Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 13: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:16, 13 June 2016

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 June	14 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Fallah

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

Is not a notable player, has not played any senior international or continental tournaments, no non trivial English sources other than a FIVB profile which is a preliminary list of world league that doesn't mean he will play there Tomcat313 (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE, also WP:GNG. Fails everything we have under WP Volleyball. For now, not notable. --Osplace 19:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable volleyball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing from that listed career has any insinuating signs of the needed notability, my examinations found nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 21 June 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Granddaddy Purple (GDP)

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

There seems to be an attempt by the Cannabis lobby to create as many strain articles as possible. It strikes me as inappropriate for Wikipedia. We are not leafly nor erowid. If a strain is notable, such as Kush, which carries infinite sourcing ranging from the press to hollywood films, then having an article is advisable. But what about the dozens of non-notable strains such as this? There is no independent nor reliable coverage about them. This needs to stop and a few articles will have to be deleted as well, and the creators warned. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your views on Cannabis, your reason for removing an article is wrong. I am quoting from your discussion above "It strikes me as inappropriate for Wikipedia." This excerpt is purely personal opinion and not anywhere grounds for deletion. Each individual strain of Marijuana has unique medical benefits and side-effects. This makes it an ideal candidate for a series of Wikipedia articles. Weather you agree with Cannabis or not, the scientific facts are undenyable. I will continue to create articles on ALL different strains of marijuana regardless of the Anti-Marijuana Lobby. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcQueen36 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are making this personal. I've stated the strain does not pass our general notability guideline. Others do. Most don't. You need to improve your reading comprehension. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to not get sidetracked here and just look at whether this particular strain meets WP:GNG. It seems to me that this is a bona fide reliable source -- so that would be one. The Cannabist, a newsite published by the Denver Post, has this review. And I do see lots of minor mentions in other results. Rather than declaring war on all cannabis strain articles the nominator states in his nomination that major strains such as Kush are clearly notable. Even as a cannabis enthusiast I think we're at least one really good reliable source for a keep !vote, as my personal rule of thumb for "multiple" articles is at least three. Anyone got one? I don't believe a listing in the Leafily online guide would count. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look for sources. You provided a decent one (Cannabist). What's the other one? Three is our recommended minimum at AfC. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's all just too minor. Shawn in Montreal, your search uncovered some fun links, like "Dave Grohl and Animal have an epic drum-off on The Muppets" and "David Bowie's Wife Iman Shares New Message for Fans 1-Month After Singer's Death"--because some jackass was spamming in the comments. Anyway, too minor; not notable. That "review" (more an ego document) in The Cannabist is just not enough. BTW, note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackjack (cannabis). Drmies (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We need to be careful when jumping to conclusions based on web results. Reliable references are needed, not comments or forum posts. That is the whole problem with these articles. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GDP is a notable strain of weed, I think with a little work this article could survive. Reviews/articles/mentions in sources: The Denver Post, Dope Magazine, High Times, The Marijuana Times, Highsnobiety, East Bay Express, Mic, Complex. The creator of this strain, Ken Estes, appears to have achieved some notability on his own as well and his backstory of how/why he created this strain could be included, HighBeam produced these results for Estes: ...as well as the world-famous High Times Cannabis Cup winning plant genetics by Ken Estes...Grand Daddy Purp is well known for its pain relief qualities having been reported especially effective for arthritis and limb disabilities, while allowing patients to maintain focus and clarity., Associated Press, Rocky Mountain News, The Boston Globe. And apparently (not so notable), Estes started a record label named after this strain: Grandaddy Purp Music, named after a strain of marijuana he created, the album is appropriately titled Medicine Man, All HipHop, Podcast interview with Estes on Cannabis Radio.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Some source examples are listed below. I consider Leafly to be a reliable source in terms of its editorial coverage of strains. However, the user review aspects of their content does not count toward establishing notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

High Times
The Denver Post
The Cannabible 3. Potter/TenSpeed/Harmony.
Dope Magazine
Leafly
Green: A Field Guide to Marijuana. Chronicle Books.

Keep there are enough reliable sources here to show that this strain beyond all doubt meets GNG. For example, [1], [2] and [3]. Omni Flames (talk) 08:21, 24 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Armin Johnson

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

This is an article about a film producer that had been working its way through the AfC process. However, the author decided to move it to the mainspace. As it's now outside of AfC's purview, I am nominating it for deletion to see whether the community thinks it meets our notability criteria.

The subject does not meet WP:ANYBIO because they have not won any awards, and because their contributions to the film world as an executive producer have not been "widely recognized". In fact, this is the problem with the article: there is almost no real coverage of Johnson out there. The article itself mostly cites press releases or pages without significant, in-depth coverage of Johnson; these do not help show notability. The best source cited is from the LA Times, but all it offers is a short sentence about how Johnson "came to the rescue" of the Pawn Sacrifice film. This is an interesting tidbit, but I can't find any sources that develop this idea further. (Worldchess calls him "a great guy named Dale Johnson who runs this fund called Mica", but that's not much in the way of coverage.)

I also did my own search for references. While there are plenty of one-off name-checks, it is difficult to find more than one sentence from a source independent of Johnson. There is a biography of Johnson circulating on the Internet (with text from here), but since Johnson is ~~a partner~~ an advisor (I got his title wrong, but my point remains the same /wiae /tlk 15:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)) at that studio, it's not an independent source. As a result, the subject doesn't meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG either, and thus fails our notability criteria.[reply]

One possible counterargument to this nomination is that as an executive producer, Johnson has financed and thus played a "major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", per WP:FILMMAKER. I do not think WP:FILMMAKER was intended to apply to executive producers, but perhaps the community thinks otherwise. /wiae /tlk 12:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even my simplest searches and examinations found nothing better at all, by far nothing convincing and that's not surprising given his list of works. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned in the nom, doesn't pass WP:GNG. I can't justify him being notable under WP:FILMMAKER either, and that lack of good sources seals the deal at this time. ERK^talk 22:38, 21 June 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) 03:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yardly

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

This is a small company that deals with the frequent problem Canadians have of getting rid of large amounts of snow. I declined a WP:CSD#A7 request because there are some small local news pieces, but otherwise nothing that obviously shows the company has long-lasting national prominence. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: smacks to me of business promoting. Quis separabit? 16:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing minimally convincing of any actual notability here. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article reads like an advertisement. In any case, it is a local operation, and the sources go to its website, google app store, an article in "Edmonton Metro" that reads like a press release, and so on. There is no persuasive indication of notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:59, 17 June 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. Nakon 19:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Troyton Rami

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

The subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. This source could be considered as significant coverage, but additional sources found via various searches only have passing mentions about the subject, such as [4], [5] and [6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as there are some sources here but still nothing confidently suggesting the needed solid independent notability of any applicability. Delete as there's simply nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a bit uncertain. I could not find any sources covering the subject other than Jamaica observer. There are multiple sources mentioning the subject trivially or in context of another artist. However, there is a claim that the subject was one of the composer/producer for Gimme the Light, a single which was part of the grammy award winning album Dutty Rock. Pinging MSJapan who usually works with Music articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As an editor has been pinged 9 days after last relist, it's only fair to give them some time to respond. ansh 666 02:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Producers are difficult to deal with in WP:NMUSIC. They're generally not notable unless they've built up a reputation and a sizable corpus of work, because they always work in the background. Bob Rock, George Martin, Rick Rubin, and Mutt Lange are notable exceptions, but they produced entire albums that sold millions of copies and received coverage of their work specifically as a result of those sales on multiple occasions. It is also important to bear in mind that when a song or album wins a major award, the artist gets it, not the producer (unless it is specifically a production award). In this case, the Grammy award was for the album, and it's not stated that the subject produced the entire album. Moreover, the award was not a production award, it was a "Best Album" award. If we could source the other awards claimed (especially the reggae producer of the year), along with proof that these are indeed major awards, that might do it, but no one has been able to do that yet, being aware that "niche" genres are notorious hard to source to a level of notability. Nevertheless, it looks like a case of WP:BLP1E, insofar as the work on the single in 2002 was the context in which the subject was notable, and nothing else of note has occurred in the ensuing 15 years. Simply working with a noted artist is still a case of WP:NOTINHERITED, and none of that work seems to have earned the subject any exposure, so I don't see enough here to keep. MSJapan (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alright, I'm convinced with the explanation above. I would say delete now with no prejudice to recreation should notability be demonstrated in the future. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:00, 8 July 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 03:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Choudhuri

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

I could not find any notability regarding this person, google search returns no results, similarly no results in google news or books. Speedy delete request contested by an IP claiming He was published in regional newspapers and international anthologies, but I could not verify that claims. Article currently cites no sources. Darwinian Ape^talk 13:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ Non-notable self-promo which might I add is unsourced. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that Choudhuri is not notable, but what is your basis for speedy deletion? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I will hold off for a Hindi search Google search brought "0" results [7]. News search has shown the same thing [8]. A book search [9] has brought these two sources [10], [11] I believe they are not talking about this person. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hold until we have someone verify that there are no adequate sources in either Bengali or Hindi.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have searched for the name Arjun Choudhuri in the Hindi and Bengali Wikipaedias using good old Google Translate, they do not have an article on this person, i know this doesn't necessarily mean he is not notable, however... Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't think there will be any sources in Bengali or Hindi. There has been no improvement since its nomination for deletion. It was deleted the first time for the same reason why it's nominated now. I think it should be deleted and it can be restored if and when someone finds an RS for it. Right now we are trying to prove a negative. Darwinian Ape^talk 10:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He indeed has published a book Bordering Poetry with ISBN 9380382227, 9789380382227. Apart from this, I could find only this blog / publication. No other sources found for notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even assuming everything here to be documented, this is not a notable career. The publications are minor and do not meet NAUTHOR, and the academic work does not meet WP:PROF DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't look to be enough to satisfy WP:BIO here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three relists for this? Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR and eligible for speedy deletion as per WP:G4, given the previous deletion discussion. The issues brought up in that discussion are not addressed here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:12, 5 July 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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPAIR

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

inadequate evidence for notability ; presumably an advertisement for the surgeon. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also concur with DGG, nothing here at all for any applicable notability at all and nothing to suggest its own article. SwisterTwister talk 18:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the sources that have been provided below after this !vote was posted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Upon discounting sources available in Google Scholar and Google books authored by the technique's creator, there are some sources available that provide significant coverage. See below for some of them. Also, note that the acronym "SPAIR" also refers to Spectral Adiabatic Inversion Recovery, which is not included in the sources below. Also, it's important to note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing within articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Early Experience with SPAIR Mammaplasty: A Useful Alternative to Vertical Mammaplasty". Restifo, Richard J. MD (April 1999). Annals of Plastic Surgery. (subscription required)
Mastopexy and Breast Reduction: Principles and Practice. Shiffman, Melvin A. (2009). Springer Science & Business Media. pages 272 –. (subscription required)
Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery. Thaller, Seth; Panthaki, Zubin (2012). CRC Press. p. 42.
"Reports Outline Hypertrophy Study Findings from Grand Rapids Medical Education Partners (the Short-Scar Periareolar Inferior Pedicle Reduction Technique in Severe Mammary Hypertrophy)". Medical Devices & Surgical Technology Week. February 8, 2015. Quote: "...and effective technique for breast reduction." For more information on this research see: The Short-Scar Periareolar Inferior Pedicle Reduction Technique in Severe Mammary Hypertrophy. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2015;135(1..." (subscription required)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – *Numerous* science journal articles on this, definitely meets WP:GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete along with Dennis C. Hammond which was created by same (probably paid) editor directly, without going through AfC. Would not have passed AfC due to lack of independent reliable secondary sources with substantive discussion. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:27, 13 June 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Netbee Hosting

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

Hosting provider with no indication of notability per WP:CORP. Won two business awards of unknown notability. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. OnionRing (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far nothing at all convincing with my searches finding nothing better at all, there's by far nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content of the article is promotional. Although some of the company's work has been nominated for a couple of awards, I cannot see that either of these are notable. For example, the CSSDA appears to be a mechanism to showcase designers. Of the six references: two are press releases, two are awards/showcase site pages, a blog on website themes that has a focus on construction, and link to the company's own website. There is a lack of sources that are reliable and independent. The claim made of Netbee being "one of the world's leading website hosting companies" has not been verified, notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:20, 16 June 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. This is a pretty clear snow keep at this time. I did consider the consensus and groupthink argument mentioned below, but do find sufficient rationale among commenters that this article should be kept for now. In the long term, if someone wants to reconsider this, that's fine, but for now, I think it's a pretty clear keep as per the outpouring of arguments. Go Phightins! 19:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse (nightclub)

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

Not notable in its own right. Everything said here in this short article is already said in the main article on the shooting. In addition this is complete recentism. Nothing in the future will likely be added to this article that will not feature in the main article. Mootros (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the incident itself. The incident doesn't confer notability on the club but some of the content should be available in the article on the incident. Note: nom has malformed the AfD and accidentally listed the talk page but I'm sure that will be rectified. MLA (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have fixed the malformed nomination (the talk page had been listed instead of the article page). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The article cites a subscription-only source that a "major" shooting occurred there in May 2013. If someone can gain access, we might find out a lot more about that, but in any case, that means it's not solely related to the 2016 terror attack. There are many crime articles where the shooter gets his own article, just because. How about letting the site targeted also have its own article? I bet there will be a lot more background coming out over the next couple of days, making this much easier to research than it is now. Wnt (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite Orlando being a heavily tourist oriented place, there's nothing of substance on the club in the usual travel guides in google books. They usually cover notable clubs and hotels in that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in a bunch of commentary from travel guides. Note that the Frommer's website merely fluffs readers off to other websites for LGBT options, so the usual travel guides really aren't a barometer in this area. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to those sites, Gay Orlando only lists clubs, doesn't describe them; Gay-Guide is for sale, and when I go to the Wayback Machine is much the same as the prior, a location-specific DMOZ of sorts; The Centre is a community non-profit, and its directory is largely (if not only) of GLBT support services. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now. Give editors a chance to expand this article. Sources like this and this are helpful, and provide a narrative that goes beyond just the 2016 shooting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~I am not !voting in this AFD yet, but I think~~ maybe we should give this article a day or two to maybe find more reliable sources. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no harm in taking time over this to see what sources appear as editors dig into it but with the sources I can find in a cursory search I'd say this needs merging to the shooting article. SPACKlick (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent events have made this club very notable, and the detail needed regarding its history would make the shooting article too long.Juneau Mike (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is useful, as it should and does contain any and all information about Pulse not related to this shooting event. For example, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building has its own article. -Mardus /talk 15:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article showcases plenty of information on board, many of which doesn't fully relate to the shooting right now. Besides, I've seen plenty of articles that showcase much less information then this article has now, and yet we've kept those articles that held only one reference point at hand. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No notability except for the shooting incident. Raider Duck (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of recent events and the existence of reliable sources. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful article based on reliable sources.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article meets general notability guidelines and contains information that goes beyond the recent shooting. Rab V (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While the event is clearly notable, Pulse itself probably isn't. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 20:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rab V. Subject is notable per WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has useful info that's not related to the shooting. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has reliable independent coverage outside of the recent shooting and thus meets WP:GNG. Z105space (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as the location of the worst mass shooting in US history. Plenty of reliable, independent sources document its existence and place in the community up until that time. Moncrief (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N, and WP:LASTING. I see no evidence given the diversity of the sources to see how this isn't notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' One of the more momentous events in gay history, and the club therefore certainly deserves its own page. Plus: gve the editors some time, it's been two days since the event only... Karin Spaink (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- An Islamic terrorist attack where 49 civilians were killed is a "momentous event in gay history"? Seriously?! Either you have no idea what's going on, you have a knack for choosing the worst words possible, or you're a complete sociopath. TheListUpdater (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N, WP:LASTING. Has its own sources, too. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 23:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with the incident at hand. I dont believe sandy hook elementary has an article of it's own? user:BrxBrx(user talk:BrxBrx)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 00:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BrxBrx: Sandy Hook Elementary School redirects to Newtown Public Schools. Though there may not presently be a need to distinguish it from a half dozen other sites in the district, there definitely is a need for it to have an article independent of the attack. Wnt (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral With Mateen being a regular of the nightclub, there might be more about earlier history this can grow into. ([12]). -- Callinus (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL, there may be some notability in the future is not a policy argument for keeping it.SPACKlick (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for the level-headed comment! Mootros (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be expanded given time.--☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 08:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously now a notable club due to recent events (2016 Orlando nightclub shooting). There will be more details as time passes. Maybe later we can revisit deleting this article but for the moment there is plenty of potential. --Joey (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knowledgekid87. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 11:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Karin Spaink --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's much too soon to determine long-term notability. It could become an inconsequential detail, or it could become another Stonewall. Let's wait it out. --tooki (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the venue is not going to get any less notable, any more than The Admiral Duncan in London has. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Like how criminals and their crimes are tied to the same article, I don't think Pulse is notable enough, nor will be notable enough, for a separate article. To say that the place is different enough to justify a new article, it would be like saying the specific Safeway where Giffords was shot (2011_Tucson_shooting) has "enough references" for an article of its own. It doesn't. That being said, I think it should be kept for at least another week. TheListUpdater (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, give the article like a week or so as it helps to let the dust settle to see where to go from there. As for the article I see an abundance of keeps, and seeing a merge discussion isn't deletion hope this can be closed soon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close. The venue seems to hold sufficient notability, and the consensus here is overwhelming. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best to read the policy section on Groupthink and consensus. Mootros (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much to the deletion rationale though as it boils down to notability. One side gives x on why it is notable, while the other side has y on why its not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #5, Article linked on the main page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article NOT a policy or guideline page. Mootros (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it stands appropriately describes the club itself and the club's history, with the current shooting as a footnote. Many (but not all) of the sources describing the club pre-date the recent shooting, demonstrating that this club was notable prior to current events, even if no one had yet written an article about it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references are either guide books or citations about the shooting. The shooting does not make this club notable. It seems that open and shut to me, though all these !keep votes above are befuddling and making me feel like I need to make a bigger case. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Joey. --Cupoftea155 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Squall Charlson

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

I came across this via the related AfD for a film of his that's allegedly in production, a fan film set in the Nightmare on Elm Street universe. This article was proposed for deletion, but a look at the user's edit history shows that he's tried to create this in the past, so I think that a full AfD would likely be best in order to help prevent future recreation.

While the article claims that Charlson has been part of various productions, a look at IMDb shows that they're only bit parts - nothing that would really be of note. The article also claims that he was involved with the CW to a limited extent and there were some legal issues, however there's nothing to back this up at all and the media would likely jump all over a story of this nature. Other than him having posted some Flash shorts to YT, the section looks to be a complete WP:HOAX.

From what I can see Charlson is an actor that has only played bit parts, typically the non-named characters. The IMDb account would have you believe that he was part of an Emmy award winning music video, but that's something to take with a grain of salt when there's zip to back this up. Given that the Flash section looks to be almost a complete fabrication, I'm leaning somewhat towards his IMDb account also being an almost complete fabrication as well, unless someone can find some non-primary sources to back anything up. (And offhand that's all that can be found.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair notice: I also blocked the contributing editor as WP:NOTHERE. Since he signed up in 2011 his edits have solely revolved around adding himself to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found the Emmy - it was a regional college award, so it's not the type that would give notability here on Wikipedia, per this statement:

Students are not considered peer professionals and as such, their regional student productions are not eligible for Emmy® award recognition. Schools/students may not use the Emmy® name or replica of the Emmy® figure in any form of school publications, commercial advertising and promotion.

In other words, it's an Emmy award that isn't really an Emmy award. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-researched nom. Self-promotion. Squall doesn't appear to be a credited actor on any of the television shows or films listed. The only claim to notability as a director is a regional Emmy but that is debunked by nom. The weasel words in the writing section do not claim notability - merely that Squall tried to get some writing work but none seems to be credited. MLA (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons set out above. Question: Is there a way in which the author can participate here, notwithstanding the block? Kablammo (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He can contest the block on his talk page and we can monitor his user page for any comments about the AfD. I did feel slightly bad about blocking him while there were AfDs out, but he's been at this since 2011 and he's already had his bio A7'd once before (along with deletions for articles for some of his other projects). I have to admit that I don't really anticipate him making any sort of argument that would save the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. He doesn't seem to meet the WP:GNG, and this seems to be a WP:COI/WP:PROMOTION project for himself as well. Wikipedia is not a means of self-promotion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 20 June 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 Zooropa. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Day

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

My redirect of the article was reverted saying that this article passes criteria 1 of WP:NSONGS, well it does not. There's no independent third party notability, no major reception surrounding the song and no major chart action. Deleting this article, is not detrimental to the encyclopedia at all. There is just one source from Neil McCormick's book which does not establish the song as independently notable, and the other source is just a primary reference. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ redirect. This page lists lyrics and when it was performed, but has no indication of notabality. After 10 years, if there's no indication that it is notable, it should probably go. Prof. Mc (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Prof. Mc (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Plausible search term, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it meeting the WP:GNG for having its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as it's not notable. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per nominator. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a long-time editor of many U2 song articles, I can say that this article definitely has extensive third-party coverage, and that it meets all the requirements at WP:N and WP:NSONGS. The article is currently poorly written and lacks good sources, but they do exist. Most reliable sources for "lesser-known" U2 song articles are print sources, as there have been countless books written about U2's music over the years. Many (not all) U2 songs are notable enough for an article based on print sources available, and this is definitely one of them. A Google Books search will show some of print sources available that discuss the song in detail. I own a handful of these books and can say that there is enough coverage available on this lesser-known U2 song to easily turn it into a good article, just like Slug (song), Exit (U2 song), Ultraviolet (Light My Way), among others. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is beside the point. If its not expanded and those sources are not amended to the article, there's not point in keeping the article. We don't create articles in Wikipedia thinking of a future point when it will pass NSONGS. In its current form, it does not pass it, therefore it should be deleted. Simple. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not beside the point. WP:ARTN specifically says that "no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable" and "even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Stating an article should be deleted without redirect, is poorly written, has no one working on it, or would not be detremential to the encyclopedia if deleted are all poor arguements for deleting an article. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dpon't try to lecture me on WP:WAX. I know them very well. I have clearly mentioned that it does not pass WP:NSONGS, even from the sources you mentioned. There are passing mentions of the song, not independent notability. Your faulty logic would make every damn song released by every artist as notable then. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My logic in no way implies that every song released by every artist is notable — that is complete utter nonsense and it shows that you are clearly failing to understand my reasoning. You have not stated any solid case for this article failing notability. Lack of chart action does not imply failed notability. Your biggest argument was the lack of third party coverage, and I was clearly able to state that that is not the case, as plenty of print sources have covered this topic. If you don't want to be lectured on Wikipedia guidelines, then you should adhere to them. –Dream out loud (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not finger-pointing here in anyway. Just a reminder that we're all after the same thing here--improving the encyclopedia. WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL Prof. Mc (talk) 13:31, 20 June 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 Zooropa. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The First Time (U2 song)

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

My redirect of the article was reverted saying that this article passes criteria 1 of WP:NSONGS, well it does not. There's no independent third party notability, no major reception surrounding the song and no major chart action. Deleting this article, is not detrimental to the encyclopedia at all. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a song from a Grammy Award-winning album by U2, one of the most popular bands in the world. It is definitely not the most popular U2 song, but it is plenty notable. Just because a song hasn't been released as a single, appeared on a music chart, or won individual awards doesn't make it not notable. According to WP:NSONGS,"Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." It is evident that the nominator did not do any research on the background of the song, as a simple Google search turns up the following reliable sources that mention the song: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Additionally, the article currently cites two published books, and there are more publications available that detail the background and recording of the song. The book U2 Into the Heart: The Stories Behind Every Song has an entire page about the song, and other books mentioning the song can be seen here: [21][22][23]. The previously mentioned links are by no means a comprehensive listing of sources available for the song, but simply show that a quick Google search can establish the song's notability. Some perfect examples of notable songs by U2 that have not been released as singles or charted significantly include Acrobat (song), Exit (U2 song), Slug (song)—all of which are good articles. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm spot checking some of your sources, and most of them are just a sentence or two about the song in an article focusing mostly on a review or retrospective of the album itself, not the song. The fact that the album won a Grammy doesn't help the song's notability either. You've built up a wonderful argument for defending the album's notability, but much less so for the song itself... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't a comprehensive list of sources. Most of the links are from album reviews that would fit appropritately in the song's reception section. But my point is that such sources exist to support the article's notability. The article Slug (song) is about a much more obscure U2 song, so obscure that it was released by U2 under a name other than "U2" and its album did not sell well and was not critically receieved. The song didn't chart nor was it released as a single, but it has since gotten to good article status and it is currently undergoing a featured article nomination. Countless books and journal articles have been written about U2 and their songs, such that most tracks that have been released on studio albums are certainly notable. If I had the time, I would work on the article itself, but I shouldn't have to expand an article to prove its notability just so it can survive an AfD. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that you haven't really provided any sources where the song is the main subject. The one's I've spot-checked had the album as the main subject, and just mentioned the song in passing. You need to find more sources that focus on the song itself. (Or if you have, you need to single them out from the bombardment of sources above.) I haven't looked into the sourcing of any other U2 song, but that wouldn't likely have any bearing on the outcome of this discussion anyways. Good or bad sourcing of another song would not protect this song's article from deletion. I'd focus more on providing sources that provide significant coverage of this song. Meeting the WP:GNG is really the ultimate concern here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect This isn't a notable song. Saying it is because it's on a Grammy Award-winning album by U2 isn't enough. See WP:NOTINHERIT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect as above, not every song in an award-winning album deserves a stand-alone article. Cavarrone 09:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expanded the article today to help further establish its notability. In reference to the previous two comments, I did not mean to imply that its notability is solely relied on the fact that its album won an award. The nominator's reason was due to a lack of souces, so I added some information to the background and reception sections of the song with some additional sources. There are plenty more sources about the song, but I wanted to list some print sources below that go into more detail about the song and could serve as excellent references for the article:

Live performances – [24]

Lyrics/composition/themes – [25][26][27][28][29][30]

I hope that the additions and new sources can help further establish this article's notability. I am by no means trying to bombard sources, as all of these can be used in the article. One of the biggest things about this song is its many lyrical interpretations by different sources, which I think would make a great section once it gets written. Of course, the song had no major chart action as previously mentioned, but there is plenty of third party notability available. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I'm not seeing any sources that have significant coverage on the song in particular. Too much of the sourcing (and even the content of the article) is more about the album on whole than the song in particular. Without charting or having any sources dedicated to the song, it would be better discussed in the album context. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hate to reiterate myself, but the fact that the song hasn't charted does not mean it's not notable, so I don't know why the commenters keep mentioning it. I have presented a diverse number of reliable third party sources, which do plenty to establish the subject's notability. Many of the sources are in print so I cannot link them directly, but they have pages that cover the song in detail. With the exception of two sentences about the background of the album, all the content in the article is about the song. Mothers of the Disappeared is a great example of a U2 song that did not appear on any charts, was not released as a single, did not win any awards, and most of its article sources are about the album. Yet it is obviously notable and is currently a featured article. This article has the same potential as that one, as well as Acrobat (song) and Slug (song), all of which fall in the same category. I have been writing U2 song articles for many years and I know for a fact that these sources exists, so I would not try to save an article from deletion if it did not meeet the necessary requirements. I have also reviewed WP:N, and it satisfies all the necessary requirements.

Yes, I (and likely the others) know that charting or being a single isn't required. Nobody said it was. It's commonly a helpful point of reference or indicator of likeliness though. If a song charted on a major chart, there's usually a reasonable assumption that, even if sources can't be found at an AFD, they're likely to exist somewhere, just because songs with that sort of visibility commonly have coverage about them out there somewhere. We're just saying that this song doesn't seem to have that luxury. We're pre-emptively throwing the htought out there, as people who want to "keep" an article commonly try that argument.
Can you point to the sources in particular that you believe show significant coverage for the song? Because most of the sources I've spot-checked have been album reviews that dedicate a sentence or two to the song in question here. That does not prove notability for the song. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The webpage sources only cover the song's reception, which would naturally be found in review of the album. As with many other U2 song articles, most of the references are print sources. See articles like Slug (song) and Ultraviolet (Light My Way), which are good articles

[31] – about a page about the writing/recording of the song and the meaning of its lyrics
[32] – half a page about the song's lyrics and meaning
[33] – full page about the song's lyrics and meaning
[34] – full page section about the writing and recording of the song
[35] – full page with interviews with the band members about the song
[36] – discusses the song's live performances on a concert-by-concert basis throughout a chapter
[37] – full page about the song's background and meaning

–Dream out loud (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect non notable song. Most sources are related to the album, not specifically about the song itself. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's certainly content but is also still best connected to the album itself thus redirect. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 21 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 CFA Integration Championship

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

The fifth / lowest division of Cypriot football? Lacks the required notability for season articles. We don't even have an article for the division as a whole! Fram (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a championship that organizes from Cyprus Football Association. It is not the fifth level or the lower level. It is the championship that the first teams of the fifth level take part to promoted to the fourth level. See Cypriot football league system. Below this there are many other regional leagues (more than 15. See el:Σύστημα ποδοσφαιρικών πρωταθλημάτων Κύπρου#Σύστημα (the Greek version of Cypriot football league system).

I can create an article for the division. See the Greek version el:Πρωτάθλημα Ένταξης ΣΤΟΚ.

Ok. Its Cyprus, a small country. But its a championship that all sports pages and newspapers coverage. I can add some sources. And is not regional. Teams from all over the country take part. Just think that we have articles about regional leagues of 10th level of England 2015–16 West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division!

Xaris333 (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As far I am concerned, articles like that of the West Midlands (average attendance per game: 50!) should be deleted as well. Fram (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't nominated it... Xaris333 (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just like I haven't nominated yet the articles I recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 103#Notability of individual matches, which was about articles on games in the lower English competition levels. So? There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia I could nominate, I just happen to come across this one now a,d have no interest in starting a discussion on another article right now just because whatever. Fram (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have not read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division yet... Xaris333 (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have. It was a poor idea, from whoever nominated it, to mix 9th and 10th level leagues in that nomination. And it was a bizarre discussion as most if not all "keep"s just gave general comments, not discussing the actual leagues but opposing the very idea that some 10th level league season would be deleted. That one should probably be properly readdressed sometime, but is not really the focus of this discussion. Wikipedia doesn't work by precedent, one discussion which is somewhat comparable does not policy make for all other discussions. Fram (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not the fifth level of the Cypriot football, as all the fifth level competitions (amateur leagues) are organized individually by each city's local federation. Instead, this competition is organized by Cyprus Football Association and the participating teams are coming out from all the cities (local federations) of Cyprus. In general, this competition it's a play-off promotion system for entering the fourth level and is more close to the fourth level rather than the fifth level, as no one team of the fifth level is promoted to the fourth level directly through their local leagues. After they win their local league, they have to participate in this "extra" competition in order to win their promotion to the fourth level.

I think the most important problem in this case is the lack of a main (general) article for this competition. If he create the competition's main article and also add more references in this one, then it will be OK to keep this article. Marios26 (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Season article for a regional competition. No indication that this season has received significant reliable coverage outside of routine match reports. Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although there's information, there's still questionability for actual independent notability as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 25 June 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. If Owen does suddenly meet a clear WP:MUSICBIO criteria - regular playlist rotation on a major radio station, a singles chart hit, etc - feel free to leave me a message for a restore. KaisaL (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Norton

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. He's had his work played on radio by some notable people, but he's had only one record released on a major label, nothing charted, works not yet been in rotation on radio, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Looks like WP:TOOSOON: I think it's worth userfying for a year, I bet he breaks through by then. OnionRing (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as everything still suggests it's too soon at best, especially given the information and sources, which there is of course imaginably nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 30 June 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. Nakon 05:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back On Da Block (EP)

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

No evidence of notability. SST flyer 07:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 07:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable EP by a non-notable group. Delete the whole lot of the related articles including the Drive-By group and characters such as Blaze Ya Dead Homie. MLA (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing at all actually convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 30 June 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 20:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nillys Realm

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

No evidence of notability. SST flyer 07:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 07:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11, bald-faced advertisement. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 09:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert with no claim of notabilty MLA (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Satellizer, not notable advertisement. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We really, really need to start requiring new editors to submit their articles through the AfC process. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising and pov. Not a notable game. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Poorly written advertisement, game fails notability qualifications regardless. Spilia4 (talk) 02:51, 19 June 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. Nakon 05:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Run These Streets (EP)

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

No evidence of notability. SST flyer 07:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 07:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing at all for any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not satisfy WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:06, 30 June 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 00:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-By (group)

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

No evidence of notability. SST flyer 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 07:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable group with no major hits. At least one of its members if not both should struggle to pass the notability test. MLA (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:44, 1 July 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 sole argument for keeping is not in accord with WP policy, as properly explained by the other contributors. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

100 Mile House Sikh Society

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

No evidence of notability. SST flyer 07:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 07:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 07:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)</smallce[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 07:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No problem finding a dozen search results – each one a mere directory listing confirming the church's existence only. The article cites no sources, obviously written from original research, and since none apparently exist the article apparently can never be improved. —Prhart com♥ 12:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello all, yes, prhart is correct it is original research - I wrote the article. I am a member of the Sikh faith, and was born and raised in 100 Mile House, BC. My family roots can be tied back to the town to the early 1970s and my dad was a founding member of the 100 Mile House Sikh Society. You are correct, there are no articles about this Gurdwara and that is because no one really knows of it or its story. I added this to an already existing article "Gurdwaras in Canada" and then decided to write a brief history on it, allowing people to learn of it and its existence, and perhaps conduct research on their own.

An article cannot be deleted simply because it is original research, arguably every article on any topic was once original research. You must determine the credibility of the source behind the research which I have spoken to above. I will continue to improve the article and will add pictures of the temple, and its events.Dalvinder K (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Finding the same sort of results as Prhartcom, indicating a lack of notability. The creator admits that this is original research - while I admire their desire to write a history of a meaningful site, Wikipedia is not the right place for this. Articles on Wikipedia are built on secondary coverage from reliable sources, not original research. Perhaps there may be another venue more suited for the piece - a blog, maybe? GAB^gab 02:15, 15 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Tuzzolino

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The good folks at Project Ice Hockey have done a great job of establishing guidelines for notability, and the subject here doesn't pass them (he would need to have played in at least 200 games in the AHL). Also, the sources in the article are of the routine type that one typically sees when athletes sign with a team, so I'm not seeing the significant coverage that would be required to meet the general notability guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the article still found nothing better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 21 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Lawson

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding much coverage. Rlendog (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining his career here found nothing actually better for the applicable notability, there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject had a brief and undistinguished career in the mid-minor leagues. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:49, 22 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Emmerson

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the article still found questionability for the necessary improvements thus the article is not acceptable as its current questionable state. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 21 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Hendrikx

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hockey player playing in the top level of professional ice hockey in the UK. MLA (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MLA: according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the UK's EIHL is a "Lower-level league" "for the purpose of satisfying Criterion #4." Criterion #4 of WP:NHOCKEY is "Achieved preeminent honors." He has received no honors and fails WP:NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY. As mentioned by Joeykai, the EIHL is not considered a top level league. That being said I can't find anything proving notability through GNG anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to meet NHOCKEY or GNG. Rlendog (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the article still found questionability for actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 21 June 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 20:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hobson

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has never played in an NHL game, no other reason to consider this athlete notable. Drafted in 2005, now aged 29, so likelihood of ever seeing him play at the top level is almost nil. LAroboGuy (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is not far from meeting NHOCKEY with 99 games in the AHL plus 80+ in Allsvenskan, but he still falls short and I am not finding much coverage to meet GNG or any other special reason to make an exception. Rlendog (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur with the above, nothing convincing for the applicable notability and nothing else convincing from there. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 17 June 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. This does not preclude the creation of a redirect at this title. Hut 8.5 21:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arising to Serve

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

Source searches have not provided any significant coverage for this film; does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dawn Breakers International Film Festival's section for 2009. I, too, can not easily find anything that attests to notability, and as another Bahai outlet, I doubt the film festival can be considered sufficiently independent of the film. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as there's still nothing actually convincing this can ever be improved and salvaged as its own article. Linking as a likely search is enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be a promotional article on a non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Aust331 (talk) 09:43, 21 June 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 20:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Meyers (ice hockey)

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was expecting to find someone who clearly failed the professional sportsperson test but three seasons in a fully professional top level league in Germany passes the notability test. MLA (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MLA: according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the German DEL is a "fully professional minor leagues" "for the purpose of satisfying Criterion #3." Criterion #3 of WP:NHOCKEY is "Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors." He has played 134 games in the DEL and has received no honors. Joeykai (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, he has also played 103 games in the American Hockey League, and, last time I checked, 134+103=237, in which case, he would actually meet criterion #3 of WP:NHOCKEY. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NHOCKEY #3 based on the number of games played in the DEL and AHL. -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets relevant guideline, it doesn't say the games have to be for the same team. Peter James (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he appears to meet the WP:NHOCKEY #3 requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NHOCKEY criterion #3. Rlendog (talk) 01:03, 17 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ahmad Fayyad

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

NN person, doesn't meet GNG. Coverage exists solely from his death because of his association with Hezbollah. No significant coverage otherwise. MSJapan (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and speedy close as disruptive:~~ Article is sourced. This AfD only exists because User:MSJapan doesn't like that User:Kvng removed the PROD tag from this article. IMO, since the article was sourced, removal of the PROD tag was acceptable and it should have never been AfDed. p b p 14:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going to AfD once a prod has been rejected is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. The fact that not everyone here agrees with you should indicate that there is some merit to this discussion. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 02:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: I withdraw the disruption claim, though I still believe MSJapan HAS gone too hard after Kvng IMO. Didn't he just fill your talk page and e-mail box with requests to sanction him and/or me? I'm not withdrawing the keep vote, as the article is sourced well enough to pass GNG IMO. p b p 03:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm withdrawing my vote as well. p b p 04:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [38], [39], [40]. This is significant coverage and I don't understand what policy disqualifies it as evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm changing my position after discovering and suggesting WP:BIO1E based research I did when things MSJapan was saying were not making sense (see below). ~Kvng (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh good, now I have contrib stalkers. And actually, I AfDed this because the extent of what we know is "was a Hezbollah commander, is now dead" which is a perfect case of WP:NTEMP in terms of news media cycle coverage. Reposting the sources that are already in the article doesn't establish notability if those sources don't establish notability. MSJapan (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stalking you. This article is on my watchlist because I deprodded it. I restate my original case for notability because, some people don't read the article, article history or article's talk page before commenting. Speaking of which, I don't think WP:NTEMP says what you think it does. You may be thinking of WP:BLP1E. ~Kvng (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: You yourself are a contrib stalker (of Kvng). p b p 17:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:BIO1E actually. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, withdrawn, I quit, have a nice day. MSJapan (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely nothing in the article passes GNG. This is not significant coverage because the only coverage is of his death. Someone who wasn't notable before his death (and there's no evidence that he was) doesn't become notable because of his death (and he doesn't pass WP:BIO for military personnel either). You need to have some evidence of his notability whilst alive. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BIO1E. The only news coverage about him concerns his death in a battle which is a single event. There is literally nothing else to indicate that the subject is notable. He was a field commander; nothing indicates that this is an important position. No news coverage seems to exist for the subject prior to this incident. Technically, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply but WP:BIO1E does apply here. Hence, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the sources we have, one is an article with no connection, with a mention of him in a caption. The other is an article that starts out mentioning his death, but digresses into discussion of the results of Hezbollah being involved in the Syrian Civil War, without showing how Fayyad had any policy role in such matter. Fayyad may well have been a key formulator of Hezobollah policy, but we would need sources that show this. Based on the sources that exist, he was a low level field commander killed in battle, and is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there should be not controversies about taking this to AfD at all, the information particularly is not suggestive of the needed solid independent notability with nothing to suggest his own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 17 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Stoesz

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding enough coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockeyplayer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining this still found nothing actually convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject had an undistinguished career in the mid-minor leagues. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:52, 22 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Bradford

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no Hall of Fame, nothing else at all convincing to suggest there's enough about his sports career to suggest an actually convincing notable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject played just a single season of minor league hockey, without distinction. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:54, 22 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Glasser

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding enough coverage to support GNG. Rlendog (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the article still found nothing for any actual independent notability, there's nothing at all suggesting better. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject had a brief career in fringe leagues. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:55, 22 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of obfuscators for .NET

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

This article should be deleted because it is not notable. While it purports to represent a topic, the boundaries of the topic are arbitrary and not defined in any reputable source. NCSwampDogs (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this and WP:WIRED. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the cited Wired Magazine is "an unassailable obfuscation scheme", which is unrelated to the "List of obfuscators for .NET". The "List of obfuscators for .NET" page has no content that relates to the Wired Magazine article. Another wiki page Obfuscation (software) does relate to the Wired Magazine article; such article is not labeled AfD.[[User

NCSwampDogs|NCSwampDogs]] (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.Andersonmyrtle (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Andersonmyrtle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking notability.Jasminealgonquin98 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Jasminealgonquin98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list itself was previously deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of .NET obfuscators. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List is mostly marketing. Full of outdated and inaccurate information. emadari —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— emadari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why was the wiki-creator of this article not notified of this AfD? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
- I'd only created the article as a redirect to another, and 12 years ago at that, so I don't mind. In any case, I have no opinion on whether the article as it stands should stay or go. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a list with information which at best could be acceptable as is, but the information and sources is still actually questionable for keeping as its own article thus Delete at least for now and then evaluate if this can in fact be its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 25 June 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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belly (loyalty program)

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

Not notable and promotional. All the refs are merely about the initial rounds of funding for this small company. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this was created by someone connected to the company; i had cleaned it up and found what independent refs were available and this was the best i could do. agreed that it fails N. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Agree with nom about the vehicle for promotion - that's what drove me away from the site years ago. MLA (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have found nothing better, the current coverage is only expected especially for the field subject and the age so overall there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article passes WP:GNG based on a wide variety of postings in the press. It is quite misleading to say that this is just an article created by WP:SPAs, Rcjeffery and SocialJenny, or is an WP:ADVERT. Jytdog, the editor with the most edits to the page, makes full WP:COI disclosure that he works for a VC company and I am not sure why he has not spoken in favor here. A quick scan of WP:ORGIN seems to support inclusion in the encyclopedia. There is lots of real news to be summarized about this company. Most of the news regards its financing, but adequate content is in the news items to describe the business in an encyclopedic manner. The fact that sufficient content exists to present the paragraph describing the service is a good indicator. Walt Mossberg is a co-executive editor of the main source describing the business, All Things Digital. We should have an article on any business Mossberg thinks is notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per M. The Tiger. Even more sources can easily be found, e.g. Street Fight, Fortune, New York Times, Crain's, Forbes, etc. Pburka (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gah things like the NYT interview with the CEO do not add to N. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the NY Times feels he's notable enough to interview is certainly relevant. Regardless, other sources I identified (Forbes, Crain's) clearly satisfy WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog all of that points to WP:GNG notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources about the company, although not by a strong margin. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, although it does not have a particularly promotional tone at this time, such as extolling the greatness of the company, peacock phrasings, or encouraging readers to do business with it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't have a promotional tone when it was nomimated. I had cleaned all that up. So I am not sure what your !vote is about. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination states in part, "Not notable and promotional". My !vote addresses these aspects of the nomination. This seems plain and clear to me. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes companies seek to get an article in WP for promotion, because they think it helps raise their visibility; that is how we end up with all these articles about marginally notable and non-notable articles about companies with poor sources and talking about stuff like their funding rounds, as was noted in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 20 June 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LevelUp

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

Nonnotable and promotional. The CNN "article" sorry to say, is no better than an press release. Not everything in a usually reliable source is reliable. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see a lot of coverage in reliable sources: [41] from the Chicago Tribune, [42] from The New York Times, [43] from The Boston Globe, [44] from Business Insider, [45] from TechCrunch, [46] from CBS News, [47] from USA Today, and [48] from Boston.com. There are a few dozen more hits on HighBeam, ranging from 2011 through 2015. If necessary, the article can be rewritten. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:CORPDEPTH pass per a review of available sources about the company. Also, the CNN article within the Wikipedia article is not a press release. This is evidenced by the manner in which it is a bylined news article written by a CNN staff writer, and that Google searches for "LevelUp app aims to keep coupon users coming back", the title of the CNN article, only links to the CNN article, and no others. It's important to accurately distinguish between independent news sources and press releases, and it's assumptive and inaccurate to state that a source is essentially a press release by assertion alone. Lastly, the article is not particularly promotional; it provides an overview of the company, but does not extol its greatness, does not have promotional language, and does not encourage readers to do business with it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes the basic test of WP:N, with in depth coverage from major sources like the NYT etc. Steven Walling • talk 02:46, 15 June 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. Two relists without additional comment mean this can't be closed on the basis of an actionable consensus. KaisaL (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MotoParking

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

Utterly trivial, with primarily local notices DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, there's nothing here at all to suggest massive notability apart from its apparent use at a few cities. Nothing convincing here, SwisterTwister talk 00:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not very widely used, certainly seems to be a system used in a number of cities, and different countries, with a few references. Seems notable 04:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Weak keep - I found some more references in the news I'll add momentarily, all RS. I used them all the time riding through the UK. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 15:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've said delete to quite a few business and organizations I know of, or even use. That's not the standard for notability DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The parking system is quite new and doesn't seem to be used widely enough. Notability is not simply existence. The sources I see in the article are questionable/self published/non-independent/local/primary. Some of them are reviews in non-notable online magazines (the kind a company can just pay and get). Others are routine local news of installation of a parking system. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. In addition, one of the references used [49] does not backup the claim "MotoParking is a title sponsor of the European Formula 3 Championship". To top it all, the tone of the article is hopelessly promotional. This seems to me an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion and should be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 04:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 20 June 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 The Purple Gang#Cleaners and Dyers War. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Rosman

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

Contested prod. WP:BLP1E - a witness in The Purple Gang's trial. No sources with any other information, no GHits of value. Not a potential redirect because the subject doesn't appear in the Purple Gang article. MSJapan (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then redirect to The_Purple_Gang#Cleaners_and_Dyers_War. Yes, he's not mentioned there right now. That's what the merge if for. ~Kvng (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:The Purple Gang. I strongly believe that this should be a required step whenever anyone proposes a merge at an AfD. Otherwise, the likely result is that the editors of the target article object to the merge, undo it, and we are left with an impasse between a consensus here and a conflicting consensus there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems eminently sensible to me. Is there a discussion or guideline on these lines? Thincat (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose that's right from where we stand now but the proper way to avoid such a mess in the first place is to consider a merge WP:BEFORE nominating. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I agree with that as well. There's far too much stuff gets nominated here that ought to be discussed on talk pages. Thincat (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Purple Gang § Cleaners and Dyers War, which will improve that article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mention at the other article however amount needed as that would suffice, Delete and then Redirect as there's nothing particularly suggesting keeping this if there are no future signs of better and thus can be deleted if any necessary contents are simply moved. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If the article is deleted and redirected, a mention of the subject at the merge target may never actually be performed, because users wouldn't be able to access the content of this article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - In the grand historical scheme of things, this guy was one witness in a trial. That's his entire claim to fame, and he gets a trivial mention on one page in every book on the Purple Gang, and that's it [50]. I really don't think the quality of the encyclopedia or the target article is going to be terribly affected if he's not included, considering we're not even covering the larger event that the subject is a part of. He's just one of many people involved. Just because he exists doesn't mean he needs to be linked to an article subsection where only his name is (not yet) mentioned along with six other people.MSJapan (talk) 18:59, 17 June 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myra Louise Taylor

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

Although I would generally be cautious about proposing deletion of an article which previously survived an AFD discussion, I am making an exception for two reasons. The previous discussion was 10 years ago, and another Wikipedian agrees that this person would not now be regarded as notable. There is also a primary topic discussion going on in relation to Myra Taylor, and it would be useful to know how many Myra Taylors we are dealing with. PatGallacher (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Obituary (re)printed in the British Journal of Nursing ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taylor is listed in this "pioneering nurses" archive at King's College London. I think the historical context underlines this nurse's achievements. It was (even) more of a big deal in the early 20th century to be a senior, professional nurse with serious training than it is today. Some of the other KCL pages help show how being a well-qualified leader in the nursing profession was quite new and unusual.[51] [52] Lelijg (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And - info about Taylor's period as superintendent.[53][54] Lelijg (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. --Ipigott (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete. I do not consider the period of her activity 1914-36 a period where the career of professional nursing was still in a pioneering stage, and not every senior nurse fro mthat period is notable from an encyclopedic point of view, though they may well be important enough for their archives to be collected by their professional society. The question is whether head of nursing at her hospital was sufficiently important. Her predecessor in the position, who founded the nursing service is however notable as a pioneer : see Mary Southcott DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response Although nursing training had made important advances, there was a long way to go with establishing nursing as a respected profession. For example, it took till 1922 just to establish nurse registration laws throughout Canada, 1919 in the UK, earlier in some US states. I'm not suggesting Taylor was a major figure, but she was a notable one. While working under an unsympathetic administration she expanded the curriculum, campaigned on nurses' working conditions etc. A Royal Commission discussed her position in 1930. [55] (pp 46-51) Lelijg (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can’t see any downside in keeping this, even if someone thinks it’s on the borderline of notability. It’s not the kind of article that threatens to make WP seem unencyclopaedic.Lelijg (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 04:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lelijg makes a good case for her notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having read the referenced sources regarding Nurse Taylor, I believe she received as much notable recognition as a nurse was probably likely to receive in her professional era. Nursing was a default women's profession receiving little press coverage in the day; I suspect her notability was quite significant in her era. I see that this is maybe a close call but I'll take my chances erring on the "keep" side. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:58, 21 June 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Activity centre

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

Likely WP:OR, and it's essentially unsourced (as I shall explain). Apart from the obvious Melbourne focus, there are some inconsistencies in citation that make me think this may be copyvio or a copy of someone's thesis. For example, there are numerous inline "[3]" references in the text which don't link to anything. Those refs are then followed by a wikied ref, but none of the wikied refs appear in the reflist. Also in the reflist is a cut and paste biblio that is not used in the article. So I don't quite know what it is, so I'm not sure if it's speediable, but I do know it is not appropriate in its current form and cannot be used without blanking the page entirely, so we might as well delete the article. MSJapan (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's badly written, but it's still salvageable IMO. A quick Google search (which, BTW, User:MSJapan, you should have done yourself) reveals that the term is used primarily in Australia, but it is used rather extensively and therefore is probably the official term for a certain type of project in Australia. I would note that being a terminology primarily confined to a single country is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. p b p 04:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did a Google search. How else do you think I figured out I couldn't source the material in the article? Anyhow, I don't deny "Activity centre" is a topic, and I did not say that it was not. As I said, my problem is with the article content. I was unable to source any statement made in the article, and I maintain the formatting indicates copyvio or OR. Speaking of, the copyvio tag you put on it is wrong - Liquisearch is a WP fork, not the other way around, and the source link is at the bottom of the page. TL;DR is that the article as it stands is not usable, and rewriting what's there isn't going to fix the lack of citable statements. MSJapan (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If your problem is the content in the article, AfD is not where you should be. p b p 05:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did a copyvio search and found that the lead is duplicated at hubpages.com (I can't include the exact link here due to WP:BLACKLIST). I beleive it is more likely that this site copied our text than vise-versa. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by scholarly sources: [56], [57], [58], [59]. The other problems cited by the nom can be fixed through article improvement and do not require deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough sources here to establish notability within the urban planning community (esp. Australia). Clearly enough to negate the WP:OR argument. Needs some cleanup. Cleanup & Keep. ERK^talk 22:47, 21 June 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). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto van Peborgh

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

Self-promotion. No firm evidence of notability . No good third party sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:00, 20 June 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, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 28 June 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 // 21:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK dating awards

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

No real evidence for the notability of this organization or its awards. Almost none of the people or companies receiving awards or connected with the organization are notable enough for WP articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and copy edit/prune some of the unverified list content – Enough coverage is available to meet WP:GNG, although more would be ideal. Maybe other users can find more. Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

@Northamerica1000: Two of the three seem to pass muster as sources. However, the "Evening Standard" mentions "UK Dating awards" only in passing, so this won't do. In any case, I'm going to hold off on my Ivote for now, and see if more sources show up. I will try to find some myself later. And thanks for posting these. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Try just searching just for "Awards" and notice how it's used in four ¶ on the page in reference to the topic, although the last ¶ is only one sentence. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Apparently, I misread the "Evening Standard" article the first time through - probably because I was tired. Now, I have to say that this whole article actually qualifies as coverage for this topic. It is important background related to this topic. We could definitely use this material in this article. Do you think we should do without the lists that follow the prose in the Wikipedia article? Or somehow shorten or truncate these? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Per my !vote above, prune some of the unverified list content. I don't mind leaving the remaining content in place as a list, or incorporating it as prose in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I found a couple more and I am placing those links and your links on the article talk page. Also, let's move the discussion over that way. Maybe you can look at my sources and let me know what you think. I am going to try to find more. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first of anything seems to be attractive to media outlets, but it seems like there is very little in the way of significant coverage for the subsequent year(s). As DGG mentions, there are Wikipedia pages for less than a quarter of the winners, meaning either we're severely lacking in articles, this is a niche/walled garden event, or it was a nice experiment but is largely non-notable to the general populace (I notice the only coverage of 2015 was from "Global Dating Insights"). Unless there is significant coverage in 2016, my thoughts are that it is option #3. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many people are using online dating. There are over 8000 online dating websites. I suppose the goal of Wikipedia is to inform by providing objective information. Thus these awards provide a valuable benchmark IF these awards are notable. The awards are supported by the ODA (www.onlinedatingassociation.org.uk) who do not have a wikipage but have coverage by the telegraph, BBC etc and backed has members such as Match.com. Hence I believe this page is relevant and must be improved and I think I should start a new wiki project ; create a page for the ODA lol. mkraay30 (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Popularity" does not automatically equal "notability". Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, so using Wikipedia to validate the existence of something as "notable" is entirely backwards. As we say often on IRC, get the notability first, and then get a Wiki page. And, to be fair, you even question the page's notability in your response. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 9 July 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. Consensus that the subject does not meet notability requirements for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Hryn

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

An immense amount of very minor material. Extensive namedropping, including what I will call second degree namedropping, where the subject interviewed non-notable people who have connections with some actually notable people

If anyone can reduce this to reason I'll withdraw the AfD DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lot of wikilinks to people who are notable but no evidence of any notability for the subject itself. The large number of references are primary sources with no real third party coverage conferring notability. MLA (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my own searches have found nothing noticeably better at all and the article, through and put aside the massive amounts of sources, still suggest nothing actually convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually zero independent coverage of this person, and nothing in-depth. I found a Los Angeles Times article [60] about an artist on one of her shows that mentions her and her "TV show". It was quite revealing: TradioV, an online channel that broadcasts in-studio discussions (think of it as a radio station with a camera filming the recording).... I also found this puff-piece in the local Laguna Beach newspaper and a passing mention of her in the "Acknowledgements" in this book from the vanity publisher Morgan James Publishing. She was attempting to crowd-fund her "Po-Show" recently [61] and these 4 press releases are the sole coverage mentioning her in Google news. The creator of this article has also been publicising her, her associates, and her projects in other WP articles since 2012, alas to no avail [62], [63], [64]. DGG, this article can't be reduced to reason unless it consisted of one sentence about one artist appearing on her show, and the fact that she is the "promotional director" for another one [65]. There is simply not enough independent coverage of her to source any kind of article let alone a biography of a living person. Note that most of the sources in the article for the claims that she is somehow involved with reasonably notable people, don't even mention her, although there is a photo of her sweeping the mud out of Vladimir Kush's gallery after a rainstorm in Laguna Beach 6 years ago [66]. Voceditenore (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have drastically truncated the article to include only the information about her which can be independently verified. There was no reason to keep that advertorial nonsense on Wikipedia for the duration of this AfD. It now also makes clear what constitutes her career, minus the puffery and minus the primary sourced name-dropping of people who allegedly appeared on her podcasts or at events at her spa. This is what the "References" section originally looked like. The following reference commentary is from today's revised version:

1. Los Angeles Times article about a local Laguna Beach sculptor and the web tv show she co-hosted with Hryn. The article devotes three sentences to Hryn and describes her as "a painter and arts promoter"

2. Brief radio schedule announcement in the local paper (Laguna Beach Independent) simply stating that she was the co-host of Spoken Word Spoken Song, a web radio show on KX@OneLaguna

3. Laguna Beach community news website (Stu News), not mentioning her but confirming that KX@OneLaguna became defunct after a year

4. Local newspaper (Coastline Pilot) puff-piece on her newly opened spa in Laguna Beach

5. Another Coastline Pilot piece explicitly based on one of her press releases and verfiying that the spa closed after a year

6. Orange County Register article on art fraud affecting several Laguna Beach art galleries, with two brief quotes from her and describing her as the "promotional director" of Vladimir Kush's gallery.

7. Event announcement by the local chapter of the United States National Committee for UN Women verifying that she was the emcee at one of their fundraising events.

It's now quite clear that the subject fails the general notability criteria and quite comprehensively fails the alternative criteria for creative professionals (WP:ARTIST). Voceditenore (talk) 09:38, 15 June 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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Prayas

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing at Google News, nothing of note at the custom Indian newspaper search engine. None of the hits pertain to this play.

It also bears mention that the article's creator has been engaging in some questionable editing very indicative of promotional goals. He has created articles on non-notable people and events and has recreated them against community consensus on several occasions. Further, I'm certain he's been engaging in sock/meatpuppetry. On the GNG merits alone, however, this article should be deleted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It also bears mention that IP 106.219.25.174 attempted to remove the AfD template, something similar to Shamimanm's disruption of an AFD, which demonstrates bad faith editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with all the reference padding going on with the walled garden, it's difficult to figure out what's right and what's not. That said, a search in Hindi or English for this doesn't turn up anything to show notability. —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 20 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danada, Illinois

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

Attempts to find reliable sources to support this article have been fruitless. The one reference describes a section of forest preserve that is described (appropriately) at Forest Preserve District of DuPage County. If this is a single subdivision in suburban Chicago, it doesn't meet notability. Fitnr 02:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It meets notability if there is enough to say about it. --do ncr am 06:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably, unless it can be established the historic racetrack was historically within the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County (but is the Danada Forest Preserve properly a part of that or not?), and develop. It seems to be a historical racetrack, i.e. I think there may have been a racetrack named Danada Racetrack, or at least there was a racetrack there. Perhaps the article needs to be refocused on the Danada Racetrack? And once notable, always notable. Consistent with what's covered in article. Searching the NYT on just "Danada" brings up multiple horses named "Danada Flash", "Danada Gift", etc. which raced all over in 1947, 1948, 1949: e.g. "Danada Captain wins at Garden State". There remains a Danada Equestrian Center, which the the current Forest Preserve District of DuPage County says was created in 1984. The Forest Preserve District was founded in 1915 and got its first 79 acres in 1917 (which is not a huge area). If it contained the historic racetrack area--which is doubtful because a racetrack is not forest to be preserved--I agree the racetrack could be covered in that. --do ncr am 06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is complementary article Dan and Ada Rice whose "Thoroughbred racing" section mentions a half-mile training track that still exists today, on the 1,350-acre Danada Farm. The Danada House is an "estate" house and the Danada Farm both seem notable places which the Danada, Illinois article can cover as places, differently than they can be mentioned within in an article about the people. A 1/2 mile historical racetrack that still exists is a place that needs to be described and explained, linking to the Dan and Ada Rice article of course. --do ncr am 06:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "Danada map" which can be downloaded from here shows that the Danada Forest Preserve includes a racetrack (presumably "the" racetrack) and the Dana House. The Danada Forest Preserve could be a separate article, or part of a combo article with the Danada, Illinois area as a census district (consistent with "Keep" decision). Or at least it needs to be a proper section of the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County article which currently lists the Dana House within educational stuff. It is not covered adequately there currently. --do ncr am 06:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the 1 Keep Cote is based with if this actually exists and yet my searches have found next to nothing at all, the one listed link would still not be enough to confidently confirm its existence thus Delete is best here or else we are going to have a still questionable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. The user has made a series of questionable edits creating pages for non-existent places in Illinois. I'm surprised they lasted this long. Smartyllama (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Edison (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable locale. Calling it a populated place is a hoax. It's there as a former homestead and that's about it. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 29 June 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. Article needs improvement and depthening or it may be back here eventually. KaisaL (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Growthworks

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

Single line page on a Canadian Venture Capital company which hasn't been substantively improved or referenced since it was de-prod'd in 2009. No claim of notability. The company does turn up on google, most of the returns are its own reporting. There are a couple of articles about the decline of the company and its struggles to provide value for shareholders but nothing suggesting this is a notable company. MLA (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep –WP:CORPDEPTH pass. Source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notablefailure. The sources cover its problems in considerable detail and explain its importance. The refs--and the article--need expansion. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 30 June 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kings County Democratic County Committee

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

This article, which is about a county-level political party, lacks significant, independent and reliable sources and as such fails WP:GNG. TM 01:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage to be found in Brooklyn Democratic Party search. ~Kvng (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will you provide links to such significant coverage? I just see mentions, not significant coverage.--TM 09:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are an enormous number of citations dealing with the tribulations of corrupt officials in the organization and I think those, in sum, establish notability for the organization. There are also sources that cover the organization more directly: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - I abstain. Braum is my homeboy (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Braum is my homeboy: You don't need to "Abstain", you can just not comment on the AfD! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky one. Nom may have followed WP:BEFORE, but he needs to show us that he has looked at the topic, not the page.

1.) nomination is not really valid, since the question at AFD is not whether "this article... lacks significant, independent and reliable sources," but whether the topic has them.
2.) I leaned yes, after all, Brooklyn is bigger than most American cities and votes Democrat.
3.) However, the page not indicate that any of the many sources brought discuss the Committee as a significant organization, beyond, that is, the functions any County-level committee performs.
4.) Worse, I cannot find such sources. I thought that a quick search on google books would do it [73], or a news search [74], but the surprisingly tiny number of mentions of this committee are along the lines of, "a Midwood resident and a Kings County Democratic County Committee (AD45) member, ..."

~~:* Finding nothing to support notability of this committee, Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)~~ changing !vote. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, I feel stupid. No wonder I couldn't find it. Sources just brought above are persuasive, but by have to replace "King's County" with "Brooklyn" in all searches (New Yorkers undoubtedly don't even realize that this does not immediately occur to the rest of the world). I do wish that the article creator would have worked on this at least hard enough to add a little material making the notability clear, because this AFD has been a total waste of everyone's time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled after the official name of the organization, and the association with Brooklyn is noted in the first sentence. I figured that would be clear enough to "the rest of the world," sorry you found it so challenging. It is the person who nominated it for deletion who is wasting people's time. I put plenty of my own time into creating the article.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was proposed for deletion (deprodded by me) and then WP:AFD by Namiba who apparently is not very good at recognizing potential controversy that makes WP:PROD inappropriate for such things or doing the necessary research WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. Nor was Namiba very good at finding sources even after I added a new {{Find sources}} to this page and pointed the way. Brooklyn Democratic Party is there in bold at the very beginning of the article so it is not authors fault if anyone had difficulty understanding what to search for. If you're not willing or able to do the work required from your side, please refrain from doing nominations. ~Kvng (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons stated above. The article is well-sourced and the notability is clearly outlined.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 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. Consensus that the subject does not meet the notability requirements for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Hassani

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

Fails WP:GNG. Stanleytux (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as my searches are finding several news sources at News and browsers so far alone, but all in all, it's still suggestive of current questionability thus delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing substantive found. Subject hasn't been discussed in reliable sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject has not been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:23, 15 June 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. Nakon 05:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South 5

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

Short comedy film with no reliable sources to support. From the content, it screened but never made it out. Once of the two sources from the article is a 404 and then other is not reliable. I was also unable to find anything reliable with a search in Google. CNMall41 (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A troll hit this page it did win the award, etc. -MR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boonrob (talk • contribs) 00:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Would -MR stand for Mitch Robinson? Also, do you have a link to a reliable source showing the award? I looked and could not find one but you may see something I don't. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the award claimed does not seem to confer notability. This is a non-notable short film in an article likely produced by someone heavily involved in making the film. MLA (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 30 June 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. —SpacemanSpiff 17:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pranita pawar

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

Delete. Fails WP:DIRECTOR. Person not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly too soon, my searches have found nothing particularly better at all (not one actually acceptable link) and there's nothing at all, from the filmography, to suggest the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 10 June 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, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per being TOO SOON. The SPA editor seems intent on promoting this director and her recent film Majha Naav Shivaji. There are proper non-English sources,[75] but more independent coverage is needed. If or when more comes forward, the topic may be reconsidered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:28, 16 June 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. As there was little community discussion consider this a soft delete. J04n(talk page) 13:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anshuman Malhotra

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

No indication that this person is notable. There are no links that can confirm his notability in one way or another. The link included in the article doesn't verify anything and is just some kind of gossip-related article. Sabbatino (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing at all suggesting any solid independent notability, nothing at all convincing given he's only had a few works so far. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 20 June 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 Magna, Utah#Mass media. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Times

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

non-notable free (very) local newspaper Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would not explore merging as this can easily be added to the community's article with the necessary basics, searches found nothing better and there's nothing else convincing otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 10 June 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, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magna, Utah § Mass media, where this is mentioned at. The topic has received some coverage, such as this article in the The Salt Lake Tribune, but not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. This is a valid search term for this redirect. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 20 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abeona Therapeutics

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

Unsurprisingly my searches have simply found nothing better at all and there's basically nothing actually convincing to where I would've PRODed too. This basically has noticeably not changed since starting in 2008 and everything simply suggests it cannot actually be amply improved. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - weak There do seem to be plenty of secondary references, but yes there does not seem to be a lot to easily add to the article, although if someone had the time and interest I also suspect that there will be secondary references to notable drug developments by this company if the research areas mentioned came to fruition and while not universally notable would be rather notable in that area of medicine and health care. I have now deorphaned the article, so this might mean more people find it, and maybe WP:EVENTUAL, so keep for now. Eno Lirpa (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete dearth of independent sources; exists to promote the company (see history) Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did notice the earlier SPA too, but does it matter if the article can potentially stand in its own right anyway ? Surely the parentage of an article does not tarnish the article itself ? Eno Lirpa (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a growing consensus that articles with marginal notability created for promotional purposes get tipped toward non-notability by the WP:PROMO policy violation. We don't exist for that. And of course if it were clearly notable we wouldn't be in this discussion at all and then the origins would not be relevant. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A company that is trying to produce new drugs but has not yet produced any cannot possibly be `notable. They should post[pone their efforts at publicity until such time as them have something to publicize. Local business journals will publicize anything in their area, and are indiscriminate soures and cannot be used for notability The notability isn't even borderline, it's zero. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear lack of reliable sources, and exists only to promote the company. Tom29739 ^[talk] 18:16, 21 June 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 per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worr Game Products

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

My searches have simply found nothing convincingly better at all and there's nothing convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep [76] is a decent source. I strongly suspect paper-only coverage would exist in the various paint-ball magazines. This was a popular brand. Hobit (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 13 June 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 04:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha sigma delta

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

Apparent WP:COI (see this revision of the article's talkpage), fails WP:NOTABILITY altogether and (seems to me) worded as a promotional article (See WP:PROMOTION #4). Davidbuddy9Talk 00:48, 6 June 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 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no credible claim of significance.TheLongTone (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not speedy delete, just delete) as a non-notable organization. No reliable sources or bylined newspapers have made mention of it. I agree that the current text also reads as promotional, although this is not, in and of itself, a deletion criteria. But the lack of notability is. Fieari (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Only passing mentions on unreliable sources, fails WP:ORG. Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian middleweight boxing champions

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

Majority are redlinks. I am also nominating the following page because of the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the idea of the article needs to be on Wiki, however this clearly needs allot of work before I could vote for keep --Bennyaha (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally this article is useful but needs work is not a reason for deletion but enough time has passed without any improvement that I doubt there is the interest. If these Lists are kept they would have to be reduced to blue links as per WP:LINKS which makes it even harder to see the notability. The original editor has been notified and he is active. I would change my vote if there was even a hint that this would grow to its potential but right now I just don't see the notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus here to delete, but only the main article is mentioned in those comments. Relisting so that people can comment on the other two articles nominated. MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles are in a poor state but the redlinks indicate articles that should be created - our coverage of boxers pre-1980s is poor. This is a topic that has been covered in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, the two articles are in a poor state and I can understand Peter Rehse's logic that after a long time with little improvement, there is little interest in the subject. But it would only take one person who is knowledgeable on the subject to come along and see something that they can and want to fix. Deleting the article would remove that opportunity. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like these two topics should be notable, but right now there's no significant independent coverage from reliable sources. The articles consist of a list of names, with no supporting evidence of notability or other facts. Perhaps they can be moved to user space until someone makes an acceptable article out of them.Mdtemp (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Serves a navigational purpose and the redlinks could simply be removed. — Esquivalience (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know AfD is not for article clean-up, but I think an exception could be made in this case because these articles have no content supported by reliable sources. I think these topics may well be notable, but only with decent referenced articles. I don't believe either of these articles belongs in the main article space as they currently exist. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. We don't make exceptions to the rules because you don't like it. And redlinked articles are articles that should be created. Smartyllama (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's clean-up and then there's the fact that these articles currently fail to meet WP:GNG, which is the default standard of notability. I have no objection to this topic being on WP but I do believe articles need to meet some notability criteria. Currently that evidence is lacking. These last two sentences are why I suggested putting them in user space. Papaursa (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic meets GNG that should be fine, regardless of the state of the article, which can be cleaned up. But so far no one has offered any evidence of coverage that would meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:47, 22 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Harrington Elster

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

I would've PRODed too as my searches have basically found nothing convincing at all aside from a few links for events such as book events and such, nothing particularly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fast fast , the references say we should delete no evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason? Rlendog (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i try to fix this article but i cant find a reliable source Samat lib (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samat lib: See WP:NEXIST, and the sources presented below in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, improve, and advise Nom to run WP:BEFORE. I ran a single, simple Proquest News archive search on "Charles Harrington Elster" 1st hit is a profile in a major metropolitan daily: "A MAN OF HIS `WORD' | ... and yours, as it turns out -- meet Charles Harrington Elster, answer man: [1,2,3 Edition. Wilkens, John. The San Diego Union - Tribune [San Diego, Calif] 13 Nov 2005". The next several hits are columns he wrote as teh vacation fill-in for William Safire in the "On Language" column in the New York Times. There are 450 hits. the first page includes reviews of his books, stories and profiles about him, co-host gigs on National Public Radio, articles he wrote - all in major, mainstream media (mostly big city daily newspapers). Potential sourcing totally passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC, having received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. In addition to source examples provided above by E.M.Gregory above, even more examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal hiccup

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

No references, has been tagged for over six years. Air ♠ Combat _What's^{up, dog?} 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. Nothing to suggest this vocal concept is a notable contribution to music. MLA (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I am actually finding some links but there's still nothing actually convincing for an independently improved and notable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 21 June 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 per CSD A9: Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance. The artist's article had been deleted long ago. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chairmoo

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

this article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines ,,,, there is NO evidence of Notability on this Article , Secondly the references on this article are not reliable Samat lib (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing particularly suggesting the needed stability and solidity for independent notability thus nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 13 June 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Sandrock

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

Does not meet notability guidelines (low-ranking soldier), nor WP:SOLDIER, as no source for the Knight's Cross has been provided. The article has one citation to Iron Cross 2nd Class, the rest of the material in uncited. The article has been tagged "Refimprove" since 2010. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Potential sources for Knight's Cross here, here and here.
Comment: I would not consider Gordon Williamson (writer) to be an RS for MILHIST articles.

Not sure about Panzers in the Sand: The History of Panzer-Regiment 5, 1935-41 (Volume 1): the author does not appear to be notable, and Stackpole could be hit or miss: they have published scholarly works such as Rommel Reconsidered or Steven Zaloga, along with memoirs/popular histories by Waffen-SS apologists, like Kurt Meyer, Willi Fey, and Hubert Meyer, and "Landzer-pulp" such as by Franz Kurowski. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the version as of Nov 2015, before I edited the article. It had only one citation, Williamson, and had been tagged Refimprove since 2010. I believe that six years is sufficient time to improve an article.

WP:Soldier states that:

"In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." The footnote states: "Some awards are/were bestowed in different grades. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. See: Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades."

The GNG still needs to be met, through multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. Also pinging Hydronium Hydroxide to see if they would like to revisit with the Nov 2015 version of the article in mind. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add'l comment from nom: As was suggested on my Talk page, I checked for the name in the Neue Deutsche Biographie online. I was unable to locate an entry for the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: K.e.coffman's extended edits to the article and consideration of sources above are acknowledged. However, for such a pattern-based series of nominations this really needs a discussion, and possibly an RFC, at MILHIST since there appear to be over 3000 pages for which Veit Scherzer and Walther-Peer Fellgiebel are used as sources, they were removed from Sandrock and elsewhere, the talk page conversation with Peacemaker indicates controversy regarding source assessment, and higher grades of the Ritterkreuz were awarded for subsequent awards rather than being initially attainable. If consensus from that is that large numbers of Ritterkreuz recipients do not warrant separate articles, then AFDs for most should not even be required. Instead, redirect any which fall under agreed criteria to aggregated list articles such as List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the U-boat service and leave their categories in their redirected articles (with a brief capsule bio for such recipients possibly included against their names in the aggregated list articles). It's a much better option than piecemeal nominations with the probability of inconsistent results depending on who responds, and the possibility of thousands of Ritterkreuz-related AFDs. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, I think an RFC on the matter would be a good idea. I have proposed the same at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georg Schönberger. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 19 June 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. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. Discussion about grammatical errors can occur on the article's talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amina elshafei

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

Grammatical mistake in the title Atticuscomo (talk) 00:17, 13 June 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/Mohammad Fallah}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granddaddy Purple (GDP)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Armin Johnson}}