is completely written as advertisement 2) Most of the references cited are either self-published, blogs, paid advertisement or even e-commerce sites c) This company is not notable otherwise and certainly not a "Conglomerate" as termed in the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as the article, whether intended or not, looks more like a personal and promotional page and the sources are not enough weight and my searches found much less, with this being the best I found. Initially, I was going to wait until more familiar users commented but I think it's clear here. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has anyone thought to try to clean up its tone, or is deletion thought to be the only possible option??? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since when are we responsible for cleaning up advertisements? Just a thought. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at times, if the article is still salvageable and I've almost nominated some articles until I found enough to improve it. However, this one still has sourcing issues. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You have a point SwisterTwister but then in the same lines my opinion is that this is not salvageable for now. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: In response to above, when anyone deigns to edit Wikipedia and makes a choice to evaluate the work of others, they never ever "have" to improve anything... but please take a look at WP:SEP and understand that while you might choose to not, I personally choose to improve Wikipedia by improving articles claimed unsavable by someone else. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Maybe someone can boil down the article and see if anything worthwhile remains? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Unambiguous advertising-- . Shlok _{talk .} 11:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a spam that uses WP:REFFLOOD to mask its nature (Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability). If anyone can point out how his meets WP:NCOMPANY, ping me here. I don't see any reliable refs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 4 September 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. Sandstein 08:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GiftCards.com

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

I proposed WP:AfD, the article/company seems non-notable has WP:COI editing (by possibly at least two/only (that is not those reverting or putting banners in) "contributors", that do not edit ([m]any) other pages), copyvio. Article/company made too look important, by linking to news articles (the sources are real, notable (usually WP:RS), news sources, still newspapers link in this banner in this page brings this result: "No results found for "GiftCards.com" site:news.google.com/newspapers."), discussion general issues (gift cards [companies]), this one not the main/only one. Didn't look at all refs, another guy did, said would support AfD. See talk page for more. Not sure if AfD or even just WP:PROD is appropriate, as I proposed AfD, I'm ok, with a speedier process if others deem appropriate and it is allowed to change (w/my permission).

Delete

Clear Might not be the right place for this (please if anyone knows where to bring up, do, possibly by copying/moving my text here): Separately (I do not know the process) I propose banning the COI editors if not already done (and their IP addresses, or whatever is done), as a violation of policy (not declaring COI, and they seem not be independent editors, that should have possibly known better than to edit in this way). comp.arch (talk) 11:22, 20 August 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 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - The references either appear to be invalid, pointing to affiliated sites, or reprints(?) of press releases. I don't see evidence of notability. The purpose of the current article appears to be promotion of the company. Rwessel (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cleaar PR for a not yet notable company. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not remove the broken links and copyrighted information, but keep the page? I apologize and was simply trying to bring the page current. What can be done to keep the page?

Here are newspaper sources to show GiftCards.com is notable:

Here are sources to show that the gift card industry is notable:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.177.2 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the copyright issues and providing good references is an excellent idea. If the article is improved sufficiently, this AfD will become moot. Rwessel (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwessel Is this now moot? I see it was relisted but not sure what else can be done other than stubifying it. There are so many broken comments here it is hard to keep track of everything. --TTTommy111 (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a jumbled mess, I've added my comment at the bottom. Rwessel (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content without copyright issues and good references have been provided on the talk page.Justinfritz (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to the article in the BBC [76], it is the largest gift card retailer in the world. That would be notable. There are additional references that support its notability like [77], [78], and [79]. The content that is promotional can be removed. In fact, I will do that now. But the company itself is not new and clearly meets WP:GNG. --TTTommy111 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some SPA issues which tells me that some of the content was probably created without fully understanding how to write in an encyclopedia tone.--TTTommy111 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stripped it to bare bones and rewrote what was left. This should take care of the promotional tone and copyvio issues. For anyone new who is trying to edit the article, especially those with a COI, I strongly encourage that you become more than familiar with Wikipedia guidelines prior to.--TTTommy111 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more 3rd party sources that point to GiftCards.com's notability:
Selling 6 million gift cards: http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/morning-edition/2015/02/giftcards-com-sells-6-millionth-gift-card.html

Entrepreneur magazine, You Gift We Gift: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/235585

Inc. 5000, mentioned as prominent brand along side Yelp & Facebook: http://www.cnbc.com/id/48782069

Pittsburgh Business Ethics Awards honors GiftCards.com: http://triblive.com/business/headlines/7850044-74/company-ethics-gift

Home to Shelly Hunter (aka GiftCard Girlffriend) who keeps a Chapter 11 Watchlist for company's whose gift cards are about to go bankrupt: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/05/31/gift-card-retailer-bankruptcies-dots-family-christian-stores/28155839/

Keep per the list of all references above. The article is short and, perhaps, not ideal, but it needs to be revamped, not deleted. There are plenty of reliable, independent, and verifiable sources out there for this one. Gargleafg (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waffle While the copyright issues appear to be resolved, I'm not fully convinced that the sources establish notability. Of the three in the article, only the BBC one comes close (the others are a company web site and some sort of directory entry), and that does a better job of establishing the notability of Mr. Wolfe than the company. Of the ones listed above by 71.112.177.2, only the TribLive, Fortune and Post-Gazette ones are plausibly valid (the others just include GiftCards.com in a list). Of those, the Fortune one appears also appears to be more of a Wolfe hagiography (like the BBC reference), and the other two feel more like reprinted or thinly reworked company press releases or company histories than "real" journalism, but that's clearly a judgement call (although in the case of the Post-Gazette a local paper writing a puff piece about a local company is hardly uncommon). Rwessel (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't initiate the AfD only because [of copyvio, but because of] non-notabililty. Now, I see the BBC article (not sure it changes much, but will accept either decision). At least I learned (English is not my native language) a new word "hagiography": "is a biography of a saint or an ecclesiastical leader." comp.arch (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that *is* the original meaning. In modern usage (and in this case), it's usually sense 4 of wikt:hagiography (as described in the third paragraph of hagiography), less commonly sense 3, and the (actual) religious usage is fairly rare. Rwessel (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If this is here because of a copyright violation, I do not see a reason to continue the debate as it was taken to a stub. If it is here because of notability, not sure why as there are plenty of references (see Google news – [80]), including this on Bloomberg TV, plus this, this, this, this and this. These are surely multiple sources, seeming reliable and independent of the subject, thus making the subject compliant with WP:GNG (IMHO). Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 17:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a decent amount of sources here. Largest gift card retailer probably counts for something. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am going in to remove the old references and include the more reliable ones, at least the ones I feel are more reliable. If this is kept, I would recommend anyone contributing to it be non-promotional and include reliable sources to back up what they introduce into the page. --TTTommy111 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vexillology Ireland

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

COI creation, primarily sourced. Murry1975 (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I absolutely love flags and vexillology websites and it seems like a really interesting place, but there is nothing I can find that would pass WP:GNG or WP:RS. The author of this article also created the recently deleted Stanislav Zamyatin, which was featured prominently in this organization's newsletter as its CEO: seems to me like there's a larger link here between the two and there's probably a COI violation going on. Between the lack of outside sources and the COI of the person who created it... it looks like a really interesting group but that isn't enough to let them have an article. Nomader (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes judging by the users profile and the ceo profile they are one in the same. It features as a small and sufficient part in Genealogical Society of Ireland. Murry1975 (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry do you really mean sufficient. The talk page of Genealogical Society of Ireland suggests a merge of this article into that one. This makes sense to me.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, I am not going to pretend that I am an expert in Wikipedia but I will say that I am an expert in flags and as the main representative of them in Ireland I will say that there is a 'lot' of badly written, false and plagiarized writing on flags in general. I am not sure how you are contributing to Wikipedia and the world, but I can say that you are not helping by insisting that this page be deleted. My German friend who is a prominent contributor on German Wikipedia has informed me that English Wikipedia forbids dependent articles, meaning that I have to find someone, who is not member of Vexillology Ireland to write the article, using sources outside of VI and its parent group Genealogical Society of Ireland. Another issue is that since Vexillology Ireland is part of the Genealogical Society of Ireland, it is the latter that gets all the publicity, even though in actuality they are involved in different things. I guess a merger is better then deletion but I strongly think that much would be lost in Ireland and in the field of vexillology (flag studies) if this page is merged or deleted. I would strongly urge you to reconsider and assist in the preservation of this page rather than the 'destruction' of it. Thank you and hopefull you can be considerate and understanding of the situation. Hohostan (talk) 18:21 , 21 August 2015 (GMT)

Basically, there must be reliable sources that talk about Vexillology Ireland. Believe me, I love flags as much as you do, but in order to have this article exist here on Wikipedia, there has to be significant outside coverage that talks about the organization from verifiable and reliable sources. Do you have anything that I might have missed when I looked? Nomader (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A first step is done by adding the North American Vexillological Association as reference for VI as member of FIAV, which is the main authority for vexillology. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see your point, and the FIAV is definitely a large organization. But I don't think it's enough to satisfy the requirements for an article to exist here. Just because it's a member organization doesn't mean that every member organization necessarily has to have its own page. But the reference that was added to the article is just a list of all member organizations, and their website doesn't have any other information on VI like a profile on it either. Can you think of anything else? I'm looking but I still haven't found anything that would lead me to strike my delete, especially not the FIAV reference. Nomader (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it seems significant enough. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/XfD. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations, Vexillology Ireland produces a biannual newsletter known as 'VIBE', copies of which are found at the National Library of Ireland.^[1] The society is currently working on setting up a joint flag registry with the Flag Institute and work has gone underway.^[2] More citations will be provided after the 26th International Congress of Vexillology in Sydney. http://www.icv26.com.au/ Hohostan (talk) 10:23 , 25 August 2015 (GMT)

I don't think that a library holding a newsletter makes something necessarily notable. My dad wrote a really great running book once, but it doesn't have a Wikipedia page even though it's in the Library of Congress. As I've said above, there needs to be significant coverage and I'm just not seeing it. Nomader (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Hohostan: according to your Userpage, you're the head of this organization, correct? Could you make sure to declare your conflict of interest at the talk page of the article and somewhere here in this discussion? Nomader (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 28 August 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) 04:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It exists, but that does not mean it belongs to an encyclopedia. Is there a single independent source that calls it notable, important or such? If so, please ping me and I'll review this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: The Wikipedia article on Vexillology Ireland should continue to exist. Flags Australia recently hosted the 26th International Congress of Vexillology, which included a presentation by Vexillology Ireland of its intent to bid for the hosting of ICV29 in 2021. As an executive of a well recognised flag association that has existed for over 30 years and hosted two ICVs, and the webmaster for Flags Australia I find it hard to see how anyone other than the association itself provide reliable information on a flag group, unless one goes to the extreme of ghost writing a contribution by an erstwhile third party to avoid the mindless application of a rule that is inappropriate in the circumstances. The existence of Vexillology Ireland is verified by its membership of FIAV (which has stringent membership requirements), and the CEO Mr Stan Zamyatin attended ICV26 in Sydney. He has just published a new book on the design of flags, copies of which were distributed in Sydney. If the Wikipedia article states something that is wrong or exceedingly biased, then Wikipedia has a record of such excesses being corrected. There is no need to censor the existence of the article itself. - by Ralph Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.168.246 (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question is not whether Vexillology is a significant subject, but whether Vexillology Ireland is a notable organisation. The fact that the subject had no national society from 1992 to 2013, between the dissolution of a 8-year old society and its revival in 2013, suggests to me that it is NN. My guess is that there is one enthusiast who is producing an on-line newsletter and a dozen or two members. If so, it is certainly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing off of a search of Vexillology Ireland finds good independent-third party sources. Article fails both points of WP:NONPROFIT. MrWooHoo (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Merge over to Genealogical Society of Ireland since the parent organization is far more notable than this branch of it CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:02, 12 September 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:MusikAnimal/TestPage

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryukyu Islands dispute

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

Ryk72 requested speedy deletion (CSD A10). But I think that this article shuld exist in wikipedia as seperated article. Ryukyu Islands dispute arose before than Senkaku Islands dispute. --Skirtland (talk) 13:00, 13 August 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 August 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Frivolous deletion request. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Convinced by the argument. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Merge relevant aspects to Senkaku Islands dispute. With respect to Altenmann, this is not a frivolous deletion request. The vast majority of the article as it stands is not supported by any reliable sources; it appears to consist largely of WP:OR, and to be a WP:POVFORK which contradicts aspects of the Ryukyu Islands & History of the Ryukyu Islands articles. All of the sources which are used to support aspects of the article are primarily about the Senkaku Islands dispute; none relate to a wider Ryukyu Islands dispute. Google searches for additional supporting sources are not fruitful. The topic does not appear to pass WP:GNG. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be kidding. Here is what source cited says: "Let's for now not discuss whether [the Ryukyus] belong to China, they were certainly China's tributary state," Luo said in an interview with China News Service. "I am not saying all former tributary states belong to China, but we can say with certainty that the Ryukyus do not belong to Japan," he added, " -- You may not like the article, but the dispute seems pretty much here. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assure editors that I am not "kidding". The source referred to is the New York Times[81]. Looking at the whole of the source, rather than a single quote, however, provides a different view of the content. We (quite reasonably) regard the NYT as a reliable source, but I could not in good faith assert that this source verifies anything more than an outburst of sentiment within China for a desire to strengthen a claim on the Senkaku Islands, by making a wider claim on the whole of the Ryukyus - it certainly does not verify that there is a legitimate international dispute over these islands.

The NYT article clearly attributes the quote as a hawkish Chinese military official argued that the Japanese did not have sovereignty over the Ryukyu Islands because its inhabitants paid tribute to Chinese emperors hundreds of years before they started doing so to Japan. Looking into this and the Guardian source[82], shows that the quote traces back to the South China Morning Post[83] (the Guardian explicitly so), which is clearly a biased source. There is nothing in the NYT & Guardian sources, nor any of the others, to indicate that this is anything more than another shot in the Senkaku Islands dispute; which is referenced by each of the sources.

As with all others, I neither like nor dislike this Wikipedia article, I just do not agree that it meets the standards for inclusion as a separate article. The claims of military hawks and State newspapers are clearly noteworthy as part of the Senkaku Islands dispute, but they are not notable enough for their own article.

In short, I am not saying that we should exclude this information; simply that we should include it in context, as part of the Senkaku Islands dispute, in the same way that the sources regard it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with your logic, but in this case "merge" option precludes "delete" due to our copyright policy. - üser:Altenmann >t

Hi Altenmann, I agree with the complications around the copyright policy, but believe that it would be possible for us to both comply with policy and delete. The Beginnings section of the article is largely unsourced or poorly (non-RS) sourced; overlaps the contents of the Ryukyu Islands & History of the Ryukyu Islands articles (WP:POVFORKingly so to a large extent) - there is little to no encyclopedic content in this section, and I believe it can be safely deleted.

New encyclopedic content does indeed exist in the 2010s section, but the text of this is limited to In 2010s, China questions Japan's sovereignty of Ryukyu Islands.; an incomplete, somewhat inaccurate reflection of the 3 RSes used for this section - the sources used here can be mined for a fuller, expanded coverage, at the Senkaku Islands dispute article, without relying on copying this sentence verbatim - I believe this would satisfy the copyright concerns. I welcome your thoughts on this potential approach. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion should be closed immediately because user Skirtland is not the nominator for the deletion. STSC (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi STSC, W.r.t this question, please see WP:NOTBURO. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:36, 20 August 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) 03:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and probably don't redirect it. No evidence has been provided that there is any real-world dispute, i.e. a claim seriously advanced by the Chinese government or something of that sort. —innotata 04:08, 28 August 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. 3 weeks, no commentary. treat this like a PROD. Courcelles (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Youth Partnership for Africa

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

My searches simply found no good coverage for this with following results here, here, here (I found the originals here and here). At best, this could've been mentioned elsewhere although there's not much but there's no good target. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 4 September 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) 03:56, 11 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hedi El Ayoubi

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

I'm questioning whether he's independently notable as although he's been associated with well known and notable films, there's not much for him. My searches found a few results such as a Variety review here and here. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTINHERITED. We almost always delete BLPs of producers and assistant directors, because they almost always fail WP:CREATIVE as their contributions are not notable by themselves. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Using the search engines turned up mentions, but nothing to rise to the level of meeting the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 4 September 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, technically it is an unsourced BLP--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marta DuBois

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 01:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 11 September 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. A single article about a mayoral race in a small suburb is not sufficnet to even come close to establishing notability. Courcelles (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Black (politician)

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

Former mayor of Papillion, Nebraska, an Omaha suburb with population 19,000. Searching Google and Google News for ("dave black" papillion) turned up no detailed coverage. Searching the online archives of the Omaha World-Herald for ("dave black") also turned up no detailed coverage. As the mayor of a fairly small city, who's apparently received no significant press coverage, Black appears to fail the general notability standards and those specifically laid out at WP:POLITICIAN. Ammodramus (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable politician; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 01:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability doesn't seem established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a mayor of a city of less than 20,000 people, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smalltown mayor with no substantive reliable source coverage shown; the one non-primary source here just demonstrates that he exists, which is not enough to get a smalltown mayor into Wikipedia in and of itself. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's true that the article had not a lot of coverage, and the article was outdated and had wrong facts. I have just fixed and updated the article with the fact that he is still Mayor, and was re-elected in 2014, with this source from the Omaha World-Herald. Now, the Omaha World-Herald is the primary daily newspaper in Nebraska – that sounds like substantive coverage to me. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smalltown mayor, fails WP:NPOL, coverage in a metro paper which covers his hometown remains local, and is not "significant" as required by GNG Kraxler (talk) 01:28, 5 September 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. Jujutacular (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1901 Census of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh

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

This is a transcription of a primary source that is known to be unreliable. It includes links to numerous other articles that may or may not in fact be the communities designated in the census. Basically, it is verifiable only due to a failure to comply with WP:RS. Without context, and with the links, it is effectively useless. A similar article - 1901 Census of Rajputana - was recently deleted for the same reasons.

For background relating to the utility of this type of article, please note Census of India prior to independence. Sitush (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a brief summary of key data, not a transcript. Tho less reliable than more modern censuses, this was a landmark of the period, and the data is the best available.I think objections to it tend to be political, based on objections to the misclassification or miscounting of one or another group. The 19th and early 20th British administrative and academic work on India has been much objected to nowadays, for perfectly understandable reasons,but thisis an encyclopedia that covers all periods. That a particular study of major importance at the time has its problems is no reason not to include it. We cover the entire historical record of knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, we have been through this before. It seems that every time you oppose this sort of thing relating to India, you end up being on the wrong "side" of consensus. Your inclusionism is applaudable but you just do not get it in this particular subject area. The information is wrong: it was wrong then and it is wrong now. It is not encyclopaedic to include incorrect data, just as it is not encyclopaedic to mislead people into believing that our article X is synonymous with the mention in the census etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we've been through this before, and we will again, as long as you seek to remove references to information that was significant in the past. This is an encycopedia, and includes history. Whether I am an inclusionist depends on the topic: historically important surveys are appropriate content. ~The problem of people assuming it still valid can be solved by adding an introduction or criticism section. Question: are you aware of better sources for data of that time period? DGG ( talk )

Proven incorrect information is not appropriate content except in the most extraordinary circumstances. The "extraordinary" are, basically, highly specific fringe theories that are discussed extensively and in this instance the connection is so remote as to be ridiculous. Adding an introduction etc is not a solution and would become immensely repetitive. This is an abstract/transcript of data that is known to be utter rubbish, sorry. If we allow it then we should allow transcription of every census (primary source) data for every area that has ever been subject to any sort of census ... and every political poll ever made, etc. It is utter madness and not at all befitting of an encyclopaedia. Anyone with experience who really thinks this thing adds value needs their head seeing to. However, I acknowledge that the alternate also applies, ie: I need my head seeing to even arguing againt this inclusionist nonsense and should perhaps walk away because this project is obviously doomed if such ideas prevail.

We have a half-decent article linked in my rationale that explains the problems and, at a pinch, this article could be redirected to it. However, to do that job properly would require the creation of maybe 500 redirects and drifts into the stupid morass of retention arguments that often occurs at RfD, where the most tenuous connections are deemed to be valid even though the likelihood of use is minimal. DGG, please look at the contributions of the article creator and let them continue to reproduce whatever nonsense they choose elsewhere on the web. I'm fed up of wasting my time here, trying to counter the POV-pushers, the nationalists, the glorifiers and, yes, those who think just about anything that exists as a coherent sentence is justifiable. I'm gone, I think - it is increasingly difficult for me to handle this mess, especially when so-called experienced and "clever" people are so far apart from me.

There are bugger-all admins willing to take on the Indic stuff and, frankly, the experience is not helped by admins (arbs, even) who really are clueless about it. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not because the data is wrong (we have many articles about ideas that were once thought correct but are simply wrong). Rather, because WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. It is reasonable to discuss major national censuses. This isn't; it's one regional component of the 1901 Census of India. By comparison, we have an article about the 2010 United States Census, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue in favor of by-state sub-articles that serve only as stat-table dumping grounds (2010 Texas Census is thankfully red). I wouldn't entirely be opposed to individual articles, such as 1901 Census of India (currently a redirect) on the pre-Independence Indian censuses, citing the aggregate "data" as well as the reliable modern sources that explain why those numbers are untrustworthy (at best). But that still doesn't justify regional articles like this one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should not misapply WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. This is not so far from the canonical example of a "necessary" statistics table in that very policy, Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012. It is of historical and educational value, and is likely to be useful to anyone who needs this information as it represents the data faithfully in a much more readable format. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of historical importance. This is not about WP:RS. AusLondonder (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do what? Everything on Wikipedia is about reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are misapplying WP:RS. Are you saying Wikipedia should not include articles about factually questionable/wrong topics? For example Blood libel, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories or Spring-Heeled Jack? An encyclopaedia is time immemorial. AusLondonder (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what I am saying. The article doesn't even say that the stuff is factually incorrect because the creator (long since gone) was well-known for a total inability to judge sources or even read around topics: they merely transcribed. We do have a reliably sourced article that explains the difficulties with all the Raj censuses - Census of India prior to independence - and this article is misleading in the extreme because it lacks such sources. Most reliable sources that discuss Raj censuses do so as a collective, not by examining just one particular census. We require that even fringe topics are reliably sourced, we are not a collection of statistics, and we not are Wikisource. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this census, or part of one, was indeed of historical importance, I'd expect that to be explained and sourced in the article. As it is, though, we only have a bare table of statistics, which is indeed what we are WP:NOT for. Sandstein 07:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At best this deserves a mention (sentence or two) in an article about the nation's census that year, if such a page existed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 5 September 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mead

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

I can't find any substantial coverage of the subject in RS. The article states he is a photographer but this coverage in the low-quality Evening Standard was the best I could find. (Note that a different Scott Mead is more notable as a photographer [84]). Similarly I can only find brief mentions of his career at Goldman Sachs e.g. in The FT or in relation to his PA stealing from him [85] [86]. Unless there are sources that I haven't been able to find WP:BIO isn't met. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SmartSE's nomination is excellent and I can't see any fault in it. The only reason I have for hesitating to agree with a call for deletion is a feeling that somebody might wonder just who are these somewhat shadowy names that pop up as trustees of The Photographers' Gallery, etc. Because the author of the excellent Anatomy of Britain is now dead, publication of Son of Who Runs This Place? The Anatomy of Britain a Bit Further into the 21st Century seems unlikely. I'm not certain that Wikipedia should be doing this job, but I'd be reassured if I knew that some website somewhere was doing it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi SmartSE and Hoary,I edited this entry in the past, and saw it's considered for deletion now for being written in a promotional style etc. So I made some edits to try to improve it. Can you let me know what you think please? BenSalo (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The promotional tone is pretty irrelevant if he isn't notable, which is what this discussion is about. As the note I left on your talk page notes, if you are being paid to edit the article then you must disclose this, including who your employer is. SmartSE (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 28 August 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Rothermel

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

Do not believe she is notable, not actually mentioned in a lot of references mentioned in the article, seems like the subject has written the article about herself for self-promotion Sheroddy (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. No substantive argument or analysis advanced in support of deletion. Nominator seems to be engaging in a disturbingly Qwortyesque deletion jihad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional piece with obvious COI, no secondary references, just of bunch of primary sources often written by the same subject. --Cavarrone 09:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the society fellowships listed here are selective enough to count for WP:PROF#C3, and her work is not heavily cited enough for #C1. The article appears to be making a case instead for #C7 (non-academic impact of academic work) but if primary sources are all that can be found then the case is too weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and David Eppstein - searches simply don't turn up enough for her to pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 4 September 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 Longevity claims. Courcelles (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernando LaPallo

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

Non-notable individual. Simply being past 110 isn't enough for notability and none of the references to the book are reliable sources. This lazy local news segment giving the age claim and only reliable sources are the Daily Mail calling him a fraud and the New York name-drop from his daughter's bio. And before we bring out the World's Oldest People project crowd, the GRG puts it as incomplete or fraud here but that's authored by "L Stephen Coles, Self-Appointed Custodian for the Libraries of Civilization" so other than the AP, we barely have enough for an article calling him a notable pretender supercentarian. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete but mention elsewhere such as the list of supercenterians (or at least believed ones) as my searches such as this, this and this, there's not much aside from that and, considering, this has stayed since September 2010, you've expected more by now including news coverage. Pinging past editors Boleyn, Ollie231213, TheJJJunk (although it seems this one is not very active) and Robofish. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Longevity claims. This article looks like a WP:BLP1E to me; he doesn't seem to meet the criteria for an independent article at present. However, I'd say 'merge' rather than 'delete' as given the nature of the article, he could easily become independently notable if he lives long enough, and the article can then be restored. Robofish (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Longevity claims per Robofish. Ca2james (talk) 18:24, 3 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DotTrace

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

Couldn't find any reliable source coverage apart from a couple of mentions in books. Sam Walton (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete as my searches found nothing good here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and SwisterTwister. Searches do not give credence to notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 4 September 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) 17:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Cabal the Necromancer

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

No evidence of notability. (Sourced only to the author's web site, a dead link, and a publishers' publicity site.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually appears to have been reviewed by at least a couple reliable sources. This review at The Zone (operated by genre book publisher Pigasus Press, complete with submissions guidelines and editorial oversight) offers a mixed opinion of the work. The review by the historically well-respected Kirkus Reviews is not at all positive. The book has been reviewed elsewhere as well; Fantasy Book Review was more positive, and Fantasy-Faction offered glowing praise. Both those reviews are bylined, but I'm not certain about the editorial control or overall reliability of either site; regardless, The Zone and Kirkus are clearly acceptable sources, and that gets us over the threshold. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It also looks like it was reviewed by SFX magazine per this link. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 28 August 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NZWF

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

Non-notable organisation. No independent refs. Nothing obvious in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm unable to find anything that would help this organisation meet WP:GNG. Will change my vote if others find some though. Doesn't help that this article is very much written in a promotional tone. Even if kept, will need a rewrite to be encyclopedic. -- Shudde ^talk 08:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm seeing that this group has been discussed by blogs and the like, but I don't see the kind of reliable references that are needed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The NZ pro-wrestling scene seems to have dropped well into the background. If anything this article may worth a paragraph or sentence in Professional wrestling in New Zealand. This seems to apply to other articles such as New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling as well. NealeFamily (talk) 08:31, 28 August 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 and move to From Population Control to Reproductive Health. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From pupulation control to reproductive health

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

Was dePRODed. Concern was: Written like a personal book review. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, and yet consider WP:TNT. The article is in reprehensible condition, beginning right with the misspelled title. Needless to say, if kept, rename to From Population Control to Reproductive Health (with a redirect created that includes the subtitle). That said, this book has apparently received three separate reviews in peer-reviewed journals in the appropriate field, which is pretty much everything we want in evaluating notability for something of this nature.

Bose, Ashish (2006). "Book Reviews: From Population Control to Reproductive Health: Malthusian Arithmetic, Mohan Rao (SAGE Publications, New Delhi) 2004" (PDF). Indian Journal of Medical Research. 124: 213–214.
Padmadas, Sabu S. (2006). "Book review of: From Population Control to Reproductive Health: Malthusian Arithmetic by Mohan Rao". Population Studies. 60 (1): 116–118. doi:10.1080/00324720500466034.
Simon-Kumar, Rachel (2005). "Reviewed Work: From Population Control to Reproductive Health: Malthusian Arithmetic by Mohan Rao". Social Scientist. 33 (3/4): 76–80. JSTOR 3518115.

It was also reviewed here in The Hindu, although obviously the scholarly sources are of greater weight for a book on medical topics, per WP:MEDRS. This is about the most-clearly-notable book I've ever commented about at AFD, but the content we have now is still startlingly poor. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but start over from scratch! Let's not move it until AfD is finished, WP:AFD. --Djembayz (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've done some basic clean-up. It would be good to see other editors work on this: in particular, the whole article currently seems to be just an overall outline of the book, citing the book itself as reference, and as no other sources are cited, it currently appears to fail the requirement for providing multiple independent reliable sources. Would it be possible to have some material added that cites the sources given above, and less emphasis on a point-by-point summary of the book? (Also: for those looking for the book itself, it's ISBN 9780761932697 ). -- The Anome (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've now chopped out 90% of the article to keep only the very basics, and cited the first and last of the sources above. The second appears to be behind a paywall, so I don't have access to it. Even now, there is still uncited material in the article: it would be good if other editors could contribute to the cleanup. -- The Anome (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whatever happens with this article, copyediting is unlikely to be needed. I removed the tag.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given the sources available (including those linked above), it seems consensus for notability already exists. With the work done to it since nomination, WP:TNT isn't necessary. It does certainly need to be renamed, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:19, 31 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Selves in a Modern World

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

No secondary sources or claims of significance - just an article cited to the book itself, saying what's in it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. McGeddon (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added secondary sources. This book is cited in other works. Further research, possibly in password protected sites, may determine if WP:TEXTBOOKS applies. --Djembayz (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While I don't have particularly strong feelings on this one, the fact that the book has had journal reviews from Religions of South Asia and at least one other publication make me feel like it's worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We cannot keep articles on Wikipedia because someone have feelings for it. In other words, it have no reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of emotional feelings. Religions of South Asia is a credible, reliable source. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Meets WP:NBOOK. Simple as that. AusLondonder (talk) 09:28, 11 September 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) 18:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate Housewives Africa

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

The article doesn't seem to be notable. All references are to a single page is "ebonylifetv.com". In addition to texts with copyright, since where I understand the creator of the article does not have permissions to copy text from other Web pages. The article is very short. Philip J Fry • (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject of the article meets WP:GNG. I have no idea of how the nominator fail to see Bella Naija, The Guardian News, this, Thisday Newspaper, The Guardian News, this, Pulse Nigeria, New Vision, allAfrica, Business World, Ghana web, Colorlines Magazine, BET, Sydney morning herald, Vanguard News and Thisday News to mention few. Nominator, it seemed to me that you obviously ignored WP:BEFORE. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also think the nominator completely ignored the references.The show is notable and very popular in Nigeria.The page was recently created and is still under construction;just check on its progress by now and their are a number of references.I can't just get what the Nominator was trying to achieve.The article meets WP:GNG.~nyanchy 12:39, 31 August 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (discuss) @ 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Showtime (brand)

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

Purely original research, as most of these companies/services are linked in name only, and their owners are completely unrelated – not a unified "brand" as claimed in the article's title. The Showtime disambiguation page already lists these services adequately. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:46, 14 August 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) 06:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 August 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. A soft delete, but relisting this again is unlikely to matter Courcelles (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MyWorkSearch

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

This orphaned article is another case of no good coverage, not even minimally, despite several searches including here, here, here and here. Pinging tagger Philafrenzy for comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried Google and Google News searches for (myworksearch), without quotes. This yielded a 2010 piece in the Telegraph, cited in the article, with lots of quotes from the company's founder but very little else of use. This suggests that the company might meet notability standards, but isn't sufficient to establish notability in the absence of other sources, which I wasn't able to find.

The article states that the company had won "the 2010 LinkedIn European Business Awards Startup category", and if there'd been independent coverage of this, it might've conferred notability. However, Google and Google News searches for (linkedin european business awards) turned up no evidence that these had been covered by independent media. The article provides what purports to be a citation for this award, but it redirects to a Czech-language piece that makes no mention of LinkedIn or MyWorkSearch. Nothing to establish notability there. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:16, 30 August 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Majithia Family

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

Fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Sources in article are primary or dead links. Individual people might be notable but notability is not inherited on a familial level. Nothing particularly notable about the family in general is found. WP:NOTINHERITED Savonneux (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash″; JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article came about because Bikram Singh Majithia was protected and the various socks couldn't edit that to add all sorts of promotional content, and have found that opportunity here. The individuals are clearly notable, but not as a family, that's how the third party coverage is. —SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Notability of some individuals is undisputed. But unreasonable to pass it on to the whole family. Comment State Legislature elections are scheduled in Jan 2017 in Punjab, and this article is writte in preparation for elections by SPA. ChunnuBhai (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing in search engines to show this family meets notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 4 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Meric

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

Personal advertisement for businessman fails WP:BIO. Coverage consists of press releases and brief mentions. Deleted from frWP at AFD here Vrac (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Unable to find anything in the sources provided or in further searches that establishes notability per Wikipedia guidelines. ABF99 (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with ABF99. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches returned nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 4 September 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 18:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CEvin Key

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

No indication either on this page, any of his album pages or in the first couple of pages of Google results that he may meet WP:NBAND; all his alleged side projects appear to be offshoots of Skinny Puppy, to which I recommend redirecting this. Laun chba ller 00:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (multiple WP-notable projects), though it needs better referencing - David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this meets WP:NBAND. User:David Gerard, can you clarify your keep comment? I don't understand your argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who is a member of multiple notable bands is generally considered notable. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – founding member of one of the most seminal industrial bands of all time. I feel like there was a failure to follow WP:BEFORE in this case. Some sources:
Five questions with Skinny Puppy’s cEvin Key

Skinny Puppy's cEvin Key Looks back at 'The Mansion Family', Stream the Soundtrack Here

The Inquisition of cEvin Key

Vancouver band demands compensation after learning music used for Guantanamo Bay torture

Interview: cEvin Key of Skinny Puppy Talks About hanDover

There are plenty more e.g. in Google Books, but that was just what I found in the first few pages of a regular Google search. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is silly. He founded one of the most famous industrial bands of all time. Just because he's deservedly well-known for this doesn't mean that his article should be deleted. There are numerous sources available online to indicate notability, some of which are listed above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a quick look through Google and Google books. This article clearly meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 11 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Lines NGO

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

Fails WP:ORG, references that are WP:RS in article contain brief mentions of this org but no significant coverage. Other links appear to be opinion pieces. Deleted from frWP at AFD here. Vrac (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 4 September 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) 03:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It sounds like a well-meaning but rather small NGO; I may be wrong, but if I am not it is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 12 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AG Dolla

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

Delete: Fails WP:MUSBIO. # 1 BBC link is dead, NME does not mention him. Other BBC link just mentions his name as a performer. Not notable at all. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above. Searches on News, Newspapers, Highbeam and JSTOR revealed nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:00, 28 August 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. —SpacemanSpiff 18:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shanky R.S Gupta

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

Delete: This is perhaps a very tricky AfD nomination with 50+ references cited. I am still making this bold AfD nominating due 1) This is completely written as advertisement 2) Most of the references cited are either self-published, blogs, paid advertisement or even e-commerce sites c) This person has made very tall claims in the article for "international awards" which could not be verified from credible sources. d) These seems to be a (probable) case of WP:COI. e) Person himself might not be that notable as claimed.

Appears to be a case of "smart advertising". I have also nominated this person's company (Ventom Network India) for deletion. Kindly consider. Thanks Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well as there's equal sign of no improvement as with the company, with my searches finding nothing good (not even minimal third-party coverage). SwisterTwister talk 17:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources are RS and I felt like I was going to get a virus looking at half of them. Most are passing mentions in any case.--Savonneux (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable per @Savonneux. Quis separabit? 12:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 23:08, 28 August 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. —SpacemanSpiff 18:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kousik Madhav

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

Recreated speedily deleted article. 2nd speedy declined. No indication, despite the claimed credits on films, that he actually meets either WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Username of article creator and article subject's "Brainy" nickname suggests possible WP:COI, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see no notability here at all. Almost all the refs are IMDB which is not a reliable source and many (most? all ?) are Wikipedia entries which are unacceptable as refs. Re-reading this I cannot see where notability is supposed to lie. The poor English also doesn't help. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches on News, Newspapers, Highbeam and JSTOR reveal nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've warned the author about removing AfD notices and posting fake results on the talk page. There's one heck of a lot of career here and very little on Google - and most of what's there is social media. If he's done all that, it's been in very minor positions within departments. Wikipedia isn't like the final credits of a film where the Deputy Sub Under Director of the Broom Cupboard gets a mention. (We probably wouldn't even consider the Director of the Broom Cupboard as notable.) This looks like a misunderstanding of Wikipedia, or desperation. Either way, it doesn't belong. Peridon (talk) 17:31, 31 August 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. – czar 16:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Familia Records

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

A search for reliable sources independent of the subject came up short, the subject fails WP:GNG or WP:CORP Flat Out (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A couple of passing mentions in the L.A. Times: [87][88], a possible hit in URB (but only an unhelpful snippet is visible) [89], and a mention in a Duke University Press book: [90]. GBooks and GScholar also turned up a few more books that mention this label in discographies of the genre. It's possible that that the label is worthy of note in some context (maybe in an appropriate article about the genre) but in terms of supporting its own article, the online sourcing is sketchy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:45, 4 September 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) 03:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Existing sources were for quotes which, as used, were providing substantial content rather than supporting existing content, thus falling afoul of fair use. After pruning those, the only remaining source, that of the ownership of the company, does not appear to be supported by the source given. Crow^Caw 20:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches turned up nothing to show that this meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:20, 19 September 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.

[1] ttp://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000540013

[2] ttp://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/flags/ulster/

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Territorial Air Defence Force}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian Abdominal Acupuncture}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell Vaughn}}