Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 11: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:17, 11 April 2016

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 April	12 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Lacks notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afe Babalola University Faculty of Engineering

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

Fails GNG and other universities faculties notability criteria. Just because ABUAD is notable, does not mean its faculties should be notable. Ulabcie (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not at all convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article's topic is not significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia. — Music1201 ^talk 01:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Owe Thörnqvist

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is references and it seems to be notable.... so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginative Plain

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps at best because this is actually sourced but may still be questionably better. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is reasonably sourced and has sufficient content to warrant keeping.--Soul Crusher (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Colony Shastripuram

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ciridae (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The settlement has received passing mention in reliable sources that cannot be considered significant coverage. (Note: I'd tagged this article for speedy deletion which was reverted by ‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.) Ciridae (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nom had tagged the article for speedy deletion as spam/excessively promotional, which was frankly absurd and gives little confidence that their curaory comment about sourcing is correct -- especially since it's contradicted by the very first article in the External Links section. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apologies for not mentioning this earlier. A page with a similar title, Kings colony shastripuram, by the same author was speedy deleted under the G11 criteria. Ciridae (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per WP:NGEO. Also, how on Earth could this ever meet the WP:CSD? AusLondonder (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder:, how on earth does this satisfy WP:NGEO? How is this of any historic, social, economic, or architectural importance and where are the reliable sources for them? Please note that notability in this case cannot be inherited from events. Ciridae (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we thinking of the same notability guideline? The one I'm talking about states "legally recognised, populated places are presumed to be notable" AusLondonder (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder:, it seems we aren't. Are you talking about WP:GEOLAND? Because I think WP:GEOFEAT should apply, especially Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments. This is a colony of private residences and a non-notable one at that. Ciridae (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is simply a "building" or a "residence". You are correct is is a colony of private residences, just like any other neighbourhood. It therefore meets WP:GEOLAND as a "legally recognised, populated place". Here is an article in The Hindu about the neighbourhood. AusLondonder (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article contributes to notability in any manner. Local problems with power, roads etc are normal and this says absolutely nothing about the colony in question (no inherited notability). And I'd still say WP:GEOFEAT will apply here over WP:GEOLAND, since it explicitly covers private residences. And even if GEOLAND applies, this would fall under populated places without legal recognition since it is a housing development and legal recognition is not sourced here. But anyways, these are rather fine points under policy. Ciridae (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point to be honest. Most neighbourhoods consist of private residences. That's the norm. AusLondonder (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I wanted to comment sooner but was also eager to see if anyone else said something. Delete at best because this is still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources (and other apparent coverage from reliable sources like The Hindu) are sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND's test for neighborhoods, and given the way our coverage of Hyderabad is structured (with more than 200 articles in Category:Neighbourhoods of Hyderabad, India), I don't think it would benefit the encyclopedia to delete a sourced and sourceable article about this particular neighborhood, nor is it feasible to merge this into a broader article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At best, since I'm noticing this is noticeably troubled by votes, I'm willing to change to Keep as this can be improved if needed and reconsider later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think the key to interpreting WP:GEOLAND is the phrase: "legally recognised, populated place", as AusLondonder pointed out. However, I come to the opposite conclusion, since there is no sourcing to show that it is a "legally recognized" place. I can't find it on any census documentation. Therefore it falls to the second category, "Populated places without legal recognition". And in this instance, the coverage in the Hindu seems to indicate that it, just barely, passes WP:GNG. Unlike corporations, which require more than local coverage to show notability, neighborhoods may only have local notability. That seems to be the case in this instance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; award for "assistant coach of the year" qualifies as notable under NCOLLATH. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Embick

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Hasn't played for a fully pro club nor has he coached a fully pro club, plus he hasn't received significant coverage. Therefore, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appears to have won a national award per WP:NCOLLATH, the NSCAA Assistant Coach of the Year, which seems to be the soccer equivalent of the AFCA Assistant Coach of the Year, so he would appear to qualify under the "the equivalent in another sport" clause of WP:NCOLLATH. That award cited, in part, his influence on the Akron Zips establishing Division I (NCAA) records "with 11 consecutive shutouts and a 39-game unbeaten streak at home" --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He passes GNG. Joeykai (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, has no achievements as a professional and has not won a major award as a college coach. Does not meet GNG. Giant Snowman 17:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He does meet GNG. Joeykai (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Ahecht. VanEman (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet both WP:NCOLLATH (due to award win) and GNG. Also, the Akron Zips men's soccer program is a major program similar to programs like Quinnipiac Bobcats men's ice hockey, Johns Hopkins Blue Jays men's lacrosse, Cal State Fullerton Titans baseball - programs outside of football and basketball that are well followed and flagship programs at those schools. The coaches of these programs would be notable due to the coverage the programs receive. RonSigPi (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after reading the article and the other user's comments here I think this article barely meets the notability requirements based on the subject's coaching career and awards. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH criteria. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems to be going the "Keep" path and I see nothing seriously needed for deletion. At best, this can be reconsidered later if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 April 2016‎

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Poor discussion, but there's only one comment that has attempted to discuss the quality of the sources in any detail, so I'll have to give that more weight. Sandstein 08:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kronum

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

Non-notable

Many other languages have deleted. This is the 'author of the game' trying to come up with an article in order to legitimize his game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.134.254.221 (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating on behalf of IP 73.134.254.221 who left a request for deletion on the article talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This game looks like it has significant third-party coverage. I can't see a good reason to delete it, although I don't have the ability to read the non-English deletion discussions. Orthogonal1 (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep same reason as Orthogonal1 Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the links are dead (Yahoo ones in particular). Basically what I can find is copies of the video with a little text, but very little, and articles that reiterate, almost verbatim, the rules as stated in the article here. If there were sources for the clubs and some sports chatter about leagues and games, it would look better. As it is, it seems to be treated like a passing novelty in the "what's weird" category of the news sites rather than a "living sport". LaMona (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although this could be notable, it just doesn't meet the requirements. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC0

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

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

The result was redirect to United Premier Soccer League. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frontera United

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was An amateur soccer team with no league or cup appearances in not significant. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Premier Soccer League. There is no specific notability guideline for sports teams that requires league or cup appearances. Instead, we must look at WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Unfortunately, it looks like they completely lack non-routine independent coverage that isn't local (all the sources seem to be the Yuma-based Yuma Sun or KYMA) or a press release. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to UPSL, a plausible search term, but no indication of anything but the most local of coverage. Fenix down (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - sensible solution. Giant Snowman 17:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - seems like the best idea. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As summed up above, not independently notable, but the league that they're in is a sensible redirect target. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery-radar

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

Not notable. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Film was not widely released and has received little to no coverage. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:FILM . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete for the same reason as the articles on its director Viktor Tasic and its writer Nikola Djokic: no coverage in sources (reliable or otherwise). Sadly, Serbian films, television series, an actors do not usually get English language coverage, so if anyone comes up with suitable Serbian sources, ping me. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete along with Viktor Tasic and Nikola Djokic: WP:MADEUP obviously. The "director" and the "actor" are 13-year olds. And yeah, I'm a native speaker of Serbian. Add Unbeatables to the mix as well (I just prodded that). No such user (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails wp:GNG; seems to be WP:MADEUP. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2 relists and no clear/determinable consensus, this discussion defaults to keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Eyes Crew

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable dance group. Speedy A7 was challenged. My searches cannot find anything to support notability to the point of inclusion therefore failing WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This source confirms that this group has won several dance awards, including national ones. Other sources can be found by simply clicking on the word "news" in the searches above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since they appear to be notable within their own country, based on the national competitions they have won. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The news articles listed are nothing more then mentions that this dance group has won some non-notable dance competitions. There is nothing which speaks about this group in depth or to state they meet any of the inclusion criteria or at the very least garnered any international recognition. Please remember to be clear on which criteria you think that this group satisfies for inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "non-notable dance competitions" I suppose you mean dance competitions that anglophone editors haven't heard of, which isn't something that appears anywhere in our guidelines. This group won national competitions and received national press coverage for doing so. And there is no requirement for international recognition, but in this case some of the sources found by the Google News search are Turkish, so they have garnered some international recognition. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By non notable I mean they have not been proven to be notable to Wikipedia standards either through proper reliable sourcing or it's own stand alone article.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you possibly add some sources to show this in the article? As it stands right now there isn't anything to verify that these claims are accurate. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral at the moment.Keep Sources are verifying that the band meets WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, the sources for these claims can be seen in my link above and the news search linked at the top of this discussion. Notability is a function of the sources that exist, not of those cited in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though if they exist, it's best to put into the article to help verify claims of notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that with one of the English-language sources. My Russian is rusty and my Azerbaijani and Turkish non-existent so I would rather let those more fluent in those languages check the other sources before they are used in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First it's not a band and WP:GNG needs significant coverage these sources are nothing more then mentions of winning a youth competition or obscure, unknown competitions. The articles found so far seem to be all for the same event. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention in any of the sources that these were youth competitions, and the fact that they have been reported on by the national press means that they are not obscure and unknown. This is an encyclopedia of the whole world written in English, not an encyclopedia of only the anglophone world. And this is a band - a band of dancers. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot to say that the sources cover several events over a couple of years, so they are not "all for the same event". These deletion discussions get very tiresome when editors insist on sticking to entrenched positions rather than take account of evidence that is presented in the discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? You have only provided one, the rest I have look at are only about the one competition which was supported by the a youth organization. That being said you are correct I did make the assumption the competition was a youth competition as most youth organizations wouldn't support the adult version of a competition, I apologize. Regardless in my opinion there has not been any substantial coverage on this group to warrant a full article. I'm more then willing to change my opinion but no one here has demonstrated how this group satisfies any of the inclusion criteria. To be clear this is not a band in how it applies to Wikipedia, a band is musical ensemble which a group of people perform instrumental or vocal music. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting even more tiresome. Look at the Google News search automatically linked by your nomination, that you should have looked at before you saved it, and, even if you don't understand Russian or Azerbaijani or Turkish, look at the dates associated with the sources found. How can you possibly think that they are all about one event when the dates spread out over a couple of years? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; maybe my Google's broken, but when I check the Google News link I get a total of 65 results across three pages. But then I see that the Turkish website Beyaz Gazete is repeatedly listed. But those just link to their own article. That does not meet WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the first dozen or so results of that search, which all appear to be reliable national sources with coverage of his group, with details of competitions they have won and performances that they have taken part in, including a performance by national competition winners at the Heydar Aliyev Palace. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Are a dozen or so results enough to pass WP:GNG? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the nature of the sources found. Remember that this is a Google News search, which finds mainly reliable sources, rather than a web search, where you will be lucky to get a single independent reliable source in the first 100 hits. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With this little of reliable sources, I do not believe this passes WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~Notable in their own country, but not in the English language.~~ Essentially no references. Prhartcom (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That reason for deletion has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. This is an encyclopedia of the whole universe written in English, not an encyclopedia of only the anglophone world. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that comment is correct. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you changed your previous opinion that these people are "notable in their own country"? And, if so, what made you change your mind? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your correct observation that notability has no governmental boundaries, which convinced me to strike my reason. However, as I then stated, there are essentially no cited reliable sources proving notability of the article subject. That is my final word on the matter. Prhartcom (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to conduct a discussion, which this is supposed to be, when one of the participants says that this is their final word on the matter. I would ask you further about what you have said here, pointing out that it's a very strange coincidence that your change of opinion about whether this group is notable in its own country happened at the exact same time that you conceded that notability has no governmental boundaries, but there is obviously no point. To anyone else reading this, because Prhartcom has no interest, I would say that this is a pretty obvious example of someone who is unwilling to change an opinion when evidence is presented that it is wrong. That attitude is completely antipathetic to the process by which we are supposed to make decisions here by discussion leading to consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one is required to change their opinion because you think they should, nor are they required to entertain your whims. So far your "discussion" has been nothing more then lots of hits style of argument. What you have not done, is provide a source with in which there is enough in-depth coverage required to surpass the WP:GNG threshold. To reiterate, everything I have read, in my searches, is nothing more then routine coverage and limited to only mentions in each article. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not asked anyone to change their opinion, but quite the opposite. I have questioned why an opinion that this group was notable in its own country was changed. The editor in question has said that this was their final word on the subject, so discussion with that editor is now impossible. AfD discussions are supposed to be discussions, not final words. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead and then Draft as I'm not convinced by the Keep votes that this can be sufficiently and thoroughly improved and my searches found nothing better so I'm not convinced this can be changed as needed soon. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, as I have said elsewhere, your many comments in deletion discussions are very difficult to make sense of. Please write in the same way that you would speak to someone face-to-face, rather than obscure your comments with convulated syntax and nonsensical semantics. I'll first try to make sense of your specific points. Are you saying that being "sufficiently and thoroughly improved" is necessary to keep an article? What searches did you perform? What did they find "nothing better" than? What changes are needed? And, to get away from your specific points, as this is supposed to be a discussion rather than a succession of random comments uninformed by the prior discussion, what do you make of the sources that have been linked to above? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 his group is notable; he alone is not. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Youngjae

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

As was the case before, this member has no solo work only group work. There is nothing notable that could be put on this page that isn't already on the Got7 group pages. Peachywink (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per A7. He's not notable outside of his current group. It lookslike nothing has changed since the previous AfD last year. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 14:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete again. This was deleted before, so it should be now. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps as he's certainly still questionable for solid independent notability, seems best known for the group. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is not individually notable. Random86 (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close, redirect to group's article. This is not a genuine deletion discussion, but a content dispute over whether the subject should be covered in an independent article or within the group article. Bringing it to AFD just wastes the community's time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did that two weeks ago and the page came back 6 days later. Aside from the fact that I don't know much about speedy deletion (and you deleted the other editors attempt at one and called them incompetent), it is clear that a few people disagreed with the old decision as the second speedy deletion attempt was also removed. I thought getting fresh consensus would be best but unfortunately none of the articles editors have chosen to participate. Peachywink (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non-notable, should not have come to AfD. JMHamo (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to create a longer process but two previous attempts by another editor to do a speedy delete were removed so I thought this was the best way to get consensus.Peachywink (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Obviously non notable, Wasn't notable last year and sure as shit isn't notable now. –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Maslen-Jones

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

Non notable footballer. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in any WP:FPL (fully professional league) and does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. He hasn't played yet for his squad, however if he is to appear that would seem to satisfy WP:NFOOTY, as he is on a League One team. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Often I'd vote userfy, but he's not currently playing at a fully-professional club. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the reference "Bradley Maslen-Jones has not played any matches in 2015/2016" and the current article text "He has not yet started a game for Peterborough" say it all really. That and a bunch of zeroes in the stats sections. C 679 08:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11, promotional (as well as non-notable) DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imthias Kadeer

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

The article fails the importance of to be encyclopedic. Also most of the details within the article didn't even have any valid references for it. JackTracker (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this may be best deleted in case it's restarted and also considering there are currently no signs of better applicable solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:CREATIVE with no prejudice to recreate in future if more notability asserted. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn nomination. Excellent work, Michael! — foxj 00:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Girl, Three Guys, and a Gun

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

Struggling to find any reliable, independent sources which discuss this film. It clearly exists (there is a full version of the film on YouTube) but I'm not sure it ought to have an article of its own at this point. — foxj 12:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — foxj 12:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF. Why state "At this time?" It's a 2000 Indie film with a title chenge when Disney accquired rights for post-festival distribution. I fpund it has had coverage and commentary in reliable sources. Better to use WP:BEFORE and add Cinemagazine and DVD talk and book sources and others to the article than to delete "at this time" because no one ever did it since 2007. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the 645 characters (119 words) stub-class first brought to AFD was easy enough to turn into a 4x expanded, well-sourced, 3143 characters (519 words C-class. Fun to do. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria CSD A7, CSD G4. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Khan actor

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

fails WP:NACTOR, none of the sources appear to be reliable. The page was deleted earlier as well [1] -Managerarc™^talk 11:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete him and the film he is in too, as it is upcoming and so is [[WP:TOOSOON]. You can't be "Known" for something that has not released yet. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Hotel Alliance

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

All the references are own web-site of affiliated hotels. Massive COI in editing this article. No independent refs . Fails WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean Up We need to block all COI editing, thoroughly edit or redraft this and it would probably be worthy of inclusion. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However I agree this badly needs a cleanup as there is a lot of puffery and obvious COI edits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG, The above !voters are correct in that the article does need a cleanup however no one above has addressed the notability (or lack of) of the subject..... The cites are all "about us" on different websites, Nothing substantial and nothing worth keeping this article over. –Davey2010^Talk 23:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better for the applicable notability and the listed sources are certainly not impressive. Delete and restart is best instead of hoping for improvements to be made. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Here are some sources about the 2004 establishment of this large hotel affinity program: New Straits Times [2]; International Herald Tribune [3]; Hotels [4]; The Age [5]; Gulf Business (re 2013 HQ move to Dubai)[6]. HighBeam has 100+ hits, most of which are probably press releases but at least a few seem to be substantive business news reports. A decent small article could be crafted out of all this, and would be worth retaining. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Chandramauli Charitable Trust

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

Not notable. The only reference that's not self-sourced, BBC News, is about a woman running a marathon, and it only mentions the ICC Trust in passing. The other two references are a representative of the Trust speaking on Youtube, and a paid WordPress promotional press release (SynapseIndia). Using Youtube and Wordpress as "sources" is a good indication that no actual third-party sources exist, and sure enough, Google finds nothing. I prodded this article and the prod was removed by an experienced editor (User:AusLondonder) with the edit summary "Borderline case. Times of India coverage found as well." I have inquired what that coverage was,[7] as I can't find it, but the user has not edited since removing the prod and so has not replied. It's concerning to me firstly that this "Times of India coverage" is unspecified — the user didn't add the reference and I can't find it — and secondly that the Times of India is in any case not much of a reliable source for notability nowadays. Compare this comment on another AfD by DGG who is highly experienced in these matters. Bishonen | talk 10:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 10:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: The article Shamit Khemka, about an entrepreneur connected with the ICC Trust, written by the same SPA (Mridusinha) is also currently at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamit Khemka. Bishonen | talk 11:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as non-notable company. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When an article has to rely on such incidental mentions as that " Tara Twyman, from Uckfield in East Sussex, is aiming to raise £5,000 for the International Chandramauli Trust" it can safely be assumed to be non-notable (That, btw, is a mention in a BBC story about a local women running a marathon, not an Indian newspaper, but that does make it a more substantial source for information about the trust (nor for an article about the person--all news sources publish trivial human interest stories).

Incidentally, I would not say that the Times of India is altogether useless for notability in everything: -in the previous AfD mentioned I said that I and other editors working with topics in the arts & business have come to think coverage by that (and other Indian newspapers) as worthless for notability "in the arts and applied arts and probably business also. -- I no longer regard coverage by them as proof of anything but that the person has a press agent." In other fields, I have less experience with that source, and do not want to judge. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now replied to the nominators message at my talkpage. I removed the PROD as I don't believe this is a clear-cut, uncontroversial deletion. The source from the Times of India is here. There is also this. Regarding the reliability of the Times of India, if any editor believe that newspaper is not reliable in any circumstance I think they should raise a broad discussion at WP:RSN. I would strongly and completely dispute that characterisation of the Times. I also question whether any searches have been conducted in other Indian languages, especially Hindi? AusLondonder (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An interview with Shamit Khemka (a promotional bio currently on AfD) is far from being an independent source that confirms notability. Khemka is the CEO of SynapseIndia, which is closely connected with International Chandramauli Charitable Trust. As for the mention in TI, it's this sentence in a longish feature about an International Yoga Day celebration: Several vedic students of International Chandramauli Charitable Trust, under supervision of English woman, H Lucy Guest and trustee of the trust, Devatma Dubey performed over 20 asanas at the Ghat. I don't regard that as significant independent coverage or recognition; it's a mention in passing, just like the BBC mention. I don't see any depth of coverage at all, unless we're to count the self-promotion at YouTube and WordPress. But I haven't indeed done any searches in Hindi, I don't read Hindi. Perhaps somebody else here does? Bishonen | talk 17:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I agree the sources so far aren't fantastic, indeed they are probably not enough for me to argue in favour of keeping the article. But this is why I prefer AfD's to PRODs for organisations with some notability. Hopefully, someone with Hindi language skills (or other Indian languages such as Tamil, Bengali or Punjabi) will search for sources in those languages. AusLondonder (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete India's tax based corporate social responsibility requirement makes it imperative for reasonably sized companies to 2% of net profits on CSR, so the fact that any one company contributes to an NGO is of no significance. There's no other significant coverage either. There's nothing borderline about this, and on a more serious point considering cases like this as "borderline" is what causes the systemic bias problem on Wikipedia -- genuine topics don't get the time and attention they deserve because anything under the sun is now thought to be probably notable because of a lack of evidence to the contrary and editors have to spend time to analyze these topics instead. —SpacemanSpiff 03:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Terrorism in Russia. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Stavropol bombings

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

I could CSD this but it can also be expanded. However, Im not sure this is a noteworthy self-article (as there ae many other such crap articles here) beyond a suicuide at a cop outpost.Lihaas (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable news item. WP:NOTNEWS Seasider91 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Terrorism in Russia, no deaths, no injuries, as bad as this may sound it does not warrant a separate article. I would recommend that more care be put in the Terrorism in Russia article as it badly needs an update. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Niveles (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:JUSTAVOTE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Terrorism in Russia. Baking Soda (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Terrorism in Russia. Agreed with Lihaas, with the exception of major attacks with multiple eyewitness accounts and high casualty rates, individual minor attacks like this should ideally be merged into larger articles. 68.2.63.103 (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC) (Note: I had login issues and couldn't sign in, I understand the IP address makes this less credible.)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Terrorism in Russia. The attack can be considered a total failure from the point of view of the terrorists since there were hardly any casualties, therefore it does not merit a separate article.--Catlemur (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, merge/redirect sounds reasonable. ansh 666 00:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Terrorism in Russia makes sense. Attack doesn't really seem significant enough to warrant its own article. GWA88 (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kristijh (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5150 (involuntary psychiatric hold)

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

I have gone through the history of this article in some detail. There is little doubt that the subject itself is notable, but every single revision I can find contains nothing other than copy-pastes from the primary source (the legislation itself) and "in popular culture" references, most of which are also primary sources - the mere existence of a thing called 5150 is asserted to be a pop culture reference.

I think this is a case for WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT Agreed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "...if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article." I do not believe the content is useless, I do not believe WP:TNT applies. Yes, it may be a mess. But, it's a controversial topic dealing with mental health and the law. It's an important topic, perhaps not globally unless you count the enormous amounts of pop cultural references, and would be recreated almost instantly. And attract the same crowd that brings us the article we currently have. Ifnord (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Even the nominator acknowledges it's notable, and I think it's salvageable. Everyking (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has problems, but it's not total rubbish. Rebb ing 14:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic has received significant discussion and coverage among numerous secondary sources over a sustained period of time. In addition, subject has entered lexicon of society as term used in multiple facets of popular culture, including but not limited to: 5150 Studios, recording studio of Eddie Van Halen, 5150 (album), album by band Van Halen, Peavey 5150 notable guitar, 5150: Home 4 tha Sick debut EP by Eazy-E, and last but certainly not least, the song 5-1-5-0 by American country music artist Dierks Bentley. Wikipedia should have the main core non-fiction article to help provide our readers with educational and encyclopedic context for these other articles. — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very, very quick search finds sources. The current content is a reasonable place from which to start improvement; TNT doesn't apply. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikt:cold weapon. A clear consensus has been formed. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cold weapon

AfDs for this article:

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

As wikipedia is not a dictionary. I tried to find citations for the term so it could be transwikied to wiktionary, but everything I could find appeared to be on wikis, and hence not suitable. I suspect the phrase is not really used. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2016 (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/2016 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Never heard of cold weapons before, can't find any non-wiki-mirror sources. I suspect that author just made it up by combining the common terms Cold steel and Melee weapons because he thought it sounded cool. If necessary, I would accept a redirect to Melee weapons just to make it go away--RAF910 (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with strong prejudice against a redirect unless and until someone finds sources (I did not). Of the former AfDs, one was a delete, one was a "no consensus per lack of comments". The second AfD (June 2014) in particular was a fiasco: PROD was declined per "page already went to AfD" (though it was deleted...?) and then AfD fails per lack of comments. Tigraan (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Viking, below, did find sources (congrats!). Most of those are translations from Eastern sources so one could argue that it is notable in Russian but not in English. (Even if notability of topics is independent of the language, surely notability of terms is not.) ~~But well, redirect, it is cheap and there is little potential of confusion.~~ Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect per discussion below. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speediest Possible Delete As non notable article in every way. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to melee weapon. It looks like it started out as a Slavic term for melee weapons or non-firearms. Here is a mention in a book from 1876, a Russian book on Third Reich cold weaponry, a definition of a "cold weapon" in some Kosovo legislature (page 3). Also a search for "cold weapon" on Pinterest or Ebay will show hits for melee weapons. Hence, this term is not just made up one day. But neither is it notable; I doubt there is much beyond definitions out there. Accordingly, I would recommend a redirect to melee weapon. --Mark viking (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mark viking, or perhaps soft redirect to wiktionary per below. While thin, there does appear to be some reliable support for the term (here is a recent book using the term). —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - redirecting to melee weapon is problematic because ranged weapons such as bows are also "cold weapons" (i.e. lacking explosives). List of premodern combat weapons would be appropriate if the list didn't contain list of premodern combat weapons#Gunpowder weapons. wikt:firearm#Antonyms: "cold weapon" and "white weapon" are red at wikt.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mark Viking's links, the term "cold weapon" is used specifically to refer to melee weapons (and rather modern ones, at that). So (unless there is a source to that effect) deciding to include bows and the like would be at best WP:OR. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: Look at page four of that source: "1.33. 'Optic sight' means special equipment for firearms or cold weapons, which is designed as a sight or optical device used to assist aim by guiding the eye and aligning it with a weapon or other item to be pointed. An optic sight may be used to enhance hunting and sport arms used respective authorized purposes, as authorised by the competent body as a shooting or hunting association." Optic sights are not placed on melee weapons.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect might be the best option in that case. I started a page at wiktionary, which can be fleshed out with a couple of quotations from the citations given in this discussion (I added the Kosovo law and the Chinese sword book). —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I read only the definition of "cold weapon" in the same source, which looked like it applied only to melee. Oh well... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted? Are you kidding? Just redirect it already.--RAF910 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at best for now as it's seems connected to Melee weapons and this is still questionable for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Redirect to wikt:cold weapon, and Oppose redirecting to melee weapon, per the discussion above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the interest of consensus, I would be happy support a soft redirect to wikt:cold weapon instead. Some sources focus on melee, others just on non-explosive. The point is to give the reader some idea of what cold weapon means. --Mark viking (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Music Competition

AfDs for this article:

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

Given that this junior competition does not yet have any winners who are notable enough for a WP article, I do not see how it is likely to be notable itself. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I researched the matter a bit and found out that they have renamed themselves as San Jose International Piano Competition. For some reason the regular editors of this article stopped editing it around 2010, probably around the time the renaming took place. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches are finding nothing better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only coverage I see is trivial mentions of local winners. I'm not really seeing substantial coverage of the competition itself with which to make a page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wpal-DB Radio Paladin

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

Non notable Internet radio statio. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Blatant advert. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to have reputable non-wiki secondary sources. Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 08:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting any solid independent notability of an article. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hayat Pharma Canada

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

Non notable Company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is primary and listings. Nothing better found. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any negative sources. Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 09:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this actually suggests any solid independent notability especially considering it's a rather newly founded company. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough independent coverage to pass WP:ORG Amccann421 (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Adidam Littlejohn

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

Non notable Musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has a little local interest coverage but nothing significant. Current overly promotional article is bombarded with sources but there is a lack of sufficient good ones. Primary sources, shops, show listings, PR, passing mentions. His releases are not on an "important" label. He lacks charting, sales, major award. Nothing notable in this advert duffbeerforme (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable enough Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 14:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches are finding nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Rodriguez (pianist)

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

Non notable Musician. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current overly promotional article is bombarded with sources but there is a lack of good ones. Primary sources, shops, show listings, PR. Albums are self released. He lacks charting, sales, major award. His selfpublished book lacks reviews. Nothing notable in this advert. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 09:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removing my recommendation for deletion due to new reports of notability.Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 17:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is no new reports of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Rodriguez (pianist) is notable enough. And from what I seen, like him being featured in Thumbtack (website) a source that was featured in Forbes and other major outlet. This Article is in good stance. Nomination of Deletion is a sign of not wanting to improve a page, perhaps? Sometimes modifying an Article is a better solution. Duffbeerforme, you obviously made up your mind about Rodriguez. Lastly, from my search Rodriguez is well-known in the motivational speaking circle. Featured in a Latino Nonprofit organization called Hispa.org.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrongWik (talk • contribs) 02:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, no new reports of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Duffbeerforme, You don't get to choose who is notable or not. I've seen your talk on other pages, and quite frankly, your approach in conversations by cursing on Talk Pages isn't someone I can actually speak with, and I can also see you're quick in nominating Articles for Deletion. Coming back to the point, Rodriguez is notable enough. I believe in this Article. StrongWik (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article simply has tossed links and is not clear, with examining, how the listed sources are solidly enough for solid independent notability. Delete at best, SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page alive. Anthony Rodriguez (pianist) has won a Major Award, 2005 Bronze Telly Award - Composer and pianist to the soundtrack of the "Tangys Song" This film was played in the BET channel and in Festivals. The soundtracks in this film were played and has Anthony Rodriguez's musicality in the film. IMDb There are notable musicians that are successful and self-released, holding distribution deals just like Anthony. The search has to be executed better. This Article has notability. Please consider removing this nomination for deletion.StrongWik (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — StrongWik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Bronze Tellys are not major awards, they are more akin to confetti. From the way this Wikipedia article is written it appears the film won the Telly, not Rodriguez. There is also no independent verification from a credible source. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a major award? I would have to respectfully disagree with that. The Telly Awards is a huge award. Rodriguez along with the whole production team won. It's like an album winning a Grammy, everyone involved wins the award. Each person played an important role in getting the project an award. Just because to you its an akin confetti, doesn't mean it is. I've been researching Anthony Rodriguez throughout the day, along with other articles in which I will edit tomorrow sometime. There needs to be respect for all types of awards and some in here clearly agree with my prior statement. I stand with this article and I ask again to please consider removing the nomination of deletion. Whatever can be done to better the article, I will try to do so. Thanks. StrongWik (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing huge about the Telly Awards is the huge number they sell. 1200 silver and 3000 bronze. Unlike winning a grammy (Grammies decide who gets it) anyone involve can say they "won" a Telly just so long as the pay their fee. Unlike Grammies, buyers of Bronze tellies are not announced by the organisers, lists are not published in the media. Noone would know who "won" unless the "winner" announces it themselves after paying for the right to do so. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did manage to find some sources that appear to meet the criterion for WP:GNG, such as this interview, this review, this article, this source, this interview, this interview, and this one. Is there enough to assert significant coverage? I think so - there's enough coverage where no original research is needed in order to extract information and create an article. The issue I'm having is with WP:NMUSIC and WP:NAUTHOR. I don't believe that the article subject meets any notability criterion involving people. He doesn't seem to meet WP:NMUSIC, as his music doesn't appear to have reached any national charts or won any national or notable awards. I also don't believe that the person meets WP:NAUTHOR as well, as his literary work hasn't made him a significant or important figure or monument nor has it originated a new concept. Sure, having your book as an Amazon best-seller is great, but I couldn't locate any independent sources outside of Amazon that discuss his success as an author or any national awards that his books have won. Falling back to WP:ANYBIO, he hasn't won a significant award or honor and he hasn't made a widely recognized contribution that is part of any enduring historical record (or history). So, he doesn't appear to meet that guideline as well. When it comes to the general notability guideline, I think that is arguable if the requirements are met or not - sources do exist that appear to check out. However, when it comes to asserting the notability of the article subject as a person, I think he still falls short. Hence, I am going with delete. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough.StrongWik (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Rodriguez (pianist) was interviewed on a award winning music website that interviews Major Artists Exposed Vocals StrongWik (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodriguez paying a PR service to interview him is no indication of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paying? I don't think so. And from the last time I heard everything isn't free. Joining the Grammies isn't FREE, Joining anything that awards Artist isn't free. Your accusation seems a bit much Duffbeerforme. In the music industry you'll be surprised how celebrities get through the ranks. Lastly, this reference is notable. StrongWik (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interview is put online on 18 April 2016, you post here 18 April 2016. Coincidence? Of course not. Get your Interview published within 24 hours. Only costs 4.99. 24 hours! that's quick enough to help with that pesky afd. At least it was only five bucks spent cause it's of no use here. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Active Artist is a busy artist. I have no idea about your 4.99 interviews, maybe you are involved in that game. In any case, stop hating on Rodriguez. And go after Articles that are actually wasting space here on Wiki. For someone that seems to like accusing and trying to SABOTAGE an image, you're doing a great job at it. It also seems you have something personal with this Article. I am pretty sure there's daily activity with people like Rodriguez that are constantly on the move with their careers. I stand with this Article and won't see it get deleted. StrongWik (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the results and explanation given by Oshwah. There's a lot of PR gobbleygook going on in this article, and I detect a hint of possible WP:COI going on as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An American Holiday

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

There is no context on the page to see what this is about, which makes it harder to even tell if the song is real or not, because I see nothing coming up on Google when searching for the name of the song. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried doing that actually, and was reverted and told not to restore the tag. Either way, I don't care how we delete it, as there is nothing here that would give us reason to keep it, no matter how much we might want to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I'd lean to a possible CSD under A1 for No Content. There's simply nothing here at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in the edit source there's a film infobox so I think its about a film. 17:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Very, Very,very speedy delete as nothing on page. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself am also impulsed to speedy. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy delete under WP:A1 and/or WP:A3 for lacking searchable content and context, unless the new author is able to provide something none of us were able to. Indigogate needs to visit WP:PRIMER. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No-brainer. No content, no article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nothing in the media about this film. Binksternet (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there has been some content added to the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Week Online

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT - there's evidence that the Fashion Week Online website "has been cited" in some reliable sources, but none of these sources tell us anything about the website. All other sources are WP:PRIMARY. McGeddon (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the very least the article requires WP:CLEANUP. The line "has been photographed with prominent fashion figures such as" is exceptionally unencyclopedic. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Use as a source by others indicates possible notability but amount of coverage is insufficient - unlike FTL Moda mentioned in the article which is subject of [8] an article on the Al Jazeera website. Fashion Week Online could be redirected to publisher Pablo Avion but his article needs reference improvements, both in formatting and in reliability. Peter James (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've waited to comment and I believe it's simply currently too soon for a solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand what you guys are saying. At the same time, the kind of feature you're talking about it tantamount to expecting a media outlet to write a profile piece or feature about another media outlet. While this certainly does happen, it's worth remembering that media outlets are essentially in competition, so the kind of extensive "profile piece" or full feature (as happened with FTL Moda, who is a show producer) may not be very common. I feel the breadth of the citations, along with the content (interviews with industry people who thought it was worthwhile to give the interviews), makes the case the website is notable enough to keep. Although, admittedly, I am no expert. : ) Polarisminor (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EE Journal

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

WP:GNG —Ruud 15:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches are simply finding nothing else better and there are also simply no convincing signs of the necessary improvements. SwisterTwister talk 02:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yarana

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

Non-notable film, no independent significant coverage by reliable sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Yarana Arbaaz Khan Shahid Khan Shafqat Cheema Shah Jahan Adnan Shah

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've actually been seeing these recently and the user has started a considerable amount of them and yet listing no sources or otherwise better information....Delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's Your Uncle (Youtuber)

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

Contested speedy (nominated as A7 by User:NottNott and contested by User:Adam9007). I think Adam's rationale, "I'd say being discussed on notable online platforms is significant.", is on the money: there's probably enough here to satisfy CSD, but where are the reliable sources? At the moment the article relies upon a combination of self-published/automatically generated sources, the channel's own videos, and online forum debates.

The sources that come closest to establishing notability at the moment are:

But these seem to fall short as well (although the first is promising). Perhaps someone not as reliant as me on Google Translate could glance over, and also help in a good faith search for additional sources? Thanks! As it stands, for the reasons outlined above, I think this probably fails WP:GNG. Best, - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 10:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC) - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 10:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep (because I haven't got time to go into this in detail). In contrast to Jarry's opinion, I think the two sources Jarry discussed above do confer notability because they go into some biographical detail. The article needs some rework but I don't see anything that desperately needs to be deleted per BLP. Der yck C. 16:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft instead as this is still questionable as I imagine the coverage is simply the expected. There could be better improvements and if there's not made swiftly, we can wait later for an article. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Probably not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-socking user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sudanese British Society of Disabled People

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

~~Maybe they have a noble cause, but we need to verify through WP:RS sources. I can't find any independent reference. Greek Legend (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually satisfying the any applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Graeme Bartlett, under criterion A9. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 01:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bassment Tapes Vol. 1: Write To Remain Violent

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

Fails WP:ALBUM. Greek Legend (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for the applicable albums notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TimeSheet (software)

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

Looks non-notable. The search results are mixed up with other products. I don't know whether lifehacker is a reliable source. Most sources are from their own website businessrunner.net, the company which created this software. Greek Legend (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually there are many such pages about similar software Comparison of time-tracking software. TimeSheet (software) has 4 reviews on different sites, many WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS from the page Comparison of time-tracking software has less sources or reviews.Buhram (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Four independent sources are enough for a small subject like this to prove notability, especially when other software of this same category has less; I really don't see a need to target this particular article. The article could certainly be better written. Please note also that the nominator has been banned for sock puppetry. Prhartcom (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Q4OS

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

Contested PROD. The only thing even close to a third party source is this. A single review from a site that makes a point to review as much as they can does not meet WP:GNG, and most certainly does not meet WP:NSOFT. The PROD was contested, citing the source above as well as a Softpedia review, but Softpedia is not a third-party source; they host the software in question and thus not unaffiliated with the software, as consensus has previously shown. Aoidh (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this still questionable because my searches only found some links at News but nothing else outstandingly better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi. I'd like to stay neutral in this but I vehemently disagree with the statements "Softpedia is not a third-party source", "not unaffiliated with the software" and especially "as consensus has previously shown". Softpedia is a web mirror and independent reviewer. It is used in Featured Articles too. As far as WP:N is concerned, Softpedia can both host and adore Q4OS and retain its status as reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When Softpedia says "You can download Q4OS 1.4.3 right now from Softpedia" it brings into question the claim that it has nothing to do with Q4OS. Regardless, it takes more than a questionable Softpedia review and another run-of-the-mill review to create notability. - Aoidh (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are implying that the only web mirrors are evil web mirrors that have ulterior motives. RealNetworks made the same assumption when it sued Hilbrand Edskes for hosting a link. Of course, the UN court judge dismissed this assumption and made RealNetworks pay €48,000 in damages.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying any such thing. Not being independent of a subject does not make the source "evil" or have "ulterior motives". It just makes it insufficient to establish notability. - Aoidh (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made it worse. Now you are saying all websites that host something are connected to that thing in such a way makes their opinion worthless. i.e. if I have a file on my computer, I am in cahoots with its creator. AFAIK, a web mirror can even receive money for mirroring a file and still be independent from the subject itself. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also not what I said, nor is your example relevant to what I'm saying. I've explained why it's not an independent source, but you're arguing against things I've never said. - Aoidh (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the last two message, we have established that evil web mirrors with ulterior motivations are not the only mirrors and hosting alone does not imply affiliation. So, what connects the dots? The thing that carries Softpedia away from unaffiliated mirrors and makes it a "not unaffiliated" mirror. What is it? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta be honest, I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. You're talking about "evil web mirrors with ulterior motives" and arguing against that, but I've certainly said nothing even close to that. I've explained why it's not independent of the software, you're going on about "evil" things instead of addressing what I said. - Aoidh (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I generally agree that one review alone, be it in Softpedia, PC Magazine, PC World, Computerworld, Ars Technica or The Verge, is far from sufficient to establish notability. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources: [9], [10] ~Kvng (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires multiple sources, and two routine reviews, one of which is of questionable independent from the subject (at best) does not meet that requirement. - Aoidh (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSOFT indicates reviews can be used to establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can be. I highly doubt that the software "...has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources" given that these two reviews say nothing of the sort. - Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, AfD != Cleanup. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned cleanup in any capacity, that's not the issue. It wasn't sent to AfD because of a need for cleanup, it was sent for lack of notability. That's not something cleaning up the article will help. - Aoidh (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of high quality sources. I cannot find any relevant hits on Google Books or Google Scholar. Google News returns some not very prestigious sources such as Softpedia and LinuxInsider, but no mentions in the more established IT industry trade press, no mentions in the academic journals or conference proceedings. Linux distributions are a dime a dozen (it is so easy to start a new one simply by forking an existing one), so I think a higher bar of notability should apply to minor Linux distributions, and I don't believe this distribution meets that bar. I think a good test (but maybe not a decisive test) for the notability of Linux distributions is whether LWN.net covers them in depth (i.e. any coverage beyond mention on the LWN Linux Distributions List, which aims to be exhaustive and hence isn't a good indicator of notability) – and this distribution fails that test. SJK (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for now, I couldn't find any reliable sources apart from the reviews (which are blogs anyway). I would like someone to move it to either my userspace or the draft space, I may be able to improve it. It needs more than just sources, it is promotional as well as the fact it looks like a machine translation. If it was neutral and well written, I would have voted Keep- Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See my comment above. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vicecounty of Casa Romana

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

Probably a hoax. S econdary sources required to confirm that this title exists and, if so, sources confirming that each individual was in fact the holder of the title. Maragm (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as these articles by this user are turning out to be hoaxes. Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible hoax on the grounds of not having non-wiki sources. Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 08:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Try as a I might, I can't find anything in reliable sources to corroborate this article. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marquisate of Santa Rosa

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

Probably a hoax. See articles's talk page for explanation. Secondary sources required to confirm that this title exists and, if so, sources confirming that each individual was in fact the holder of the title. Maragm (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see related article by same editor Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/County_of_San_Juan Legacypac (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per evidence provided on talk page. Srnec (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joal Kamps

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

WP:BLP, edging in an advertorial direction, of a musician with no strong or properly sourced claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. The awards he's claimed to have won do not count as "major" ones for the purposes of NMUSIC #8, Earshot is a campus radio chart that does not count toward meeting #2, and the concert tour is sourced to smalltown community weeklies that are not widely distributed enough to count toward meeting WP:GNG. And outside of the community weeklies, all of the other sourcing here is to primary sources and YouTube videos that cannot assist notability either. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which any musician is entitled to an article just because he exists -- real reliable source coverage in media, properly supporting a legitimate claim of notability, must be present for him to earn one, but nothing stated or sourced here is enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still pretty promotional article, despite recent attempts to tone down the praise throughout the article. Searches turn up a few trivial mentions, but not nearly enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. And as Bearcat pointed out, clearly doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting obvious solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article. Not much coverage in reliable sources.Bruriyah (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and winners for films from Assam

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

Although sourced and verified, the over categorization of award winners in films from a certain state of India goes to an unnecessary level. The topic "award winners in film from Assam" fails WP:GNG. PROD challenged and rejected. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assam, with population 26.6 million, is bigger than Australia and all but 48 of the world's nations. For what "X"s do we have "List of awards and winners for films from X"? If there are such list-articles then compiling at level of an Indian state is not obviously bad. But I don't see others within Category:Lists of Indian award winners and it is the only article titled exactly "List of awards and winners for films from...". (There are lots of awards and nominations lists for individual actors and performers, like List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga.) --do ncr am 06:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes its populated than many countries but also is 15th in population rank within India. That means there is potential of at least 14 more articles if some patriot decides to utilize his time in this remote clubbings. The point here is that how justified it is to have state-wise lists when other categories are already in use. We have these list by awards and list by individuals and then individuals are already clubbed by categories and thereby can be surfed state-wise. This is going bit overboard. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this is still questionable for its own solid article. Still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (WP:LISTCRUFT). The state's population is irrelevant; what matters is whether there are objective characteristics that set aside films from Assam from others (in a cluster analysis sense). I could imagine a claim to cultural difference on the basis of language, but I do not quite see it - on the other hand, maybe non-English sources have better. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Awards and the state from which films come are not related in a significant way. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft and the above points that have been made. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just looks like WP:LC. JumpiMaus (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edureka

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

This somewhat newly founded company still seems questionable for the applicable companies notability and although my searches found links here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 11 April 2016 (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/2016 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The company is 5 years old, founded in 2011. It has featured on top TV channels like NDTV and in top national publications, it was rated fastest growing tech. start-up by Deloitte, has a verified Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/edurekaIN/ with 100K+ followers and regularly features in almost all top national publications. Here are some examples:

Sources

Edureka on NDTV (the most watched news channel in India): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJHaV931IKw
Economic times (Leading national daily, part of Times of India) - Bengaluru Police declared that they are going to get their workforce trained by Edureka: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-08-27/news/65928812_1_edureka-cdr-lovleen-bhatia
Economic Times first page: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-08-21/news/65706289_1_unicorns-esops-uk
The Hindu (top 3 national newspapers): http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/education/edureka-to-offer-scholarships-worth-1mn-in-small-towns-rural-centres/article7429074.ece
Business Today: http://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/features/companies-are-hiring-more-freelancers-than-ever/story/230742.html
Times of India (#1 national newspaper): http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Edureka-is-top-among-Deloittes-Technology-Fast-50-India-2014-company/articleshow/45122748.cms
Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Edureka-hires-ex-executive-from-Facebook/articleshow/47904258.cms
Business Standard: http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/edureka-talend-team-up-to-train-professionals-on-real-time-data-integration-116041300235_1.html
Economic Times: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/edureka-teams-with-talend-to-train-big-data-professionals-on-real-time-data-integration/articleshow/51809430.cms
Yourstory (leading tech news portal in India): yourstory dot com/2014/06/edureka/
Business Today (leading business magazine by Today group): http://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/event/leading-entrepreneurs-and-hr-on-startups-freelance-marketplace/story/228915.html
Deccan Chronicle (Among top newspapers in South India): http://www.deccanchronicle.com/technology/in-other-news/220216/break-ke-baad-tech-professionals-looking-to-online-tools-after-career-breaks.html
DNA (Zee News): http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-start-up-india-action-plan-here-s-what-education-sector-demands-2166233
Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/We-were-days-away-from-bankruptcy-but-we-persisted/articleshow/50591995.cms
Economic times: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-15/news/66568675_1_coursera-daphne-koller-andrew-ng
Economic times: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-08-06/news/65280999_1_h1b-visa-holders-total-enrolments-indian-women
Mentioned in LiveMint: http://www.livemint.com/Companies/1Jo0llEEgibGplDozNYoCP/Simplilearn-buys-Market-Motive-for-Rs64-crore.html
Mentioned in HinduBusinessline: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/variety/crafting-the-india-story-as-eduprenuers/article6823948.ece
Featured on Livemint: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/nsRceISXDoZLkqqpwUBh5N/Bold-steps-in-teaching-and-training.html
Mentioned in The Economic Times: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-11-28/news/56540273_1_data-analytics-business-intelligence-edureka
DataQuest - http://www.dqindia.com/edureka-ranked-1-fastest-growing-technology-company-deloitte-technology-fast-50-india-2014/
NDTV (top news portal in India): http://profit.ndtv.com/news/industries/article-this-tech-company-grew-around-3000-in-3-years-698853
The Indian Express (among top 5 national newspapers in India): http://www.newindianexpress.com/education/edex/The-Eureka-Moment-in-Education/2014/05/12/article221
On Facebook for Business( Featured by Facebook) - https://www.facebook.com/business/success/edureka
Nandan Nilekani too spoke from Edureka's platform to reach a wider audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHy2kBUG18o
This is a partial list, some other mentions can be found here: https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=edureka&tbm=nws

Besides this, Edureka's youtube channel gets more than half a million views with 70K+ subscribers: https://www.youtube.com/user/edurekaIN

The website (edureka.co) is among top 3500 websites in India and among top 30,000 websites globally. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/edureka.co

This does confirm that Edureka is one of the more notable companies in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.158.165 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per some of the sources presented above and those found from additional source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Edureka is regularly featured in the top news and business publications and is a reasonably well known company in Edtech. Here are some sources from last one week alone:

Sources

The Economic Times (#1 financial daily in India): 20th April 2016: Online-only learning platform Edureka launches three new courses in cloud and data analytics http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/online-only-learning-platform-edureka-launches-three-new-courses-in-cloud-and-data-analytics/articleshow/51907611.cms
Business Standard (India's leading business site for Live Markets): 13th April 2016: Edureka, Talend team up to train professionals on real-time data integration http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/edureka-talend-team-up-to-train-professionals-on-real-time-data-integration-116041300235_1.html
Economic Times: 13th April 2016: Edureka teams with Talend to train Big Data professionals on real-time data integration http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/edureka-teams-with-talend-to-train-big-data-professionals-on-real-time-data-integration/articleshow/51809430.cms
Mentioned in The Entrepreneur: 20th April 2016 https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/274386
Quoted in FirstPost: 21st April 2016: http://www.firstpost.com/business/twitter-seva-experts-say-effective-implementation-crucial-for-its-success-2741804.html
Edureka Topic on Economic Times: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Edureka

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.251.249.218 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH; notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by RHaworth per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Byjus classes

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

This currently still suggests it's questionable for the applicable companies notability as I found some links at News and WP:INADFD but nothing convincing obvious signs of solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing self promotional on this page User:Akshaylike —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of India, Houston

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so. The claim of being a top 10 mission by a newspaper is pure POV. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Consulate is getting coverage both in the U.S. and in India and it is still relatively new. I found enough references to assure it's notable, and I think it should be kept with a "Please help" banner. VanEman (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is run of the mill like confirmed it opened. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are reliable and consistent and are enough to show notability. The so-called POV statement is reliably sourced. I found the short article interesting, adequately sourced, and well constructed. There was no good reason to nominate this. Prhartcom (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. The good reason to keep it is the lack of in depth coverage. 2 sources merely confirm opening, another source is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion arguments consisted of WP:VAGUEWAVE and other non-policy bad arguments. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prachi Mishra

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

Poor references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertedtense (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 April 2016‎

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, it appears from searches there are others by this exact name that are more noteworthy. — Cirt (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not convinced this, at this time, can be better improved for better notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fix the article and not delete since there are several third party reliable sources that can support the article and can be used to expand the article some are written in non-English language. These are just examples mostly from Times of India, the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation:

Just search google news for more sources.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG and references provided by @Richie Campbell:. Article needs expansion not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, per available sources (in addition to some of those listed above). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda Alves

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

Poor references

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only reference is a non-RS. Also {{WP:BLP1E]] Legacypac (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Person does not seem relevant enough to have an entire article. Conspirasee1 (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Seems like an end-run around Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SageTea, and fails WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

SageTea

Article was created for purely promotional purposes, in order to get around rejection at AfC (see Draft:SageTea). Speedy was declined by another editor. Bradv 04:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious circumnavigation of AFC to get the company spam in a more prominent place. As the draft is failing at MfD which has a lower standard than AfD, this should definitely be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Lim

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

Subject lacks notability: possible WP:COI, the 2 main contributors have the same initials in their usernames as the political party referred to: Only links provided are to Facebook which has little of use. Constant removal of maintenance tags. Eagleash (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG unless perhaps some foreign language independent sources can be found. I've found nothing in English. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 04:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this is actually satisfying any applicable notability and I actually watchlisted this after encountering and patrolling it at NPP. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – None of her mentioned positions grant her notability per se—they all amount to being a local party functionary—and any other coverage appears to be lacking. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Puff piec created and maintained by apparent COI editors. David in DC (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically just a résumé of a party functionary who has held no position that would confer an WP:NPOL pass — and with just one reference cited, not even close to enough reliable source coverage has been shown to get her over WP:GNG instead. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the deletion discussion, the notability of the subject is determined to be marginally notable. However, this article was written in a tone that violates our WP:PROMOTION hence the consensus is strongly skewed towards the delete rather than keep. No prejudice to article recreation should a better sourced neutral tone article that contains no original research to be recreated about her that is inline with our policies. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Rodan

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

Very highly promotional article, for a person of very slight notability. No notability by WP:PROF -- none of the work is significantly cited. Nor is a position of Adjuct Clinical Assistant Professor notable--it's about as low in the medical school hierarchy as one can get. No notability independent of the company or the product (I'd suggest the one necessary article be that of the product). The promotionalism is shown by: 1/ over personal material--nobody reading an encyclopedia would care who her brother might be, Nor is there any encyclopedic interest in her childhood attempt to sell a home--made rabbit fur purse. Nor on the fact that she had bad skin as a teenager, leading to an interest in cosmetics. This sort of trivia -- -trivia that furthermore can have no independent source except what she chooses to say to people about her motivations-- is the essence of promotional press releases. 2/ Emphasis upon her motivations to develop the company then and later--again, this is just her promoting herself as she pleases, wherever it may have been reprinted. That other publications will reprint such stuff shows their irresponsibility; WP does not have to add to it. 3/adjectives of praise throughout: "novel", for example,being used for a medical treatment based upon unacceptable non-MEDRS compliant sources--in particular a claim of success in treatment based on SFgate. Other examples: "more personalized and consultative sales approach" 4/ exaggeration based upon biased use of titles of sources: she's not America's richest self made women, which would be notable if proven by a reliable historical sources, but #42 (out of the 50 on a Forbes list). (and see also the material already deleted from the article by Doc James and Dirroli.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable as stated and I would've also nominated it myself and my searches found nothing but expected mentions at Books and News, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is oozing with promotionalsim right now, but the woman is clearly notable for being one of the inventors of Proactiv, an extremely well known and highly publicized acne product. She's no different than Post-it notes inventor Spencer Silver, Gatorade inventor Robert Cade, or anyone else who invented a very famous product. There's enough meat on the bones to have an acceptable little article once the spammy language and unimportant details are eliminated. By the way, I disagree when DGG when they say "nobody reading an encyclopedia would care who her brother might be". Actually, he's a federal judge, as is her father, and they both have Wikipedia articles. But even if they weren't notable, so what? An endless number of biographies includes basic employment information about the parents in the early life section, and mention their siblings (including their employment if they're notable). So, yes, the overtly promotional language needs to be removed, but there's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Dirroli (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally supported keeping the article, but I just did a search for coverage focused solely on Rodan in reliable sources and couldn't find much. She was featured in Forbes last year,[11] but there's very little of significance beyond that. The vast majority of coverage I found was about Rodan and Fields (combined) and always focused Proactiv, not them. I also learned that Rodan and Fields aren't even the owners of Proactive; Guthy-Renker and Nestlé are.[12] On the surface, it was originaly hard to believe that a person who invented a product as famous as Proactiv isn't enyclopedically notable. But based on this new information, I am fine with DGG closing this AfD and restoring the speedy deletion template if that's what he/she would like to do. Dirroli (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When sources describing someone as a "best doctor" is used it is nearly always spam.[13] I received an invite to be a "best doctor" a while ago and looked into it. You as the doctor basically pay for different levels of promotion. I have a felling that certain levels include a Wikipedia article but do not have proof for that last bit yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc James. You wanted some proof. Well, the article was created by user "Slestrella". Googling the name Estrella along with Katie Rodan will lead you right to the promoter. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am probably wrong. It seems that if you google Katie Rodan and pretty much any name, you get a "consultant" who promotes/sells this stuff. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Slestrella, below, if they have a personal or professional connection to Rodan (friend, relative, colleague, PR person, Procativ salesperson, etc.), but they haven't answered. The determination of whether Rodan is notable or not will have to stand on its own merits, but it sure seems like it was written by someone who was asked or paid to do it. I don't know what the rules are on that, but I hope Slestrella will explain their connection, if any, to Rodan. Dirroli (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dirroli, I'd like a response from Slestrella too. Slestrella brought it to this state before others started editing it. That looks very much like a promo piece by a paid editor to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough "meat" available in high-quality sourcing independent of the subject to hang a bio on. Some of the content could find its way into Proactiv if it's not already there, though. Zad68 14:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the reasoning of User:DGG and User:Docjames. Rodan doesn't seem to be recognized as a pioneer in dermatology though she did originate a product that was very successful in the marketplace. It appears she is no longer listed among the owners of Proactiv. If she was continuing to launch new business ventures then possibly she would be notable in the 'Forbes' sense. But our article has nothing about that. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable promotion piece. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is atrociously written, but the subject is notable both for her accomplishments and coverage, like Forbes. Keep it with a "Please help" banner to get the peacock terms and puffery out. VanEman (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same things initially, but then I did a search for coverage about her in reliable sources and came up almost empty. Can you please provide links to any coverage from reliable sources that is focused solely on her, and not her product (Proactiv) or business (Rodan + Fields)? I listed the Forbes article (above) also as one good piece, but I could find almost nothing else of significance that was just about her as opposed to Proactiv. Dirroli (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is no more personal or promotional than other Wikipedia articles on other successful entrepreneurs and medical professionals who have started companies, invented products, or written books. In response to DGG on lack of notability: I included her role as "adjunct professor" to add academic credibility only. Her notability is as a successful female entrepreneur who has invented skincare products that transformed skincare in the area of acne (Proactiv), and now in the area of aging (Rodan + Fields). Further, on evidence of promotionalism: 1/I modeled the early life of Katie on the Wikipedia pages for Kevin Plank (founder of Under Armour) and Sara Blakely (founder of Spanx). That Kevin is "one of five brothers" and his father was a prominent land developer, or that Sara is the daughter of a trial attorney and an artist is equally personal. Based on these published examples, this article is being unfairly penalized and held to a different, arbitrary standard. 2/The public is interested in Katie as a successful female entrepreneur and the story about the rabbit fur purse, published in a medical journal, is not about her leap to skincare. It is about her history and credibility as an entrepreneur. This is no different than Kevin Plank's story about selling roses in college as his first foray into starting and running his own business. The fact that she had bad skin as a teenager is directly relevant to her motivation to focus on dermatology and skincare in the same way Kevin Plank's profuse sweating during football practice led to his search for a better fabric and the invention of UnderArmour athletic wear. 3/The word "novel" is not praise. In the context of the article it explains the shift in concentration and protocol for applying Benzoyl Peroxide to achieve sustainable acne prevention, as described in the cited references. Would the word "new" or "different" be acceptable? Regarding the treatment numbers referenced in SF Gate, that was for a focus group as stated in the article, not as evidence of clinical trials for the product, and there was no misrepresentation. 4/I did not write that the subject (Katie) was "America's Richest Self-Made Women." I stated she was one of America's Richest Self-Made Women per the Forbes article title and listed her ranking very clearly (#42), similar to Sara Blakely's ranking as the 93rd most powerful woman in Forbes. On general notability, there are 50 million people in the United States who suffer from acne, according to the American Academy of Dermatology, and 85% of people between the ages of 12 and 24 are affected. This is a very large constituency that is interested in this article about the successful skincare inventions of Katie Rodan, the person behind the products (Proactiv and Rodan + Fields), similar to the way Kevin Plank has a page separate from Under Armour and Sara Blakely has a page separate from Spanx. In addition, the 2012 US Census states that 36% of all businesses are owned by women (an increase of six percentage points since 2007), a second large constituency that would be interested in Katie Rodan as a successful, self-made entrepreneur. This is not motivated by a promotional campaign. It is of social interest to a very large, combined constituency that deserves this article, and being a dedicated Wikipedia user, I was surprised it was not already written. I think it's unfair to delete this article based on the subject's notability given her contributions and the public's interest in this person and topic. Regarding concerns of promotionalism, this article should be held to the same standard as pages for other entrepreneurs and skincare experts who found similar success. Citing her success as an inventor/entrepreneur/skincare expert is not promotionalism, but published evidence of her path to success, similar to the “promotional” content on the pages of other successful entrepreneurs, including Kevin Plank and Sara Blakely. slestrella 07:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Many people who have general notability in life for their successes are not "Wikipedia notable", which requires substantial coverage specifically about the person (as opposed to their product or business) in reliable sources. Can you please provide links to reliable sources (besides the Forbes piece) with coverage that is focused on Rodan herself, and not Proactiv or Rodan + Fields? Also, I see you created the Katie Rodan article. Do you have any type of personal or business/professional connection to her? Dirroli (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the reasoning of User:Dirroli just above. Note that as per WP:NAUTHOR the a creative person may be considered notable solely through that person's work, with little or no sourced discussion specifically of the person. Just above this the guideline says: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." The same standard should be applied to inventors, and perhaps to entrepreneurs. This seems to me to be such a case. Coverage on Rhodan's work, alone or together with Fields should be a perfectly sufficient basis to write and retain and article about her. DES ^(talk) 22:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But she's not notable as an author, and the "many scientists..." quote applies to academics. She's clearly not notable as an academic either. Her notability, if any, would be as an inventor (of Proactiv), but my reading of the notability standards indicates she doesn't qualify. Also, your belief that the same standard should be applied to inventors or entrepreneurs is much different than it actually being the standard. Almost all the meaningful coverage in reliable sources is about her and Fields, not her alone, so perhaps there should be an article for Rodan + Fields, rather than Rodan herself. Dirroli (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage from People Magazine and Forbes show the general public and the business community are interested in her as well as the medical community. I think the article needs to be adopted by the "Women" project and "Jewish women" project to improve the writing and add the many available and reliable references. What I found is that the article uses her nickname for her first name and her married name as her last name, when some reliable references are available with her maiden name or real first name. I found more on JSTOR than what's included here. Let's keep it and improve it. Bruriyah (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage in People? Please provide a link. You're not the first editor here to say that there's enough coverage of her (as opposed to Rodan + Fields or Proactiv) to qualify her as notable, so can you please provide links to what you found. I'm very open to changing my mind (again). Thanks. Dirroli (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dirroli Here is the reference: July 15, 2002 Vol. 58 No. 3 The article is called "Saving Face" By Galina Espinoza

Subtitle: "Developed for Adult Acne Sufferers, Kathy Fields and Katie Rodan's Proactiv Line Is An Unblemished Success" Link: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20137526,00.html Hope that helps. While the Wikipedia article mentions that Rodan is covered in several newspapers, magazines and journals, not all of them appear on the reference list, and I think the most important ones were left off the reference list. But I believe we shouldn't delete the article simply because the references were't added---they just need to be available. The Wright Brothers also usually get written about together and they're almost always mentioned with the airplane, but they still deserve separate article. I will try to add some to the article. Bruriyah (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruriyah, thanks for providing that link. My concern, again, is that the story is focused heavily on Rodan + Fields and Proactiv, not Rodan herself. But at least it has some content about Rodan (and Fields) that has nothing to do with her partnership or the product. However, comparing Rodan + Fields to the Wright brothers didn't persuade me; it actually made me laugh (not kidding). If someone can show me a specific provision within WP:NOTE or WP:BIO that unquestionably qualifies Rodan as notable solely for being the co-inventor of Proactiv, then I will change my "vote" from delete to keep. Because I don't see anything else that makes her notable. Dirroli (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I was simply unable to evaluate this article with all the cruft, so I stripped it down: [14]. I know that is a little gauche to do during an AfD; apologies but it seemed necessary in this case. I am simply not seeing coverage that would meet the guideline at WP:BASIC. @Bruriyah, VanEman, and DESiegel: what three sources did you find most helpful in determining that you considered this subject notable? VQuakr (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr, I don't think it hurts during this process to improve the writing in an article, and it doesn't hurt to add more references. But in the process of trying to improve the article, you apparently stripped out the names of magazines that the article claims she was in, making it more difficult for anyone looking for better references and coverage than what's already quoted. I think the article also suffers from the fact that whatever reference template the original writer used just gives you a link, but doesn't show the source's name, like Wall Street Journal, in the reference list at the bottom, so it takes a lot of work to find out where the best coverage is. Bruriyah (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruriyah: feel free to revert; I can always link to the history if I wish to reference the de-peacocked version. That said, a list of mentions in various magazines hardly warrants inclusion anywhere in the article. To which WSJ reference are you referring? This? That one only has one sentence in it about the subject. Any progress on sharing the "top three" sources that I requested? VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think VQuakr makes an excellent point with regard to the claimed mentions in various mainstream publications. The actual sentence (before it was removed from the lede) said that Rodan has been "quoted or profiled" in numerous high-quality, mainstream publications (and then listed about a dozen of them). That claim comes across as very mysterious and euphemistic, particularly when we have no idea what comprised those quotes or profiles. Like VQuakr, I've asked supporters of keeping the article to please provide links to several sources they believe validate Rodan's notability. My concern is that there is too much rhetoric about the subject's notability, and not enough hard evidence to back it up. As I've said a few times, if the fact that she's a co-inventor of Procativ isn't enough to establish her notability, then "keep" supporters need to provide three or four links to sources that they believe do. Dirroli (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the cogent analysis of DGG and the work done by VQuakr. --Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the thoughtful debate. (I am new to this forum, so please pardon my protocol for labeling my contributions to this debate.) In response to Dirroli above, thank you for the additional WP sources. In addition to the WP editing sources you mention, I also relied on WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:CS, and WP:NPV, and looked to other published Wikipedia biographies for examples on language and tone. In terms of credible sources, I started with the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal (this and this), Forbes, Business Insider, SF Gate, and People. Once I had a base that felt substantial in terms of establishing Katie's notability, I brought in her patents, books, and other sources to add the "human" touch, in the same spirit as other Wikipedia BLPs I've read. There was a lot of press I did not include that seemed overtly promotional which I can provide links to if anyone is interested. I totally get the concern here, and am simply doing my best to use the WP guides and existing precedent of comparable biographies to fill what seems like an oversight in your encyclopedia. In terms of my relationship with Katie, I have helped her periodically with slides for speaking engagements. slestrella (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi slestrella, thanks for your reply. All those sources are quite consistent in they seem (to me at least) to fail substantial depth, as discussed at WP:BASIC. Most carry variations of the same one- or two-sentence blurb about the subject and are mostly about the product or company. We already have that level of information at Proactiv. VQuakr (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with VQuaker. None of the sources presented so far have in-depth coverage of Rodan that establishes her notability. They simply don't meet the WP:BASIC threshhold. There's plenty on Proactiv/Rodan + Fields, but not on Rodan herself, other than the Forbes piece. Relying on a single source isn't enough. Dirroli (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one seems like an obvious keep to me. Relatively new article, good references are available. Notability clear from Forbes article (most other Top 50 candidates near Rodan in the ranking have Wiki articles, like Martine Rothblatt, Sonia Gardner, Marissa Meyer,Nora Roberts, Lynda Weinman, Pleasant Rowland, Susan Wojcicki. Other national pubs as well, featured in some. Didn't see much promotional stuff...edited out? RockyMtChai (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RockyMtChai: yes, it's been edited rather a lot since nomination. Which sources did you feel met the depth requirement of WP:BASIC (aka "featured"?) VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ETA - I spot checked a few of the others from the 30-50 range of that Forbes list. It seems hit and miss. Unconvincing either way IMHO; the examples you gave are notable because they meet WP:BASIC, not because they are on a Forbes list. VQuakr (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky, being on a Forbes list by no means makes one notable by default. Each person must still must have their notability established based on WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. Keep in mind, also, that many people with articles on Wikipedia are not actually notable. That's why we have a process like this (AfD). So it's an invalid argument to say because A is on Forbes and is notable, then B on Forbes must be notable too. And, yes, the Rodan article has been heavily edited the past several days. Dirroli (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what sources? Several voters have made this assertion, but none have backed it up by answering my question here. VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the references included in the article. Hmlarson (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson, I'm sorry but you're incorrect. Rodan does not meet WP:GNG criteria. One of the vital provisions within WP:GNG is WP:SIGCOV, which says "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail". Yes, the existing sources do mention Rodan, but almost none of them address her in detail. We have too many editors claiming notability, yet providing no links here to sources that have significant coverage of Rodan (the subject), rather than Proactiv or Rodan + Fields. So, please, someone provide links here to at least three solid sources (besides Forbes) that address Rodan herself in detail. If you can show me that, I will change my "vote" from delete to keep. Dirroli (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is your opinion. We're not here to convince you to change your "vote" - we're hear to contribute to the discussion. Hmlarson (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you're unable to provide three good sources that meet the WP:SIGCOV standard. Dirroli (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - those are your words (again). Hmlarson (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, those are Dirroli's words and I agree with them. Just saying "it meets GNG" without being able to speciofy why is not a powerful argument. --Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Someone had the nerve to insert Rodan's WebMD biography as a reliable source to three different claims in the article, even though doctors submit their own biographies to that website. I removed them.[15] I'm not saying I doubt anything being claimed in her self-written bio, but if there's actually significant coverage of her in truly reliable sources, then no one would need to add crap sources like that to the article. Dirroli (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that the article's creator, Slestrella, has acknowledged their direct connection to Rodan, saying "In terms of my relationship with Katie, I have helped her periodically with slides for speaking engagements."[16] Thank you for revealing that, Slestrella. Can you please provide more clarification by expanding on your relationship with Rodan? Do you work with or for her in any other capacity? Are you involved in selling or promoting Proactiv or Rodan + Fields in any way? Are you a relative or personal friend of hers? Finally, were you paid to write/edit her Wikipedia article, or did she (or an associate of hers) ask you to do it? Please answer each of these questions. Thanks for your candor. Dirroli (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it's time to remind ourselves of basic Wikipedia etiquette like "Don't BITE the newcomers" and "Assume Good Faith." IMHO a few editors here are spending too much energy insulting the writers and commenters or interrogating them. I'm a relative newcomer, and Dirroli I do not appreciate your saying that I "had the nerve" to enter a "crap" reference like WebMD. I think it's time to check out the etiquette page. On the article itself: This article might be especially difficult because Rodan doesn't fit neatly into one compartment. She's a physician, professor, product inventor and developer, business owner and executive, and an expert the media likes to call on regarding dermatology topics. So I think it's important to use good judgment and common sense. Finally, notability doesn't require that all the references be there in the article. We just have to have good reason to believe they're available. And since this article was first nominated for deletion, editors who read it before found out that People Magazine wrote an article featuring her (it was referenced, but the title wasn't visible in the reference listing), and we've found a business book that included several pages about her as well as a Harvard Business School published case study that discusses her. Given that she's already been covered in Forbes, People Magazine, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, a book on business, a Harvard Business School published case study, and numerous publications, and more references continue to surface, I'm sticking with my recommendation to "Keep." Respectfully yours, Bruriyah (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet again another claim of notability without providing links here (besides Forbes!) to specific sources, which have been requested numerous times, so that we can see if they have significant coverage of Rodan herself. Simply naming a bunch of different notable publications doesn't verify the subject's notability. We need to actually see what comprises the coverage of the subject itself (Rodan) to determine if it's trivial or significant. The Harvard study is not about Rodan; it's about the human resources and sales strategies of the business, Rodan + Fields. The same applies to almost all the other publications; they're about Rodan + Fields and/or Procactiv, not Rodan herself. And while you may not appreciate it, what I said is necessary and accurate. It is a fact that WebMD biographies are crap sources. They're written and submitted by the doctors themselves, so obviously they're not reliable sources. So, yes, it took nerve to use a WebMD bio as a source. For the record, when I made my comment I had no idea did it, so if it applies to you, so be it. In terms of the article creator, Slestrealla, they have already acknowledged their direct, personal connection to Rodan, but have not adequately elaborated. Editors not only have a right, but also a responsibility to inquire about the extent of of an editor's apparent or obvious relationship to an article subject if they are editing the article, and most especially if they created the article. An administrator in this discussion also asked the editor several days ago on their talk page about their connection to Rodan, but has yet to receive a reply. Dirroli (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG and Doc James. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been thinking a lot about this one. DGG and Doc James make good sense. If this was created as a promo piece to help her earn more money, then it should be deleted. We have the clear "List of policies and guidelines that can be used for making one's case in proposing a page for deletion". One of them is WP:PROMOTION. So, was this created for that reason? Quite obviously. The creator has admitted working for Rodan, has made only edits to this article and one other. Both of these are about corporate people. It is very likely the creator is a business associate being paid rather than, say, someone in her sewing circle doing her a favour.

Furthermore, there is suddenly another single purpose account User:Nadia12m. If these two are different people, have no association to Rodan and her org, and came here to help build the encyclopedia, fine. Is that likely? Not a chance. Katie Rodan was created 12 February 2015 then Nadia12m created the polished Draft:Rodan + Fields on 15 April 2016 in one edit‎. Both subjects have been around a long time and yet both of these pages were created so close together in time. There is certainly a connection here. Neither declared themselves as paid editors contrary to the Terms of Use. Both users are possibly the same person or they work for Rodan or work together. Are these two accounts and creations here at Wikipedia to improve it? Hardly. This is obviously promo paid editing. They are here to use this encyclopedia to increase their profits.

The above, plus the fact that a case for notability is borderline puts me easily in the delete column. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete; fails WP:GNG. However after the deletion of this promotional piece, redirecting to proaktiv is reasonable. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Proaktiv isn't a page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just created it as a redirect to Proactiv; it is a plausible misspelling. VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities birthday

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

The birthday of all celebrity's are on that celebrity's article. Also, this article would be way to long. — Music1201 ^talk 03:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-as a test page IMO. Wgolf (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no objective way to determine who is a "celebrity" and who isn't. We list well-referenced birthdays of notable people in their biographies, and this "article" adds no value. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a list which doesn't add any value. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless, unrestricted list adds no value to Wikipedia Neiltonks (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) Tom29739 ^[talk] 05:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Rose, Darling

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

Previously deleted via WP:PROD, but still not notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apears to have won major prizes in its country. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: I'm Rose, Darling Nay Toe Phway Phway Heavy Phyo Yoon Yoon

Keep per meeting WP:NF despite the article needing work. A difficulty is that it was never released in English under the title "I'm Rose, Darling" (or " I am a Rose, Dear"), and I learned that under Kya Ma Ka Hnin Si Par Maung this Burmese award winner IS sourcable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 ^talk 02:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orin D. Haugen

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

This World War II colonel doesn't quite satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is certainly interesting but there's nothing else to suggest the better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - First, it all depends on what one considers "a substantial body of troops". If you consider a regiment as meeting that requirement, then he fits #6 of WP:SOLDIER. Add to that, his role in the Battle of Manila, and he probably meets #7 as well. Looking into him, due to the age in which he lived and died, there is not much on the internet. However, a search of Google Books shows much more coverage, which clearly meets WP:GNG. Aside from the 2 Flanagan and 2 Hagerman sources already in the article, there's a nice mention of him in Jump Commander, good coverage in Blossoming Silk Against the Rising Sun, Leyte, 1944: The Soldiers' Battle, United States Army In WWII - The Pacific - Triumph In The Philippines, and A Dogface's War. And that's just on the first page of the google search. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing GNG and per onel5969, and also given that he was deemed notable enough to have Camp Haugen named in his honor in Japan after the war.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be plenty of sources out there. Andrew D. (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Cowie

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

Non-notable former racing driver. The only coverage I can find about him are profiles here from the article and a little better here from sites that apparently profile all drivers. —teb728 t c 02:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Oh, I see now that the second one is the source of the copyvio that was deleted from the article. If he were notable, it could have been rewritten into the article. —teb728 t c 02:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for his own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Disruptive nomination made by socking user, riddled with a very suspicious amount of anonymous IPs. If a proper request is required, please feel free to open one after this close. (Note: This close has no bearing on any future AFDs regarding this article.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Pop Records

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

DELETE Promotional article for personal (failed) business of a Wikipedia user who has edited this article extensively. Sources cited are unreliable and insufficient for WP:ORG Mohsinpathania (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what's going on, but this seems like a personal grudge. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Devouard (3rd nomination). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what's going on either. The nominator here also nominated another article whose notability has not been demonstrated and is not easily demonstrable, and so this must be a personal grudge? Unless anyone can substantiate the basis of these personal attacks against the nominator then I would say that something smells pretty bad in the way that that editor has been vilified here and elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I explained my reasons for doubting the nominator's motivations in my recommendation. The nominator was recently indeffed over at Commons for his disruptive behavior. Here, the editor has a very short contribution history consisting almost exclusively of nominating for deletion pages with admitted COIs by Wikipedia administrators. The pattern of behavior looks suspicious and pointy to me. Rebb ing 19:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why shouldn't anyone look for COIs by Wikipedia administrators, and nominate articles for deletion when the sources don't stack up? People do the same with people who are not Wikipedia administrators and are congratulated for doing so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You twist my words. I'm not objecting to editors who choose to pursue sysop-involved COI issues. Instead, I'm saying that it appears that the nominator has made this series of nominations to retaliate or to prove some point, and I find it difficult to believe that this is the nominator's first or only account. Moreover, I wasn't aware that we congratulated anyone, long-standing editors included, for pursuing COI bogeyman when the conflicts have been plainly disclosed. I concede that, on the merits, the subject does not appear to be notable. Rebb ing 20:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If you believe that the subject does not appear to be notable then why is there still a bolded "keep" by your contribution below? This discussion is about the article and its subject. Discussions about editor behaviour belong elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe that a bad-faith nomination is an appropriate basis for retention: as I see it, discouraging disruption is more important than removing non-notable articles. Because neither of the editors supporting the nomination are able to nominate articles themselves, closing this as keep would not be an exercise in futility. Rebb ing 21:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course I can nominate an article for deletion - I simply have to register a silly pseudonym rather than reveal where I am editing from. I'm sure that wouldn't take more than a few seconds. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see how an article covering a failed business venture can be promotional. Carrite did not create the article; his conflict is declared on the talk page; and his changes are constructive and neutral. Rebb ing 02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It could be sourced but I don't care much about Socky the Grudgester coming back to WP after registering exactly one year ago to settle some score. Delete it or not, whatever. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. Calling MP a "business" misses the point of the 100+ releases entirely. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's none of my business, but I wouldn't mind hearing the background on the nominator. Exactly one year ago from what? As another contributor has commented on the apparent impropriety of this nomination, I believe whatever you're willing to provide would be relevant to this discussion. Rebb ing 04:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - THIS. Carrite (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the impropriety of the nomination. Cf. WP:SKCRIT point 2. In my estimation, the article's notability is debatable—not clearly lacking, not obviously established—but I do not believe it's appropriate to reach that question under the circumstances.

I do not make such an accusation lightly, but I believe it's necessary in this case. The nominator's contributions to English Wikipedia speak for themselves: few new users begin their editing careers by nominating articles for deletion. But far more troubling is his record on Commons, where his account has been blocked indefinitely as an account "used exclusively for disruption" (emphasis added). (His talk page and contributions provide more details, if any are needed.) Rebb ing 04:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not recommending speedy retention per Criterion 2; I'm voting for retention based on suspicious behavior by analogy ("cf.") to Criterion 2. My argument is not invalidated by the fact that we now have an uninvolved editor recommending deletion; however, as an argument not grounded in policy or guidelines, I expect the closer will give my position little, if any, weight. Rebb ing 19:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are mistaken Sir. I was clearly blocked on Commons for requesting a deletion for monkey selfie image. My ground was that the EXIF data (Copyyright Management Information) had been stripped out in breach of USC code by a Commons bureuacrat and sysop to misrepresent that the image was authored in 2011, and not 2008 as published on NBCNEWS.COM. I am presently in active correspondence with your Websites legal counsel over this block and related issues, and certain clarifications have already been provided to me by Shri Rogers (Legal Counsel for Wikipedia). I am not at all describable as a vandal or disruptive person for pointing out breaches of Foundation Terms of Usage and US laws applicable to your esteemed website,and I am not in any edit war on your website. Mohsinpathania (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - length of operation and number of releases involving notable bands indicates cultural significance. For what it's worth, this is one of the few punk labels I've actually heard of before being forced to learn about so many here in Wikipedialand. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - No reliable sources. Non-notable 1 man show with article created by owner and "friends" who hurl WP:NPAs like "Socky the Grudgemaster" 120.56.114.246 (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin in response to Malcolmxl5 below. The first edit of Carrite is relevant for WP:DUCK considering Carrite's NPA remark return of Socky the Grudgester directed against the nominator - WP:BOOMERANG. Is there any reliable source that Tim Davenport and Timbo Chandler are the same person ? 120.56.118.252 (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator appears to be going through articles with declared COIs and nominating them for deletion without checking sources. The sources used here are certainly independent, though I can't speak of their reliability. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why are you shying away from speaking of their reliability ? It is certainly a serious problem if Wikipedia insiders are allowed special privileges when it comes to articles about non-notable selves or their non-notable organisations. Mohsinpathania (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources are there that you claim that the nominator hasn't checked? The ones in the article seem to be pretty junky, and well below the standard demanded for sourcing of articles outside the Anglosphere, such as Alexander Solodukha (deletion discussion) or Crazy Eyes Crew (deletion discussion). There may be some history with the nominator that I'm unaware of but I see no reason why we can't discuss this nomination on its merits rather than assume bad faith on the part of the nominator. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are woefully inadequate for substantiating notability, being, at best, passing mentions of the subject in dubiously reliable sources, and my own searches, which include checking out the ones automatically linked by the nomination statement, find nothing in any reliable source with more than a passing mention of the subject. Please note that this invalidates the ridiculous claim above that this discussion is subject to WP:SKCRIT point 2, because I am an uninvolved editor (if you don't believe me check my contributions since my ISP last changed my IP address in December 2015) and have called for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I never claimed article is create by 'Carrite'. In actualment the creation and early edits for this article are by User:CDaniel and were "sourced" (if that is the right term) to this Internet trash article and the alleged owner of the business is "Timbo Chandler". CDaniels account (from his user page) appears to have a WP:COI with this article or alternatively with account User:Carrite which was opened later and whose first edit shows a remarkable familiarity of Wikipedia sintax. So who is the founder of this business Timbo Chandler or Timbo Davenport needs to be resolved in view of acuracy of encylcopedia. Thank you Mohsinpathania (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note CDaniels lists articles that he has created or contributed to on his user page, a common practice. This does not show that he has a COI with either this article or with Carrite. Carrite's first edit is of no relevant to this discussion. Please restrain yourself to discussion on whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP 120.56.118.252, I repeat "Please restrain yourself to discussion on whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines." Talk of first edits, and DUCKS, and BOOMERANGS is not doing that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your plea to concentrate on discussion of whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines, but that advice should be directed to all participants in this unseemly spat, on both "sides", not just 120.56.118.252. Nearly every comment above (apart from mine, of course) fails to assume good faith and to contentrate on the issue at hand. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft to someone who needs it if at all as my searches found nothing better and this could still need improvements but I'm not convincingly seeing how these can be made. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs work, but I believe the subject meets WP:GNG. Everything on Earth ends in "failure", i.e., death.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you believe make the subject meet WP:GNG? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although this is currently troubled with votes, I still should note this currently still questionable for the needed improvements....regardless of any user troubles. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Punk labels. Sources are unreliable, especially internet forum posts and so on. Since this is an historical subject (1990s punk), if the label is/was notable, we should expect to read about it in several of the many books covering the topic. However, the only source I could find, "Punks: A Guide to an American Subculture", is conspicuous for not discussing it. The label's owner is mentioned only in one sentence, where he is quoted regarding the notability of a radio show/DJ. So in fact there seems to be a reliable source that indicates that it's not particularly notable! But that doesn't mean all the information must be discarded, and some of the sources could be used as citations for facts, if not for notability. A large proportion of the articles in the Category:Punk record labels have even less evidence of notability for dedicated articles, but it would be a mistake to simply delete them en masse. Taken together, they are a notable subject, and the articles contain much valuable information. I would suggest creating Punk labels at least as a stub, and doing a WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT in order to retain the existing information for possible merging into it. In general, I think WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT rather than WP:PROD or AfD, should be the first line approach to article subjects that don't meet notability criteria, but still have useful information. If there are problems with it being reverted, by COI editors for example, that can be dealt with by the usual COI or content dispute procedures. WP:PROD should be reserved for articles that are clearly completely useless, and a formal AfD for notability should only be considered if WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT is legitimately contentious. -- IamNotU (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Princess (Annie album)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. FallingGravity (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggests any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For the reasons stated above. There does not seem to be any signs of independent notability (the page could always be recreated if someone finds independent and reliable sources in the future). Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shingen the Ruler

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

Dearth of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. No reviews listed in our database of historical sources, MobyGames.[17] There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 03:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - elementary coverage does exist on Google Books. This includes page 121 of the Video Game Bible, 1985-2002 by Andy Slaven, in which he writes "this strategy game takes place in feudal Japan and offers a good story line and complex options." It also achieved a listing in Classic Home Video Games, 1985-1988: A Complete Reference Guide by Brett Weiss but nothing of substance. Twin Galaxies' Official Video Game & Pinball Book of World Records seems to talk about the game, but it's not publicly accessible unfortunately. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches also found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A brief review of this game is present in Nintendo Power volume 16], although it appears to be the only appearance in Nintendo's famous publication. A book "VideoGames and Computer Entertainment: Complete Guide to Nintendo Video Games" by Andy Eddy appears to give it a full page review, although I don't know the contents and thus I don't know whether it would be considered notable or non-notable for purposes of this discussion. One consideration that would need to be taken into this discussion due to its era, most of the primary sources for it would be print publications only, and thus might require more effort to uncover than a simple Google search. I hope that this meets criteria for a Keep vote, and apologize if it does not. -Cookie3 (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We usually use three significant reviews as the lowest of low bars. Two doesn't quite give us enough to write a full article, though perhaps it can be merged and expanded somewhere. czar 14:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would similar sources in other languages (e.g., Japanese) suffice for notability purposes with regards to the English page? (I don't have any handy; I'm just questioning whether it'd be considered acceptable).. I also just noticed that the Hot B page was deleted -- I wish I'd noticed so I could've participated. Too late now, I suppose. -Cookie3 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, any language as long as it's an established/reliable outlet. (See WP:VG/RS for some vetted sources.) Never too late—do you have sources for Hot B? You could start a draft at Draft:Hot B czar 20:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, don't have any great sources for Hot B (all the print sources I have are about their published games, and while one could build a silhouette of a page based on that, I think the page would still be a candidate for deletion). Regarding Shingen the Ruler, I'm certain I read one other print review, but I dug through my magazine archive and couldn't find it, so maybe I'm delusional.. and even if I wasn't, that as-of-yet-undiscovered print review plus Nintendo Power #16 only equal 2 print reviews, and would still fall short of the 3 you recommended. The local library doesn't have the Twin Galaxies book or Eddy's VGCE:Complete Guide so I can't evaluate them for possible citation. I'd still favor "keep" since the page already exists and I am certain that the sources are out there.. but without a greater effort at research it would be tough to justify. So... ultimately, whatever happens with the page is fine. I would have suggested maybe making a small blurb and putting it on the Hot B page, and then redirecting, but... well... -Cookie3 (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Badlands Motor Speedway

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

An unremarkable road. 333 -blue 03:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not a road, it's a race track and concert venue. Now that this is settled, is it notable? At best it's close. Pichpich (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added four sources which I think are sufficient to ensure that the article meets WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If not independently notable, this could be merged to Brandon, South Dakota, which presently does not mention it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate topic as soon as possible as permastub and leaving this topic as standalone costs important context. Otherwise keep. Esquivalience ^t 00:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the nomination seems deliberately offensive. Obviously it is not merely a road, it is an event venue, and wikipedia has articles about concert halls and racetracks and so on. No need to be derogatory. Nominator makes no assertion they performed wp:BEFORE, and I doubt that they have because they didn't set up "find sources" on the former name of the speedway. --do ncr am 18:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to extensive coverage in South Dakota media, quick searches turned up some coverage from outside the state as well, including a detailed AP article about the track's history [18] and a Harrisburg Patriot-News article naming it to a top 20 list of top sprint car tracks. [19] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added, with source, about $6 million renovations underway at Badlands. Also, searching Google books using the "Huset's" searchlink (now above) turns up, among other hits from 1966 on, A Fan's Guide to Circle Track Racing: Facts, Tracks and ... 2001 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1557883513 by Tony Sakkis - 2001 - for which "‎Snippet view" of page 176 reads: "Huset's Speedway is located in the arid, high desert of South Dakota, and is one of the biggest attractions of the immediate area. The WoO show is the biggest of the year, generally filling the 4,500-seat facility as the open-wheeled cars come ...". --do ncr am 16:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kewadin Casino, Hotel and Convention Center

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

Non-notable business. I've trie Csding this, but keep getting reverted essentially on the grounds that the owners are notable. WP:NOTINHERITED, sez I. I don't think the crime story makes it notable either. TheLongTone (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A7 is not about notability. Adam9007 (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: Out of curiosity - what would make a large casino notable for you? As indicated in this article, news agencies have covered it's impact on the local and tribe's economy. A quick look around enWP shows dozens of articles on casinos that are smaller and whose impact is less well documented. So I am curious why you felt this particular casino was not notable, and what would make it "notable" in your mind. Thanks! PS. As a minor note, I have not personally found it helpful to cite essays (such as WP:NOTINHERITED) when there are guidelines and policies around these topics. Basically citing an essay is like saying "these group of people share this opinion" - which is for many people different from "the community has come to consensus on this policy or guideline." Essentially anyone can post an essay on anything, a policy or guidelines requires more consensus. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, it might be notable if there was anything of real interest to say about it. That it is owned by native North Americans is interesting I grant, but is something more properly mentioned in an article on that topic.TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By contrast, what makes the Detroit casinos or Vegas casinos notable? Not much has actually happened at many or any of them, yet they are considered notable due to their size, economic impact, and public nature. I am unclear how this large casino is different. Again, just trying to understand why this casino is not notable but so many others on Wikipedia are. Thanks! --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 00:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF.TheLongTone (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Tanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but needs improvement. There is quite a bit more in the sources I looked at, like this which talks about the social impact of the casino on the tribe. The Highbeam article looks promising but I can't get to it. Like many business articles, the creators have given a few business facts but haven't actually told the story of the business. I admit that in this case the story is entirely of local import, and that argues against it (see wp:AUD, which requires at least one regional/national or broader source. Here are two that I found cites for that might meet that:

Dateline: Sault Ste Marie, Mich: gambling on a casino (Vegas Kewadin)

Author: Kaihla, Paul Journal: Maclean's (Toronto) ISSN: 0024-9262 Date: 11/09/1987 Volume: 100 Issue: 45 Page: 8d

Hitting the jackpot: Kewadin Casinos continues in its expansion mode in Michigan's Upper Peninsula

Author: Leiser, Roland Journal: Travel agent (1990) ISSN: 1053-9360 Date: 08/14/1995 Volume: 276 Issue: 8 Page: 80

LaMona (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the significance of this enterprise for the Tribe—which is itself shown in its own article to be an important political entity, especially (but not only) in the U.P.—is sufficiently established in the sources to show notability. The content about this particular hotel might also be beneficially incorporated into the broader existing article about the Kewadin Casinos, whose notability as a group is undoubted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not very complete, but better and more references are available. RockyMtChai (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Herzfeld

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

Multiple minor roles =/= significant coverage or notability. 'Nuff said. editorEهեইдအ😎 06:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Prominent character actor of German silent cinema with appearances, leading and supporting, in a number of key films. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be better confident to say Keep if solid German sources were located and added as the current article is still questionable at best, Draft if needed so any necessary improvements can be added. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary improvements are far more likely to be added if the normal wiki process of keeping the article in mainspace is followed. Who do you think will add anything if this is hidden in draft space? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as made prolific contributions to German cinema, this subject is very pre-internet, so the two book source in the article are enough for just passing WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's pretty clear from the results of the Google Books search linked by the nomination process that this was a significant figure in early German cinema. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable under WP:ACTOR as having had significant roles in multiple notable films. --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG DaltonCastle (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. I mean, this guy had a prominent co-staring role in an Ernst Lubitsch film, for gosh's sake! Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Pearson

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to meet GNG and also fails WP:NHOCKEY. Being drafted and committing to play college hockey are not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - He's in a junior league. Where does that stand in WP:NHOCKEY ? DaltonCastle (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Joeykai (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Honestly, @DaltonCastle:, if you have no idea of the notability criteria pertaining to hockey players, and you won't even take the thirty seconds necessary to follow the link you cite and read it to find out, you shouldn't be voting in related AfD discussions. In this particular case, the subject hasn't even played major junior, let alone climbed out of the amateur ranks, and fails the GNG and NHOCKEY going away. The article itself is the creation of a SPA with no other edits. Ravenswing 04:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thank you for the judgmental tone, but my question arose from if the "Junior League" he was in was in fact within the "Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues" parameter. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply And nothing prevented you either from finding out that information, or if taking the time to do that was too onerous, to not vote in the AfD. What possible basis could you have for advocating keeping the article? Ravenswing 06:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Innocence Project

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

The individual state groups of this project are not independently notable--just aa with all other similar organizations DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability. Music1201 (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VAGUEWAVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with as much justification, one could wave WP:NOTPOLICY at you ... Ravenswing 04:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a very early stub for an entity that is notable -- it just needs to be built up and developed. Also, a quick search of Wikipedia shows that there are similar pages for different Innocence Project Network member organizations. I hope that by linking these it doesn't lead to their demise as well in this process - so please be kind. I would be happy to work on this page but wanted to let the University of Nebraska-Lincoln new editor continue their initial work. As far as nurturing valid articles, see Illinois Innocence Project for what this article could and should develop into. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:NOTAVOTE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps and Draft if needed as there's certainly noticeable links and information here but solid independent notability is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Innocence Project. This probably should be done for other similar articles about state affiliates of this organization. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument. --Randykitty (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice amount of source coverage, as seen at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the second point of WP:SSEFAR applies here. Even though the "similar articles exist" argument isn't enough to warrant keeping an article, this covers a finite amount (Innocence Project subdivisions) and we have other articles on those which have not been deleted. The fact that NIP were involved in the first DNA exhonoration case in Nebraska also adds notability in my opinion. If there's going to be a merge it should be with all the subdivisions, but I think I'd prefer subpages, especially since there's room for expansion. Best Regards, InsaneHacker (🗪) 11:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NONPROFIT, which states that a not-for-profit organization's achievements should be assessed when determining when the organization passes WP:NORG's notability guidelines. The sources cited in this article substantiate the fact that this group's work has had a significant impact, and we should therefore keep this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. considering WP:NONPROFIT in evaluation. VanEman (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG DaltonCastle (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, do consider WP:NONPROFIT, especially the section ofn branches of a nlarrger association, ) --although I think it's technically independent its branch of a larger movement. Also see the criteria "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." and that the local references do not meet the qualifiers of " Nationally well-known local organizations:" DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Rlendog (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano DiGiacinto

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has not played for the Tampa Bay Lightning, so he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is a professional player. Article should be fixed, but he's notable enough. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No he isn't notable enough. He fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Joeykai (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: DiGiacinto is, in fact, not a professional player (and what measure of notability do you claim he meets?), something you might have seen if you'd done more than give the article a superficial glance. Given that you've made over 140 edits on several dozen AfDs today over the course of a couple of hours, this comment of yours coming ninety seconds after the previous one, that's not surprising. A little more care in the next flurry? Ravenswing 04:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN amateur player with no accomplishments to speak of, fails NHOCKEY and the GNG going away. Of the sources presented, all are either primary from the organizations with which he's played, blogsites, or routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly barred from supporting notability per WP:ROUTINE. One of several such creations up at AfD of a semi-SPA who focuses on a handful of junior league teams, and writes in a rah-rah fannish manner unsuitable for the encyclopedia even if the players met notability standards. Ravenswing 04:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable hockey player with no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Ke (artist)

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

Can't tell if this is written like an advertisement or not. Seems promotional in nature. — Music1201 ^talk 08:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ARTIST with several exhibitions in imporant musea. Sources in english exist as well, artnews for example.Mduvekot (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a few of the national museums seemed convincing enough with the article also seeming convincing enough, any improvements can be conceivable, I also imagine. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Dvorak

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: He led his league in goals this year and was second in points; it's arguable that he'll be named to the First All-Star Team, and all that'd be a pass on criterion #4. Ravenswing 05:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since while he doesn't quite meet NHOCKEY yet, I think he does meet GNG. The article already has some sources (though they're well hidden); additional reliable sources with significant independent coverage can be found here and here at least, and he's received plenty of local coverage in The London Free Press. Sideways713 (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as Ravenswing and Sideways. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Ravenswing and Sideways713. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sin City Escape

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

I came across this as an A7 speedy, however there's just enough of an assertion of notability (playing at concerts) to where it doesn't cleanly qualify. A search doesn't bring up much of anything other than a few notifications of the band playing at local concerts. The sources in the article aren't enough to assert notability and some of the sources link to Wikipedia, which cannot be used as a source to really back up any claims or establish notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing better for that applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit better than what we usually see, and much better than the earlier version I speedied, but neither the article nor anything else I can find so much as implies they pass WP:NMUSIC. Plus, the author's username screams COI. Delete. —Cryptic 02:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable article, with COI. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Really obvious that the creator of this page is a member in the band.... His name is on the page! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bonaire

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

fails WP:GNG, no independent sources The Banner talk 12:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it should be improved, I believe it is notable enough. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. This is a small island of 17,000 people, it isn't independent, it only sporadically holds this contest, and the winner doesn't always compete anywhere else. Since no part of notability criteria guarantees automatic notability to beauty pageants absent reliable sources about the same, I see no reason to keep the article. Ravenswing 04:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep a) Part of a series on Miss World participant countries and territories. Pages can have a own page if they are part of a series on a specific topic, like Belize at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics. b) There are secondary sources, just a few from a quick Google search: 1, 2, 3, 4. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 11:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can't form an opinion either way because whilst I don't think it is notable, looking at these three templates: Template:MissWorldCountries, Template:MissUniverseCountries and Template:MissEarthCountries, just existing and taking part warrants an article. Think of that what you will, but I think for consistency, you've either got to vote keep, or address notability at a more fundamental level i.e. not one tiny non-independent island at a time, but the guidelines on notability for all articles on small (in pageant terms e.g. never hosted, never placed etc) participants. Rayman60 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that not all articles linked in the above mentioned template have evidence of participation and/or are unsourced articles. The Banner talk 18:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a feeder to major international pageants and, as noted by others, is part of a series of national-level articles on such feeders. As for sourcing, that does seem to be a problem with many of these article, but not an insurmountable one. Before coming here, I replaced one of the Facebook sources on this article with something independent. So, sourcing can be done. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know notability is not inherited, certainly not from a navigation template. The Banner talk 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft as a compromise as everyone here, I'm sure, can concur this still needs considerable improvements, and no one has taken the initiatives to actually improve it thus Draft if needed and remove from mainspace as there's nothing suggesting better. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

María Gonllegos

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

Participant in a pageant that was deemed not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss United Continent (2nd nomination)) The Banner talk 12:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only considering the pageant is not currently notable, nothing else imagines any better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Let's first see if there are more sources pointing to notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well, one should be checking to see if there are more sources before voting, but that's just me. Her stage name of "Lupita Gonzalez" (which is cited in the article) has an eyepopping total of 868 Google News hits, many of which involve her being an accomplished athlete as well, a number of which helpfully include the full "Maria Guadalupe González" name for doublechecking. Honestly, Google Translate is your friend ... Ravenswing 04:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while news does return over 800 hits for Lupita Gonzalez, none of those appear to be about this particular aka of María Gonllegos. The Pan American runner does not appear to be the same person, and there is nothing in any of the articles to connect the two. Most of the 800 hits are for other people with this same name. The commonality of her aka makes researching under that difficult, but there does not appear to be, and none have been proffered, the type of in-depth coverage needed to meet WP:GNG, and under her real name there is virtually zero coverage. Btw, there is nothing to indicate, other than its mention in the article, which is uncited, that Gonllegos does go by an aka. Even the one source about her as an entertainer uses Gonllegos, not Gonzales. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Aslam

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

Non notable person. Musa Talk 11:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE, nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep web searches turn up a fair bit, though a lot of it looks like press releases. [20], [21], and [22] for example. Also gets quoted a fair bit [23]. Hobit (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more sources point to notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The GNG requires multiple reliable sources, which give "substantial coverage" to the subject. Press releases explicitly do not count. Articles written by the subject explicitly do not count. Quotes from the subject explicitly do not count. What I'm not seeing are reliable sources which do meet the requirements of the GNG and WP:BIO. Where are they, please? Ravenswing 05:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Ogungbe

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

Article that has been deleted multiple times, person with questionable notability. Wgolf (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this satisfies the applicable notability, his label is his own company so that's also questionable for saving this article of course. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am amazed that this article is even up for deletion. This guy has been one of the leading producers and radio DJs in Nigeria for the past two decades. I can't think of a single reason not to allow a well-written biography stay (other than, well, "you-know-what" ;) ). Bokoharamwatch (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC) PS A few more things, things: does one delete Jay-Z because of Rocafella, P-Diddy because of Badboy, or Birdman because of Young Money? (I think that) These sorts of arguments do not belong here in this discussion. 06:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to easily satisfy the criteria, well-known in Nigeria and mentioned on the top media sites, profile on Bloomberg.com... Greenman (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the obvious notability shown by the sources found by the spoon-fed searches at the top of this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, Google turns up plenty of independent third-party coverage. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Quick google shows loads of sources. I'm shocked that this article was even nominated. And it's been deleted before? Why? Ross-c (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The pioneer entertainment executives in Nigeria are quite notable. The man behind the success of 2Face Idibia. I remember them from Primetime Africa. Definitely passes notability criteria. Ulabcie (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essam Al-Muhaidib

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

Possibly non notable person, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emad Al-Muhaidib (Someone should merge these 2 reports) Wgolf (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for independent notability, not even minimally. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason given in the article for why this person is independently notable. Bradv 19:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly fails WP:BIO . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe some day it will be more notable, but not now. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Let's do this one better; this is an unsourced BLP. Ravenswing 05:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 two last "keep" opinions don't indicate which sources they are based on. Sandstein 07:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy W. Bush

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The composer had nothing besides an interview and lots of passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I don't think a redirect to the company or games would be appropriate. czar 04:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 04:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 04:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better than a few links here and there. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, found some nice coverage, including a good source at The Oxford Handbook of Interactive Audio. — Cirt (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these sources? czar 11:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the spoon-fed searches above, which are supposed to inform the discussion rather than be ignored. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I believe what Czar was asking was for sources that actually meet the GNG, instead of half-sentence fleeting mentions explicitly debarred by the GNG as supporting the notability of the subject. That Oxford Handbook ref is one of those. Ravenswing 05:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, which is why I said the same in my !vote below. I was simply pointing out that there was no need for Czar to ask where that inadequate source can be found, because it is linked by the "find sources" template that we should all check before commenting here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps, using both "Tracy Bush" and "Tracy W. Bush", didn't turn up much, although I found a mention here. However, there is fairly consistent interest in this article here in Wikipedia at 30 pageviews per day (an unofficial measure of course) which I am somewhat at a loss to explain.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (withdrawing !vote) – The only in-depth coverage I can find is the interview in Endgadget. The Oxford Handbook mention is textbook trivial (it says, "Leader composer Jason Hayes and composer Tracy W. Bush of the original WoW soundtrack were not part of the teams that made the music for the expansions"). Further detail on the World of Warcraft soundtrack can be given on the game's article, but Bush himself doesn't seem to be notable at this stage. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep'. Also an interview here: http://poptimal.com/2012/08/hybrid-interview-with-5th-cells-tracy-w-bush-innovating-a-genre/#.UCF0OtRrN8E If he's being regularly interviewed, this implies notability. Ross-c (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah. Might potentially pass WP:NMUSIC per multiple feature-length articles etc, Poptimal seems to be an RS. (Archive link here in case anyone else is having trouble with this link: [24]) I'll hold off judgement. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet WP:GNG, {{ping|BabbaQ]]? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible redirect to World of Warcraft#Audio. We need several, in-depth reliable sources. A text book and one interview is not enough to merit its own article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best source that we seem to have is The Oxford Handbook of Interactive Audio which mentions the subject in passing in a sentence that includes two other names. In the absence of anything better this appears to be a WP:GNG failure. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - if there is coverage it needs to be added. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't any substantial coverage. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, all I'm seeing is marginal coverage on marginal sites. What I'm missing is substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources. 0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 05:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that this person meets the notability criteria. Prior to any future re-submission for deletion, I would suggest that a discussion is held at NPOL's talk page to verify whether or not "deputy minister" meets the GNG criteria, but in this instance, the consensus is that it does meet it. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dmytrо Vorona

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

Hard to find any reliable sources that confirm his notability. Fails WP:GNG in my opinion. JTtheOG (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found nothing.Greek Legend (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deputy ministers are senior enough to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inherently notable, meets WP:NPOL as a politician having held nationwide office. AusLondonder (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something smells wrong here. If the subject had held these deputy minister positions then I would expect to be able to find sources for them in the Latin alphabet, but I can find nothing. The source in the article merely says that he was chairman of the State Registration Service, which doesn't sound to me, as someone who is admittedly unfamilar with said State Registration Service, like something that would qualify him for notability per WP:POLITICIAN. If anyone can provide a reliable source saying that he has been a deputy minister then I will happily support keeping, but otherwise this is a ~~delete~~. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this source corroborates the info on him being deputy justice minister in 2012–13. (Ukrinform is the national news agency of Ukraine.) —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have accordingly stricken my "delete" opinion above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all information that is not present in the two references provided as per WP:BLP. Bradv 19:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely passes WP:GNG. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Deputy minister", which is a civil service position and not a political one per se, is a position which can get a person into Wikipedia if they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG — but it is not a position that entitles a person to an automatic inclusion freebie just because they can be verified as existing. But the only reliable source that's been shown here is a 98 word blurb announcing his appointment — which is not enough media coverage to constitute a GNG pass. Sources do not have to be in Latin script — Ukrainian language sources are perfectly acceptable — but there absolutely, unequivocally have to be a lot more of them than this. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if a significantly better volume of sourcing can be located. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: The position of Deputy Minister is not inherently a civil service position. For example, see Deputy Ministers of Tanzania and Deputy Minister for Macedonia and Thrace AusLondonder (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except we're not talking about Tanzania or Macedonia and Thrace; we're talking about Ukraine. In Ukraine, as in many other countries including my own, "deputy minister" is a civil service position, as evidenced by the fact that this article says and sources nothing about Dmytro Vorona having been elected to any legislative body (which would have gotten him over WP:NPOL regardless of any quibbles about the meaning of "deputy minister"). Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about secretaries in the United States Cabinet too. They're also appointed officials and not elected, but I don't think anyone has ever disputed that they're covered by WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As relisted twice with no clear determinable consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Downing

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Possible merge with spouse, Christina Carlisi. Quis separabit? 01:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. Bradv 19:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR prominent role in 43 episodes of Viper, also films such as Ghoulies 2 Atlantic306 (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NACTOR. Poor article quality does not negate notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: despite @DaltonCastle's assertion, I did not refer this article for deletion discussion due to "Poor article quality", although that is certainly the case. That I can fix. I also dispute @Atlantic306's claim that the actor is prominent in any way, particularly for having appeared in "43 episodes of Viper, also films such as Ghoulies 2", which is a sad commentary on what, for some, constitutes notability these days. @Atlantic306 has a history of voting to keep almost any crappy and/or ridiculous article no matter how trivial and thus degrading to Wikipedia's reputation as the premier online encyclopaedia, which becomes tiresome. (See [25], [26], [27], [28]), just for starters.) And please don't bother rebuking or chastising me or reminding me about AGF and IAR. I am all too aware but some things need to be said. Quis separabit? 20:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In reply, you are acting as a snob critic. Its bad enough for the creators of the article to be brought to AFD without being belittled as wholly unnotable, or crappy article, and if you think your comments will stop me opposing unnecessary deletions you're mistaken. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as there's nothing suggesting the necessary improvements for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right, "unnecessary deletions",@Atlantic306: that's why you are the sole keep vote for Chiara Bellati and Pension Volkmann, while Sonu Lal was speedily deleted already. Quis separabit? 04:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. First, as the article was created in 2006, being an unsourced blp doesn't apply. However, he does appear to pass WP:NACTOR, his recurring main role in a TV series, Viper, plus significant roles in two films Ghoulies II, and Robot Wars. The rest of his career reveals that he is a working actor, and he works consistently, but his roles are certainly up and down, from bit parts to significant roles in episodic tv, even significant roles in non-notable films like C'mon Man. While NACTOR only states that they may be notable, I think those 3 significant roles in notable films (regardless of how crappy you think those films are), along with his body of work squeaks him over the level required to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ekong Jimmy Effiong

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

I just stumbled on this article and realized that it neither meets the notability or verifiability criteria. It subsequently fails the general notability criteria. None of the sources listed in the article describes the subject in anyway. A search for his name brings out nothing significant. Eruditescholar (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2016 (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/2016 March 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability and none of this suggests any better. Asking Wikicology for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete as this person is notable in his own part of the world. That a subject is not popular on Google is not enough reason to yank it off Wikipedia. The article cites sources from local tabloids which do not have proactive internet activities. Thank crafts (talk) 21:10, 09 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Thinkcrafts: Although there isn't an explicit requirement that a certain subject has X amount of results on a Google search, a Google search is very useful in ascertaining the notability and coverage of a subject. Please see WP:BIO, WP:TEACHER, and WP:POLITICIAN to get an understanding of our notability guidelines. In particular, local politicians who may receive local coverage does not mean they are automatically notabile. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Thank crafts: Inasmuch as offline reliable sources in print are as useful as online sources when citing articles on Wikipedia, you will justify your reason for keeping this article by revealing any evidence of these sources. If he is really notable, then establish his notability by adding the sources in question. Eruditescholar (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: must qualify under WP:GNG, which does not appear to be the case. Quis separabit? 01:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable enough as a politician [yet]. Uhooep (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - article creator should provide more sources including from Nigerian ones to prove notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ... and failing those sources having already been demonstrated to exist, an article cannot be sustained, per WP:V and the GNG, especially since this is a BLP. Ravenswing 05:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources, including in print, demonstrate notability AusLondonder (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Frank (User Page) (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any Nigerian Wikipedian contributor is very much needed in this AFD discussion because I happen to be the only one besides the creator.

Other contributors: Please note that the article was initially not added to the Nigerian wikiproject since it's creation. The article is well written with many wiki links but on a closer scrutiny, the subject is not notable. It's deceptive in appearance. A search for his publications online is also a futile effort. Most Wikipedia articles solely sourced from printed works usually also have at least pieces of information on the Internet. This case shouldn't be an exception. The creator is yet to respond to my offline sources request. I deem it pertinent that things should be done the right way. Eruditescholar (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A further analysis of the stated references reveals that this source from Eagle newspaper is just a passing mention. The only offline reference which might be reliable is the one from the state's local newspaper: The Pioneer Newspaper which has its official website here. Notwithstanding, this should at least be verifiable via alternate means and it is not even manageable or sufficient to ascertain notability. Eruditescholar (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Eruditescholar: I do not know what you want exactly. According to the rules, I understand that availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability, yet “sources do not have to be available online or written in English.” In this case, am I supposed to personally get copies of the sources quoted in this article across to you for verifiability? How did you carry out your closer scrutiny without the sources? Where in the extant rules does it state that one of the sources must be online?

You have concluded that the only offline reference which might be reliable is the one from the state’s local newspaper – reason being that perhaps because it has a website. But could that be how editorial integrity is adjudged?

Note that the article here is not about a Nigerian national figure and you should not expect to see stories about him splashed all over the national dailies online. More so, not all stories printed in national dailies in Nigeria make the online version of the papers.

For the records, this figure is one of the three classroom teachers who rose from that position to being appointed a permanent secretary in Akwa Ibom state. He is also a winner of the Best Public Servant Award – the biggest award in the state of Akwa Ibom, Nigeria. That the award is not publicised online does not make it less notable. How I’m I supposed to get sources from local radio, tv and newspapers online to convince you if by merely quoting them you are not satisfied?

@GabeIglesia: and @Uhooep: Please note that this figure here is not a politician but a civil servant. Thank crafts (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinkcrafts: In my opinion, the subject of the article fails WP:TEACHER and WP:GNG. His stated achievements on the article do not exceed his state (Akwa Ibom) which suggests that he is not known on a national level by most Nigerians. And the stated references are not even sufficient to cite the article. Verifiability is used to ensure veracity of articles on Wikipedia. The website of Pioneer magazine confirms the existence of the source; Unfortunately, it ends just there. Offline sources should have at least ways of verifying that they exist either through book index numbers or related websites and publications. That is not even the case with the remaining stated offline references. Eruditescholar (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Current sourcing does not meet notability guidelines, as with other editors, my searches turned up nothing, and without more sourcing from those who have off-line availability, no choice but to delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as evidently created with self-promotional intent, and little in the way of convincing sources. Sandstein 17:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sympathetic to the difficulty of finding sources that meet WP:RS, when the article subject is in an area not as well covered by internet sites, nor major newspapers. If it were a close call, I might vote otherwise. However, it seems clear that the current local sources don't meet Wikipedia requirements. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article needs serious work. But I was still leaning toward weak keep, as subject almost barely passed WP:BASIC, because of passing mentions in presumably reliable sources. But the heavy reliance on "The Story of Ekong Jimmy Effiong”, which appears to be nothing more than a profile in a blog, is inadequate; and his name does not even show up in a WorldCat search as an author on any of the publications listed in the article. So no notability can be reliably established by any standard. X4n6 (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above. Clubjustin (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. author requested deletion DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio J. De Rosenzweig

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

No hits for Antonio J. de Rosenzweig or Antonio De Rosenzweig on either Google Books or Google Scholar. An ordinary Google search also turns up little of use. Otherwise nothing to indicate he passes WP:PROF. Article is also somewhat promotional. AfD started at 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63's request and endorsed by myself. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note – The article was nominated again for speedy deletion while I was preparing this AfD, but since the speedy has been contested several times now I'm going to leave this stand. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I'd already nominated this once for speedy deletion, and prodded it after that. Rather than a bio, this is really a description of the subject's project. Neither Mr. Rosenzweig nor his eponymous disaster scale [29] have received significant coverage, so this wouldn't even work as a redirect. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources. Very promotional. No indication of notability from secondary sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objection to speedy. Both the scale and the BLP subject fail GNG and/or PROF. All I can find is material published by the subject's organization. I do not see any use of this scale by disaster relief organizations nor have I heard of either from the EMCOM work which I do. Maybe this will be a useful/significant thing/subject in the future. All in all this looks like a PR piece for the purpose of advancing the comercial interest of the subject. Jbh ^Talk 01:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the person nor the metric appear to be notable. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I read are notes related to "references" and not with the contents of the scale. I believe the wikipedia vocation is not to publish all ready published documents but to offer sustainable contents at least until another expert can refuted a point of view with another better, wider, and sense making point of view. If so, I encourage the wikipedian community related to experts in the disaster field, to establish a serious discussion around the topic until a consensus can be reached. I offer a direct discussion with the author which can derivate on a deeper study at the same time the scale is presented to the international community in Geneva May 12 and 13.

If wikipedia only publish supported related and linked content, then please feel free to delete asap the article, because it might pass a few time, before it can be related and supported according with wikipedia standards. If so please only have into consideration that wikipedia working sheets must be simplified guidance and the its main vocation should be redefined as repeaters of other trustable sources, which in that case, will be much more reliable than wikipedia itself.

In my opinion the Wikipedia project can be great window for human knowledge that propose new theories and than not always find the proper ways to be published them, due to a rigid tradicional academic estructure, that as we can see in many times has become a big obstacle for the knowledge, in other times it has been deeply mistaken and in other times, is just matter of time. On the other hand, designing a method that challenge experts all over the world, regardless their flag and native institutions, will speed up the evolution of human knowledge, and will transform wikipedia, in the most important sanctuary for learning, not from articles supported in google search, nor links, but in open discussions, as I said.

Just to finish the definition of "disaster" published in wikipedia, is as wrong as in the rest of the dictionaries, supported by the rest of the academic institutions, and therefore, wikipedia is not suitable source for promoting any significative change in the way authorities understand disaster. "The sudden alteration in collective interaction patterns of variables related in a system" is the proper disaster definition because it meet the universal criteria... it can be apply for any place, any where and for any kind or phenomena.

I will mail this conversation to wikipedia founders so they can observe the distortions on the original project as I will ask everyone in this discussion to review the wikipedia history. On my personal opinion, the answer founded since the publication of the article, us just made by non experts in disasters, as a result of facing a discovery.

Hoping to find a high level discussions farther than google searchs, and related links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariana Montero (talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariana Montero: While I wish you the best of luck in talking to the founders of Wikipedia, presently Wikipedia does require "linked content" and references. It is not a forum to advertise or discuss new theories. Have a look at our policies regarding notability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article's creator has blanked it and requested speedy deletion [30]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gobi Desert toad

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

No evidence this animal exists. Google Books and Scholar have no results for "Gobi Desert toad". General Google search returns 8 results, all of which are copied from Wikipedia ("Gobi Desert toad" has been linked from Template:Animal tasks since 2009, which is transcluded in Template:WikiProject Animals) Plantdrew (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 08:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Bradv 19:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references available. VanEman (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged this as G3. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Billions

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

Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:COMPOSER. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough reliable sources available to write a decent article. Bradv 19:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a big producer who produced a ton of songs for a lot of artists, I can't list all of them but you can google it. Also, I wrote all of this and I don't want it to go all to waste, so please don't remove this article. Xboxmanwar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xboxmanwar (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but definitely no article here now. Nom summed it up nicely. John from Idegon (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails sources. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) SSTflyer 05:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serena van der Woodsen

AfDs for this article:

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

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. Most sources appear to stay within the realm of WP:TRIVIALMENTION, as they discuss the show or the actress portraying this character. AadaamS (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has a significant number of reliable sources and given that the charactor is the "central charactor" I think it is suitable for a standalone article. — Music1201 ^talk 23:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps also since it seems convincing enough for an article, even if only a televised character. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment specifically, no source demonstrates that this character has any notability independent from the show. AadaamS (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the reasons proposed for deletion would apply to any fictional character, and there are thousands of them on Wikipedia. Why is this article uniquely irrelevant? Bradv 18:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- These reasons do apply to every fictional character but some characters are simply too notable for their articles to be deleted. Those characters have had books and articles full of analysis written about the characters or the impact of these characters on later work. A counter example would be this analysis of Sherlock Holmes. If you find 2-3 similar sources for the analysis of Serena vdW you will have proven that this character is notable enough to have a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with above. Fictional characters can still be notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They can only ever be notable in the WP:GNG sense if reliable sources verify that the character is notable. Most sources I checked only amount to WP:TRIVIALMENTION as they prove the notability of Blake Lively, but not the character itself. AadaamS (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons already stated above. Perhaps improving the article would be a better path than deleting it all together. Brocicle (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DhoomBros

AfDs for this article:

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

As per previous deletion of this article, no significant coverage of group in reliable sources. Bakilas (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are three reliable sources in the article that cover the subject in detail: JAMO Magazine, BBC Asia, and Punjab2000. Notable. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 15:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the links given establish notability. Ross-c (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually as my searches found nothing better and the current sourcing is actually not as convincing as it could be. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interviews, being primary sources, cannot be used to show notability. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources to show they pass WP:GNG. The promotional aspect of the article also makes this an easy decision to delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale makes no sense. A Primary source is something the subject would publish himself. These are published by the media and all three sources are reliable. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- sami ^talk 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has been covered in the media, and reliable sources are available. For example: [31] Bradv 18:50, 11 April 2016
Keep as google gives over 300,000 hits for it, seems to be popular. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Biological organisation. MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levels of organization (ecology)

AfDs for this article:

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

This can easily be found on Ecology. RES2773 (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge content to Ecology if it's not already there. Bradv 18:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It;'s one of the basic ecological concepts, though it needs expansion. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - needs improvement, but is notable enough. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually upon review merging might be the best option. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Biological organisation. Convert the Levels of Organization disambiguation to the page Integrative level and create a hatnote to the page biological organization. Also, a Levels of organization page should be created to also become a redirect. Oldag07 (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several various ideas here. Of note is that two different merge targets have been suggested. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider merging targets afterwards as there are no serious needs for deletion and this is likely an acceptable search. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Biological organisation, content fork. Sandstein 17:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Biological organisation. I'd say merge, but it looks like all the content is already there.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afe Babalola University Faculty of Engineering}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owe Thörnqvist}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginative Plain}}