Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 7: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:56, 7 July 2016

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 July	8 July >

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. Sandstein 07:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italiaonline

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

Non-notable company. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no assertion of notability in the article at all. --Slashme (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 7 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romina palmisano

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

Venezuelan beauty pageant contestant who did not make any of the top spots in Miss Venezuela 2010. No further claim of notability. Slashme (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable beauty pageant contestant and model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion and publicity. --Oscar_. (talk) 14:14, 21 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. czar 23:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Deegan (meteorologist)

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

Non-notable local television personality. I've looked for substantial coverage to see if he meets the criteria listed in WP:GNG and WP:BIO but the only coverage is localized and very negative (DUI, alleged affair with coworker, and a defamation suit on a rival television station). Nothing at all on his weather career. Meinnaples (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article on a non-notable local television personality. We have a lot of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable and a good portion of the article is devoted to his arrest. Plus, "he was 22 years old with blond hair and he loved to surf"? Seriously? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 16:24, 14 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 redirect to The Starving Artists Project. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bezjian

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

Absolutely no credible assertion of independent notability. Delete or redirect to The Starving Artists Project. Slashme (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Starving Artists Project, since he does not pass WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST outside of this project. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect 'as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 31 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. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Kyle Sullivan

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. John from Idegon (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:52, 21 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 keep. The references that have came up during this discussion have shown notability. It needs a cleanup, but WP:AFD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carla DeSola

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

There are really no reliable independent sources here. —swpb^T 16:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of indepedent, 3rd party sources to pass the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a different tone and removal of dead links, but DeSola has quite a bit of coverage in independent sources: the NYTimes and elsewhere. This 1978 NYT piece is fairly substantial. She's also discussed in various books on Google Books - for example Creative Spirituality: The Way of the Artist ps191-195. She seems to be talked about enough to have basic bio notability. She may also pass WP:ARTIST #2, as she is often described as the founder of liturgical dance, and/or a pioneer - like here, p83. Other serious, independent refs:[1], [2], [3], p82-100 I'll try to incorporate some of this in the article over the next couple of days. Lelijg (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now I've done some rewriting and looked at sources more carefully, I'm even more convinced that there's plenty of reliable coverage to pass GNG. Lelijg (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from what Lelijg found, this article in the NYT has significant coverage of her work and studio in the article. This 1976 article from the NYT devotes significant coverage to DeSola. In this NYT article, she is called "one of the country's foremost practictioners of liturgical dancing." Passes GNG easily with significant coverage in RS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly adequate indicia of notability, plenty of independent coverage. Article IS a mess and needs cleanup, but that is different from notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:08, 17 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Shirran

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:I'm Tony Ahn (creator who discloses on his user page that he is a PR professional, and I assume this article was created as a paid-for project) with the following rationale "Subject is in my opinion notable. Will leave an entry on the talk page" (see Talk:Martin Shirran). I still, however, disagree that the coverage is sufficient: the linked sources focus on his "therapy", and he is not discussed much; in other words he fails the requirement of having in-depth coverage. Majority of the bio section is unreferenced (no footnotes), and I do not see any reliable sources for his life. The unlinked Times story seems not to exist at all ([4], through I'll AGF it is just misspelled), and I also cannot find the Psychologies article ([5]). The best I can suggest is that mention of his "Gastric Mind Band therapy" could be made by partial merge to some relevant article like Hypnotherapy, perhaps. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved to mainspace by an independent editor who felt the article met community standards. The Times story was a print story, not web. Here is a copy: [6] [7] Same with Psychologies:[8] [9]. And another feature by Hello Magazine: [10] . These are in addition to national television coverage on ABC News and CBS newsmagazine show Inside Edition, as well as two articles in The Daily Mail UK. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the scans (as puzzled as I am that there is still stuff published that is not digitized). They do however prove my point - they are not about the subject, but about his treatment (which I still doubt would be encyclopedic on its own, but that's another discussion). As for the subject, I still stand by my observation that there is no single reliable, independent, in-depth source about him. Neither do I see how he meets anything else in WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BASC “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” An excerpt of the associated footnote reads “Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.”

You mean WP:BASIC. And I am afraid that IMHO, the coverage you've shown is trivial and falls squarely into the example of "Mary Jones was hired by My University". It's all about 2-3 sentences about him no better then a bio-blurb on his book or website, and then they go into the tabloidy discussion of his quackery, mostly based on interviews with the few gullible and interviable "patients". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the multiple independent sources can be said to mention the creator of the therapy "trivially," considering the number of times they mention him and the amount of information they detail about him, in aggregate: his nationality, which institution trained him and in what theoretical orientation, where he lives, where and when he established his clinic (which is independent of any specific treatment modality), the publication of his books, and more. All of this combines as per WP:BASIC to demonstrate notability. How can someone be interviewed on two US national TV news shows, be mentioned over and over in two Daily Mail UK, one London Times, and two magazine articles that provide detail on his his research and career, and not meet WP:BASIC? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a doctor who has promoted a specific method. However we lack either enough coverage focused on him, as opposed to just the treatment, to pass the GNG. On the other hand, we even more lack anything that would show he has received anything approaching the coverage to pass any guideline for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under that criteria, you should delete the article on Albert Ellis as well. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's set aside WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I'll point out this person has at lest one biographical book on him (Daniel N. Wiener (1988). Albert Ellis: Passionate Skeptic. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-275-92751-6.) and I see two more. You could find better examples, but then - check the linked policy. The gap between those two subjects, in any way, is HUGE, and your attempt to draw a parallel suggest to me once again you have some gaps in your understanding of GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why set aside WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? It clearly states it can be used in a valid or invalid way. I was merely pointing out that other articles have biographical information with fewer sources, yet remain notable. And that book you found was written by a buddy of his, which makes it questionable as a source. I'm a subject matter expert in this area myself. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; clear delete if I ever saw one. Does not meet general notability. Coverage provided is severely lacking. What worries me most is I'm Tony Ahn's editing history, particularly edits such as this one, which don't appear to be disclosed as paid edits. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of coverage the treatment modality itself has, should there instead be an article for Gastric Mind Band therapy then? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. All print sources seem to be of the advertorial type. Online sources are based on the "novelty factor", are mostly in yellow media, and are not extensive. I highly doubt this is a widespread and sought after technique which has changed the "medical" field. It's fringe at best. You seem to have not read the other part of my previous statement as well. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News is hard news. The Times is hard news. The Daily Mail is hard news. Hard news includes lifestyle. Psychologies Magazine is not yellow media either. "Widespread" and "sought after" are not conditions of notability. I find the insinuations of advertorials unfair (Shouldn't you Assume Good Faith on the part of publications that have no track record of paid promotion?). Which "part" of your previous statement are you referring to? The part that was not germane to AfD? Take it to the proper forum. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I really find incredulous about this process is nobody's answering me. People are responding without answering. Specifically, nobody's telling me why they think my interpretation of WP:BASIC is incorrect. Someone posts Delete and states "he fails the requirement of having in-depth coverage. Majority of the bio section is unreferenced (no footnotes), and I do not see any reliable sources for his life." So I add plenty of footnotes to the bio section, from reliable sources. Then he says "I still stand by my observation that there is no single reliable, independent, in-depth source about him." But that's not required by WP:BASIC. Then the next two people that post !votes just agree with portions of the above. The reason I'm incredulous is because none of you seem to realize that if you don't educate me, you get to spend a LOT more time in AfDs that might never exist if you'd just take the time to explain why you think my interpretation is off. Why is everyone acting like WP:BASIC doesn't exist? If I can wrap my head around this, my agency will write better articles that end up in AfD less often, thus serving to lighten the AfD workload of editors like yourselves. So how is the criteria for WP:BASIC not met? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage:

The Daily Mail
Spanish local paper mentions they were covered by Marie Claire and Vogue
globo.com coverage - Online arm of Grupo Globo, a Brazilian media conglomerate, article mentions they were covered by BBC Brazil and includes criticism.
Coverage by Le Matin, a daily Swiss newspaper
UK national television coverage - presented by Lorraine Kelly on GMTV
UK national television More Gastric Mind Band treatment coverage - The ITV Daybreak programme.
Australian national television coverage - Australian Television Sunrise programme
US national tevelvision coverage - Good Morning America on ABC News
Sunday Mirror article
The Daily Express article
The Telegraph article
Marie Claire article
Natural Health Magazine article

So now we're at 6 national TV news programs in three countries, 9 newspaper articles, and 6 magazine articles. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is answering you because you are not answering us. We pointed out already those sources are bad, and you keep saying "but look, there are sources". Which we explained to you are bad, to which you repeat this and complain we are ignoring you. None of the sources are in-depth on the subject, they are mostly PR/low reliablity sources, and focus not on the subject, but on his tabloid-liked quackery. As I said above, I don't see how we can keep this except a paragraph on his technique at some larger article. Neither he nor his technique seems to pass GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To start out with, I think you ought to speak for yourself and let others do the same. At no point did you say "those sources are bad." You said there was no one source that is in-depth about the subject, they were all about the treatment. I pointed out WP:BASIC which states that an in-depth feature is not required if several features together provide the coverage. No response to that. You also said coverage was insufficient. I improved the coverage. No response to that either. Then I listed thirteen more sources in national broadcast news, national newspapers, and national magazines across the world, which you hadn't seen yet, and when you did, you ignored them. Now you're calling his work "tabloid-like quackery," when 20 sources I've produced are not tabloid. Ignore me if you like, but it just means you'll be seeing me in AfD a lot more. Or you could educate me and I'd write better articles. Your call. I get paid the same at the end of the day either way whether I spend it arguing with you at AfD or telling a potential client why I can't write his article, as it doesn't meet the notability guidelines as they were explained to me. Its your time and other editors time that are wasted, not mine; I'm paid for my time. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Piotrus. The sources are bad, and the "lifestyle" sections of major news outlets like ABC News are not "hard news", and are rife with paid promotion, and Tony surely knows that, as a PR professional himself. There is not a single credible scientific source validating the efficacy of the subject's alleged therapeutic method. I don't think you can "write better articles" on people like Shirran, Tony. I think you should turn down such jobs, as some other paid editors do, and thus do right by both your client and Wikipedia's volunteers. Ijon (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I do PR in the Philippines, which is my permanent home. I think you should not speculate on what I "surely know." Second, I disagree that major news outlets like ABC News are "rife with paid promotion" unless you mean the commercial breaks. And you misunderstood what I meant by "I'll write better articles." I didn't mean I'll improve the ones i've written. I mean that I'll select better, thus the articles selected are more likely to meet community standards, which makes them better. I'll write better articles. Gets? And regarding "turning down such jobs," as I said above (please read), we only work with about one in six potential clients we're approached by. Like everything, you have judgement call. I made mine. I put up an article a couple weeks ago that Piotrus finds notable, and it doesn't have a third the sources this one does. So I see this one as notable and I don't see how such highly reputed sources can just be explained away as "bad sources" because you don't like the way the articles in them are written. If this was a bad judgement call, then explain to me why WP:BASIC does not apply in this case, because he meets WP:BASIC on its face. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 12 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 speedy delete. Speedy deletion per G10 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of war criminals in Kosovo 1999

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

Most of those people were never sentenced for any crimes, so this is a gross violation of WP:BLP. Sources that are cited do not verify that any of those persons is a "war criminal". Vanjagenije (talk) 15:25, 7 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. JohnCD (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adianta School for Leadership and Innovation

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

None of the independent sources given are particularly reliable, and I can't find any mention of the school on the TU Delft website at all, and only a passing mention on the Nesta website: nothing indicating a proper partnership. The article was created in 2013 by a user who has only created this page and one about the school's founder, Dr. Aditya Dev Sood, which was deleted. There has been no interest in the page since then (it's still an orphan, and hasn't attracted any edits). I also can't find any in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable independent sources, so I sincerely doubt that it passes the GNG. Slashme (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We operate on the assumption that all places of higher learning are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools, which says that "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." However, I can't find any reliable source saying that this is actually an independently accredited institution, and tellingly, their website doesn't mention the word "accredited" at all. --Slashme (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a diploma mill and not a legitimate degree awarding institution, one that isn't written about by anyone. Any degree awarding institution has to be recognized by the University Grants Commission or All India Council for Technical Education or be part of a university system with the recognition being awarded to the university. That doesn't appear to be the case here. There's obviously nothing noteworthy here as no one outside of Wikipedia (among reliable sources) has bothered to write about this place. —SpacemanSpiff 02:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails our notability guidelines, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the dearth of coverage in reliable sources, and that this is probably a shady operation - a diploma mill - without recognition from appropriate Indian agencies.---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find no reputable sources with significant coverage, at least in English or a quick Google translate of Indian sources. Yvarta (talk) 19:55, 29 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pop de Negrești

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

The orphan article does not meet WP:Notability guidelines and has not been verified for more than a week. Attempts to seek reliable sources to verify the article can be found here ([11]), here ([12]) and here. Borsoka (talk) 14:13, 7 July 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 July 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't see anything on Google Books, and if they are really notable, one of their name spellings should pop up in a few books (Hungarian or otherwise). Not seeing a single hit, I think this may be a WP:HOAX (the creator is a WP:SPA who went inactive after creating this, which doesn't lend credibility to this, either). Do ping me if sources are found so I can reconsider my vote here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Borsoka. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:22, 24 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 and redirect to Holy Sons. Sandstein 07:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of the West (album)

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

Unreferenced. No indication of notability Rathfelder (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not able to find any sources to show how this meets WP:NALBUM. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or preferably redirect to Holy Sons. I found a couple of trivial mentions and one article that provides substantial coverage of this album, but one source is not enough to demonstrate notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Holy Sons. Not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco references in music

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

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

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

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

Deeply, deeply problematic WP:OR. The (originally researched) list itself falls under WP:IINFO, but the real problem is the essay, with statements like "a list like this might help expose shady (possibly unlawful) deals being made under the table between the music industry and the tobacco industry regarding product placement advertising" or "The implication is that Rolling Stone may not have fully supported Hillary Clinton with an endorsement unless and until she promised in some way to promote tobacco products" or "Jann Wenner, the co-founder and publisher of Rolling Stone, is an openly gay white male, and the biggest threat and competition for the object of gay white male's affection may be a non-gay white female". In short, this article is pretty much everything Wikipedia is not. Kolbasz (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Please give me a couple of hours to improve everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. Nicole Young (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A lot of work went into this article but unfortunately, as it currently stands, should be deleted for WP:OR. Meatsgains (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this were an article listing songs which had been individually, or as a group, covered in reliable sources about, say, songs influencing kids to smoke, that might be acceptable (depending on the sources, of course). Unfortunately, this looks to be 100% WP:OR -- loading a bunch of song lyrics (the only references are lyrics websites and youtube), doing a text search for e.g. "cigarette", and copying it into the list. It saddens me to see this much work done before there's an intervention, but H. Nicole Young, Wikipedia doesn't cover anything that hasn't already been noted as significant by reliable sources. If nobody has said it's significant that a particular song mentions smoking, then there's no place for saying so on Wikipedia. There are sources for the lyrics which show they do mention tobacco, but bringing them together yourself, when it hasn't already been done by others, is original research, which isn't allowed (because, again, we only include what reliable sources say, not what patterns we see or aspects we think are important). If you think there's a way to salvage/rework it, know that this discussion will be open until at least the 14th (7 days from nomination). One option you might want to request is "userfication", which is when an article is moved to a place like User:H. Nicole Young/Tobacco references in music. It's removed from categories, not indexed by Google, and not linked from anywhere, but the content still exists to work on it and, ideally, eventually to move back to be an article again. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Example of similar Wikipedia entries that are not deleted: The "list of tobacco free music artists" in this article is similar to the "list of countries for which gay marriage has been legalized" in the "Gay marriage" article. The entries on both lists are: 1) finite, 2) dynamic as events change (e.g., if a country's stance on gay marriage changes or if a previously "tobacco free" music artist does a music video extolling tobacco use and is removed from the list of tobacco free music artists), and 3) extremely helpful and critical for people doing research in the respective fields of gay rights and tobacco advertising (to name just one field for which the list will be helpful -- and if the issue is that the field of teens' exposure to tobacco references in music is not as notable and important as the field of gay rights issues, please be clear this is a main argument being made in favor of deleting this article so focus can be directed at addressing this aspect of this article's problems).

This is not "original research": As for the problem of this being original research, this may be the equivalent of saying a list of capital cities in the United States is original research. The comprehensive lists in this article (once completed) can probably be generated in a day with the right computer program, and such lists have most likely already been generated decades ago by people in the field of tobacco advertising, so this can not be qualified as original research. These lists only allow the general public access to the same encyclopedia the tobacco industry has. For example, a parent of a five year old may be well aware (from personal experience in viewing the video several times with his/her child) that the 2014 music video for Idina Menzel/Michael Buble's "Baby, It's Cold Outside" song, which features the child versions of these singers dancing to the tune, does not contain any tobacco references (just a few months earlier Idina Menzel had won an Academy Award for her portrayal of "Elsa" in the popular Disney song "Let It Go" from the movie "Frozen"), yet a parent who is considering buying the published version of "Elsa singing Baby, It's Cold Outside" from Idina Menzel's "Holiday Wishes" Christmas album may be unaware (unless they make a habit of screening artists and songs on the lists in this article for tobacco references before purchasing any music for their children) that Menzel's published version of the song on her album (and the version also being played on the radio and streaming music sites) contains the tobacco reference "maybe just a cigarette more."

Subject is appropriate material for any encyclopedia, but especially Wikipedia: While it is open for debate (and is a possible Ph.D. thesis topic elsewhere) that the above example of Idina Menzel's "Baby, It's Cold Outside" is a subtle tobacco advertising technique employed by tobacco advertisers to target 5 year-old Disney fans, what is not debatable is the information supporting this premise: 1) That Idina Menzel/Michael Buble's "Baby, It's Cold Outside" music video contains no references to tobacco, 2) that Idina Menzel/Michael Buble's "Baby, It's Cold Outside" published song contains a tobacco reference, and that reference is the song lyric "maybe just a cigarette more" and 3) that Idina Menzel's only other tobacco reference in her music career (though she has several other tobacco references if one were to do a cross-reference search of her name in the future(?) Wikipedia article entitle "Tobacco references in TV shows" for her acting work on the TV show "Glee") is the song lyric "she's smoking like five packs of cigarettes a day" from Menzel's 1998 song "Think Too Much", which was featured on Menzel's debut album "Still I Can't Be Still." This information should be readily available from any respectable encyclopedia in 2016.

Most, if not all, of the information in this article is published elsewhere: It is not clear if it counts as "published elsewhere", but a version of this list [minus several additions made over the last few days while the list was (thankfully) made accessible and readily available for easy editing at Wikipedia] is already published elsewhere. [13] The data is considered critical for any radio stations or music streaming companies interested in streaming "tobacco free" music, anybody interested in screening a song or music artist for tobacco references before purchasing it, anybody interested in pursuing research in product placement advertising in music, and anybody interested in pursuing potential litigation against tobacco advertisers [as opposed to (or in addition to) litigation directly against tobacco companies, which has proven to be futile, at least in the United States, ever since the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement has given immunity to tobacco companies from such litigation], among countless other uses. More time is needed to invite other researchers to add their input to this discussion and to add their data to these lists. Please delay the deletion date by at least a week, if possible, taking into account the special circumstances.

It may be argued this list belongs under the Wikipedia page of "Tobacco advertising" or "Product placement" or "Tobacco" under the subheading "Songs referencing tobacco in English speaking countries", but this may prove to be too cumbersome for these articles, especially as other related (and important -- and well overdue, imho) Wikipedia articles are added in the future entitled "Tobacco references in movies", "Tobacco references in TV shows", and "Tobacco references in video games". As an example, due to recent research carried out by researchers in Britain addressing the effects of tobacco and alcohol references in music videos on teenagers, there is a push to get the British government to consider adding warning labels to music videos referencing tobacco [14]. It would be useful for politicians wishing to write such legislation to have easy access to a "list of music videos referencing tobacco" as a starting point without having to dig too deeply into unrelated articles and subject areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:31A0:3841:61FF:924C:724F (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— 2601:645:C300:31A0:3841:61FF:924C:724F (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2601:645:C300:31A0:3841:61FF:924C:724F (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Delete. Since the essay will have to go regardless, that leaves only the list, which is pretty much the embodiment of an indiscriminate collection of information; one could perform the same exercise with any word in the English language. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that in the unlikely event that this is kept, the ridiculous "List of tobacco-free artists" section certainly needs to go. It's not just original research, it's laughably inaccurate original research; as an example, of the four artists named in Tobacco references in music#Tobacco free pop/rock men ("Justin Bieber, Bob Hope, Tony Kakko (Sonta Arctica), Led Zeppelin") Bieber smokes like a chimney, Bob Hope was the face of Chesterfield cigarettes, Jimmy Page was rarely photographed not smoking (and wrote the lyric Spent my days with a woman unkind, Smoked my stuff and drank all my wine), and Tony Kakko is an obscure Finnish heavy metal singer whom I doubt one reader in 10,000 has heard of. ‑ Iridescent 06:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total essay composed of OR. Also, one mention of cigarette, tobacco, or another product in a song is not likely to inspire people to start smoking (and stopping smoking seems to be the intent of this article: see Wikipedia:Soapbox). If say, a song has been widely critisized for promoting tobacco, then it would be worth including in something like this. These tiny mentions aren't any more notable than songs mentioning people with red hair are in the context of a hair dye article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay and a list based on original research by a Wikipedia editor. The introductory section is staggering and not at all appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. There is certainly potential for an actual encyclopedia article based on the topic of tobacco in popular music, but such an article must be built from the ground up, based on summarizing what reliable sources say about the topic. No searches of lyric databases can be included in any such article, as that is the very essence of original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Only if a reliable source discusses the tobacco content of a given song should that song be included in any such future article. But this list article needs to go. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't really follow some of the assumptions being made. Firstly, you say "it's similar to the 'list of countries for which gay marriage has been legalized' in the 'Gay marriage' article" – there isn't a list in that article, do you mean the timeline table? In any case that argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – personally I am not a fan of including lists on Wikipedia as I think it is unencyclopedic, and that's why I disagree with your statement "This information should be readily available from any respectable encyclopedia in 2016"... that's not what an encyclopedia should be about. The comparison is not valid anyway as the timeline is about actual events (the date of same-sex marriage legalization in each country) and mostly cited from reliable sources, not a list about a topic... if you include a list like this one, you could have a list about any subject mentioned in songs – alcohol, children, forests, etc.

You claim that this article will be helpful to people researching tobacco advertising – according to WP:NOTDIRECTORY Wikipedia is not intended to be a repository of "helpful information". Then there is the statement "it would be useful for politicians wishing to write such [anti-tobacco] legislation to have easy access to a 'list of music videos referencing tobacco'"... why would a list of songs or videos affect a government's decision whether or not to introduce such legislation, when such lyrics have been around for decades without causing governments to implement any measures, and ahead of proven links such as deaths from lung cancer or other diseases? And why wouldn't the politicians have access to such information anyway? Radio stations and other companies have been reviewing songs for content for decades without Wikipedia's help.

I am also concerned about the imposition of your own guidelines and criteria for inclusion of songs/artists on the list – Wikipedia's guidelines are determined by consensus, not by an individual. The use of the phrase "tobacco-free artists" is also problematic – we have no idea if the artist singing about tobacco actually smokes in real life, or vice versa. The sentence "it is presumed that product placement advertising, where an artist may be paid by an advertiser to incorporate certain products in their artwork, is included in these tobacco advertising restrictions" is taken from your own blog and may well be libelous if used on Wikipedia. Your assertion that similar "Tobacco references in xxxx" articles are "important -- and well overdue" in your opinion implies that you are going against WP:ADVOCATE – you are perfectly entitled to your own views on possible tobacco advertising in the media, but Wikipedia articles should be impartial. Richard3120 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia's function is not to right great wrongs, but that's what seems to be primary motivation for creating this article as well as any future similar articles. Moreover, the mentioning of specific individuals seems potentially problematic per WP:BLP. I am also concerned that this Teahouse post by the article's creator might indicate some confusion between Wikipedia and a personal website. Some of this information may be relevant in articles about individual songs if properly supported by reliable sources and not undue, or perhaps even something like Tobacco advertising or Tobacco smoking#Public policy is used in a proper context. Wikipedia, however, is not really intended to be a game changer or used as a database of information for possible future individual research; It's simply intended to reflect what independent, reliable sources say about a particular subject, which is something that this article in my opinion clearly does not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a completely notable (and quite interesting) topic – see, e.g., this article in the Musical Quarterly of July 1932. Among the many composers who've written in praise of tobacco are Thomas Ravenscroft ("Tobacco fumes away"), Telemann and Bach (Erbauliche Gedanken eines Tobackrauchers, BWV 515a); John Lennon was rather less complimentary in I'm So Tired. The present content should be completely removed – Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it appears to make unsupported claims about living people. No objection if that is accomplished by WP:TNT. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This proposed article is wrong on so many levels. Even the restrictive Guidelines for adding songs and artists to the lists:. Good luck with that. We do not engage in article ownership here and we freely allow anyone to change / edit / publish any playful change to any article and none are static. This would be vandalised to hell. I can't even manage to keep Larry (cat) like I would like it because other editors have diffferent opinions and freely assert them in article space. Finally, this copied from the article: Below are lists of reputable singers with at least one Grammy nomination who have unknown status with regard to tobacco references. If an artist meets the above tobacco-free criteria and is added to one of the list of tobacco-free artists, or if at least one tobacco reference is found for one of these artists, please remove the artist from the list below after adding the artist to the appropriate list above. Feel free to add other reputable artists of unknown tobacco status in alphabetical order for others to research. is entirely engaging in and publishing original research and this is not what Wikipedia is for. I need a nerve pill after reading your article. lol. Fylbecatulous talk 17:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Take your pick - WP:NOR, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have removed the long list of songs, which was an apparent copyright violation. This topic could make for an interesting article if it summarized statements about tobacco references in music in reliable sources. As it is currently written, however, it is misguided. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95: for info, it wasn't a copyvio... the list was taken from the creating editor's own blog. So it contravenes WP:RS and WP:OR rather than WP:COPYVIO. Richard3120 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The site in question does not have a CC license statement on it, and I do not see a notice on the talk page or in the edit history stating that what you say is true. Without such evidence, we have to err on the side of assuming a COPYVIO. A second-year law student should know better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She has stated in a query at the Wikipedia Teahouse that the blog is (quote) "my personal encyclopedia of tobacco references in music". Richard3120 (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking more and more like WP:NOTHERE/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. See this, wedging details about smoking (and, granted, other information) into Baby, It's Cold Outside. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever took the lists down, please put them back up or let me know where there is a copy of the latest version of the site before your edit. It is quite an ordeal for me to update this list on my web site at [15] (it involves converting a pdf file of a dozen or so pages of this list to several jpg pages and then uploading all the jpg pages to the site -- even if I want to make one little change -- so I have been doing updates here instead) and I do not have a copy of my latest edits. I was expecting to make a copy of everything tomorrow night in case the site gets deleted (which, sorry, but would be one of the dumbest things ever done at Wikipedia, but not much else I can do about it -- as long as it is public information who wrote what comments about deleting this article so school children can laugh their heads off about it 100 years from now). I wasn't expecting somebody to delete the lists now. I clearly mention here (above), in the Teahouse, and it also in the reference list (supporting the presumption that product placement advertising is considered advertising (and therefore illegal) for the purposes of laws that restrict tobacco advertising, i.e., I am citing the non-encyclopedic biased, researched arguments and contents of my web site -- not these lists). This is an extremely important (to the public) personal encyclopedia that I am tired of upkeeping for the last four years that needs to be at Wikipedia for others to edit and add to (while still allowing me to do my own inputs, etc). It is also clear that lyrical excerpts are taken from several public sites "including the artists own web sites", they are attributed to the artist who sang them, and they are only small snippets that either I heard on the radio myself or my kids told me about or that I read in an article, whatever. This was not even a "close call" on copyright by the longest stretch of the imagination so I am not sure where that argument is coming from.

H. Nicole Young (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@H. Nicole Young: With a wiki, when someone removes content from an article, it's still visible through the history. This articles history is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_references_in_music&action=history and the version after your last edit is here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To find old versions of any article, click on "View History" at the top of the page, and then click the date and time of the version of the article you would like to view. (Do not click Edit on the resulting page; only edit the latest version of any page.) The version you have asked for is this one from July 11. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Bieber and Bob Hope are tobacco-free artists according the the strict guidelines outlined in this article. If you would like to find them at "Tobacco references in movies" or "List of entertainers who smoke" be my guest, but the title of the article is "Tobacco references in music." You are free to find a tobacco lyric in one of their songs or a tobacco reference in one of their music videos or musicals (did Bob Hope smoke while singing in a musical? IDK), add them to one of the appropriate lists according to the guidelines, and remove them from the list of "tobacco free artists (in music)" (But note: you better do that before this article is deleted -- if you want me to add it to my web site, I mean). For now, they stay.H. Nicole Young (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every person in this article either has a Wikipedia page or has been nominated for at least one Grammy award or both, so it is still not clear what the difference is between this list and the List of Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual People -- except the criteria for "notability" here is much more clear than on that list (and can be changed or added to if anybody wants -- just say what it is first, like -- this person had a top ten hit on Billboard's Hot 100 -- fine with me, tell it to the Wikipedia editors, though, not me because it's not my decision anymore once this becomes an article and takes its own life, I hope, right?). Please do not get me wrong. I am not arguing to take the List of Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual People down. To the contrary, as a lesbian who is probably going to end up on that list some day (but probably only after I am long gone and the importance of my arguments "way back in 2016" finally begin to get recognized with Wikipedia editors! - lol), I think that the List of Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual People article is possibly the most important article at Wikipedia in 2016, next to this article, of course. Again, the difference being that the "important gay people" list will be gone (for good reasons like it won't matter so much any more) while the "List of tobacco references in music" will still be at Wikipedia in some form 100 years from now (like under the article entitled "Blatant examples of product placement advertising to teenagers by the tobacco industry for the 80 years from 1935 to 2015 before the Wikipedia article Tobacco references in music made it blatantly obvious to anybody who so much as even perused the lists exactly what was going on so that there was an abrupt end to this total BS, finally, from that year on after decades of governments around the world unsuccessfully trying to put a stop to it through legislative means"). K -- it's a bit long for a title, but you get the drift. :) Again, if you disagree with this -- that this list will be around in some form 100 years from now while the list of gays won't -- it's okay. Just make sure you put your name to that argument here.H. Nicole Young (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The song "Wonderful Copenhagen" mentions the phrase "wonderful Copenhagen" umpteen times (I think it's 22 times? Would be nice to know if somebody would replace the lists). So if you are playing this song to your 5 yo in the car, do you think your 5yo will know the difference between Copenhagen the city and Copenhagen the chewing tobacco when the next song played is "Copenhagen" by Robert Earl Keane which also mentions something like "wonderful Copenhagen" umpteen times? Again, the lists have strict guidelines -- if it mentions a tobacco product, it's there. Let the person winning the Nobel Prize for their thesis project on how Frank Loesser's lyrics are the single biggest cause of cancer deaths in the world decide why that song is titled Wonderful Copenhagen, not some arbitrary Wikipedia editor. Again, if the rules of the article are followed (whatever they are -- they have to be clearly defined), there is no "inaccurate" entry. There is only a song that does not follow the rules or a song that follows the rules and Wonderful Copenhagen follows the rules. It stays.H. Nicole Young (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is great that you have a passion and a cause and that you have done this research. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy, and it is not a place for original research. This is basic Wikipedia policy. Please read this policy information: Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H. Nicole Young, claiming that "Wonderful Copenhagen" is a reference to an obscure American brand of chewing tobacco makes about as much sense as claiming that The Star Spangled Banner is a reference to Star Tobacco International, or that Bat out of Hell is about British American Tobacco. By your warped logic every album ever made is a tobacco reference, since vinyl albums are inevitably labelled "long player" and Player's is a brand of tobacco. Please read up on Wikipedia policies before you work any further on this, as your combination of agenda-pushing, original research and casual racism is definitely not what Wikipedia is looking for. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The above reasons are all legitimate. The article appears to be an WP:ESSAY and looks to be based off of original research. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research/essay. Frankly, after reading some of the above comments from article creator, I'm not sure if this isn't some elaborate trolling. rgds 92.2.44.196 (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant OR with no secure basis for the criteria selected. I can empathise with the underlying philosophy but the construction is irrational and POV. Has no place here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced WP:OR, also complete trivia. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. "the biggest threat and competition for the object of gay white male's affection may be a non-gay white female" is very problematic if only for the blatant racism. One wonders, first of all, how an NGWF is competition (because she might swing the intended object of the GWM's desire?), but really, what does whiteness have to do with it? GWM can't desire GNWM? Drmies (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- When I read that in the article history, I started to wonder if we had all been the subject of some bizarre attempt at trolling. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Userfy until the article creator gets a clue. This is amateur hour on a big scale. "Guidelines for adding songs and artists to the lists"? WTF? That has got to go. Articles do not contain their own how-to-write-this-article guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 17:40, 13 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. Sandstein 07:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M66 derby

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

No third-party reliable sources to show that this is a notable derby. A quick google search only finds one passing reference in a RS. So, probably fails WP:GNG. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NRIVALRY is quite clear that such articles must satisfy GNG. Regardless of the specific name, the fact that two teams have played each other a number of times does not automatically create a notable rivalry per GNG. Significant, independent coverage of the rivalry as a notion in itself are required and I do not see this here. Fenix down (talk) 07:00, 11 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. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our Favourite Pop

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

Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 21 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. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Galea

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

Notability very dubious; fails WP:PSEUDO and WP:ONEEVENT. There is one RS, but it offers minimally significant coverage at best, and then only in the context of the one event, and I really don't think Miss World Malta (pop. 423,000) counts as a "well-known and significant award or honor" for the purposes of WP:ANYBIO. —swpb^T 12:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What we need is NPAGEANT. In most cases, it seems the national winners of pageants that feed into Miss Universe are deemed adequately notable, but I don't know what the standard is for Miss World. Be nice to have an open and shut set of SNGs (suggested notability guidelines) on this. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sourcing to pass the General Notability Guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had removed the PROD on this article. My personal interpretation is that Miss Universe and Miss World are sufficiently notable pageants. For these 2 pageants, I am willing to suggest that a participant is sufficiently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss World Malta - I am a bit undecided on this one and I feel redirect is a good decision at the moment for the following reasons

It is true that the subject doesn't pass GNG. There seriously isn't enough information to have an article. However, the name is a valid search term and the subject is listed at Miss World Malta. A redirect is a good compromise.
There is a possibility that we may have an SNG in the near future where participants of Miss Universe or Miss World are deemed sufficiently notable. Should this article be deleted, we would lose the editing history. A redirect is a good decision here as the history remains available. If we manage to obtain consensus for an SNG or if enough sources are available in the future, this can be recreated. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I agree, Lemongirl942, it is good to merge and keep edit history where there is the possibility of a need to re-examine an article in the future. I tend to favor keeping a bluelink up when possible, even if it's a redirect. (As they say, redirects are cheap!). And, actually, I just WP:BOLDly redirected another similarly-situated article at AfD. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "Miss World Malta" (pop. 400,000) represents fewer people than many states in the U.S. The subject fails GNG regardless. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to main article, otherwise not notable as stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the comments from Montana and Lemongirl -- we do seem to be approaching a "tipping point" for creating a set of notability standards for these international pageants. And until we do, the better approach (i.e., the least disruptive one) is to maintain the status quo while the community reaches a consensus on how to treat this entire class of articles. I also note that both the nominator and one of the discussants explicitly refer to the size of Malta when stating their rationales. If you've ever wondered how systemic bias gets created, wonder no more -- you're seeing it right here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are in no way obligated to keep an article because of some as-yet-to-be-explicit discussion about the class to which it belongs; WP:GNG applies as ever. I doubt you'd make such a weak argument if you had any "keep" justification specific to this article. And yes, pageant winners of large countries are objectively more likely to be notable than those of tiny countries; beating out 400 million competitors is a thousand times more impressive than beating out 400,000. That's not bias, it's arithmetic. —swpb^T 15:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with swpb. Even if WP:NPAGEANT existed, the notability would still have to be demonstrated via "significant coverage". In any WP:N__ guidelines a subject's notability is always presumed; it's not guaranteed. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing else apart from the Miss World to suggest her own actual notable article. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Preserving the edit history seems worthwhile to me as well--have seen a number of discussions on this pageant question just in a short time. (But yes for now I don't see sources for independent notability.) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Engleham (talk) 19:25, 18 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 04:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rekkles

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

I do not believe that "e-athletes" are notable unless they pass the GNG. Being mentioned a few times in The Daily Dot, which tells "untold stories unfolding online" (in other words, they tell what wasn't notable enough to be picked up by real reliable sources), does not add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already included a newspaper article all about him, in Aftonbladet, and extended mentions in USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. I found further news coverage and fully identified everything so it's now easier to evaluate the coverage, which does meet GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yngvadottir, the "extended mention" in USA Today is about ten sentences. Expressen gives him three sentences. The Wall Street Journal article is the only that can be said to say something a bit substantial about him. Being interviewed in Aftonbladet surely is something, but whether it is extensive coverage--it is if your standards are pretty low and and oriented toward trendworthy topics. So, sorry, but while I appreciate the effort, I am not convinced. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies: I'm going to ask you to look again. I count 5 major-media articles about Rekkles in the article right now. (I found and added 2 more after posting here, and when I started typing this, the only edit after mine was to the categories.) Admittedly Aftonbladet 2014-10-24 cites Reddit as its source, and is partly about somebody else, but it's headlined about Rekkles and was written to report what he's doing. Admittedly also, the Expressen article is short (and that's a tabloid), but it's all about Rekkles. Aftonbladet 2015-08-24 is mostly interview, but again, it was written to update us on Rekkles. Aftonbladet 2016-06-19, which as you noted was in Xender Lourdes' search results, is not substantially an interview, and I'll be adding it to the article if someone else doesn't—I suspect Google didn't show it to me because it's so new. To offset the gradual impression that he's just a favorite with Aftonbladet's writers, there's also Nyheter24 2014-01-24 (brief article all about Rekkles and self-made video)—and Sveriges Radio 2012-11-27 is an article about him with a 9-minute interview recording embedded. That's a lot of coverage in several important outlets, and I think the date range—from late in 2012 to halfway through 2016—also speaks to genuine notability. I can't read the German source to see how much of it is about Rekkles because I'm not going to disable AdBlock. And I don't know how reliable a source The Score eSports.com is, but that again is an article about his team where the hook for the article is Rekkles. Add to those the fact he's among those mentioned prominently in the USA Today and WSJ articles, and I am seeing a constant stream of coverage in independent reliable sources, a lot of which is extended coverage and the breadth of the rest of which is non-trivial. So regardless of my opinion of his line of work or of news outlets' strategies to get clicks (I note with respect that Aftonbladet tends to post English translations as an alternative to the Swedish), I do believe he meets our general notability standard as written. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
S.Keep Drmies.... b4... Lourdes 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Xender Lourdes, you can "BEFORE" me all you want, but all you are presenting is a Google search, and WP:GOOGLEHITS. But, if you like, in order: [forg1ven-was-losing-rekkles-niels someone mentions him on an ESPN page] (link screwed up because of square brackets in URL title), he has a Twitter feed, he is mentioned on a blog in a three-sentence long press release, he gets a five-paragraph interview in a Swedish paper, the first reliable and independent source in your list, [http://www.gamingesports.com/actualidad-esports/league-of-legends/rekkles-sobre-yellowstar-estamos-mas-juntos-que-nunca/ here's four sentences from a gaming blog, God knows who reprinted these four sentences but it doesn't look like a newspaper/site, and here's another blog. I can go on, but WP:RS please. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's called a "blog", but Blog of Legends is owned by Time Inc., the same holdings company for Time Magazine.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thanks for the reply you've placed. May I apologise if my one line keep statement above came out a tad negatively? I did not intend that. I respect your experience, views and discretion considerably. I linked to the google hits (a first for me too in all my Afd discussions till date) to simply perhaps nudge you (wrongly done to an experienced editor, now that I think of it) to the fact that the google search would have thrown up absolutely reliable sources (two mentioned by Yngvadottir above and another a WSJ foreign language edition) and significant interviews like this and this. Add the WSJ stuff and you have to give credit to the coverage. If we are not going to consider these as significant coverages, then I fear we are setting standards too high and being judgemental about each and every topic in nsports. My apologies once more for the earlier one line statement. This is a strong keep as per me. Thanks. Lourdes 01:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xender, no problem, thank you for your note. I continue to disagree, however, with you, and I do not wish to lower our notability standards. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if this article is kept, there will need to be a serious evaluation of all esports articles, as there are hundreds that require urgent attention, as they're collectively not up to par with Wikipedia's standards. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DarthBotto: I have just raised your concern at the village pump, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports. KaisaL (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure when the WSJ and USA Today became "being mentioned a few times in The Daily Dot," and the characterization may be a bit disingenuous. TimothyJosephWood 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Draft instead because, while these articles have been starting noticeably numerously, there's still questionability for several, and it's best to be careful with these. I suggest this one be removed for now as there's still not convincingly enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources provided and linked to above indicate that he is one of the best League players for his position and that that he passes WP:BASIC and probably WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, numerous reliable sources as pointed out above, and also appeared as in a WP:PRINT source.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:04, 11 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 speedy delete. Clear copyright infringement of http://www.tanzatelierwien.at/en/about-the-tanz-atelier-wien/sebastian-prantl/. Salted. Katie^talk 12:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Prantl

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

Delete. Fails GNG. Article is being repeatedly recreated, please SALT. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:42, 7 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 Keep due to the lack of calls for deletion beyond the nominating editor and the excellent editorial input by E.M.Gregory in bringing references to the article. Although input in the discussion is admittedly limited, it would not be too bold to say that the updated article clearly passes WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST requirements. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Noton

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

Unreferenced BLP Rathfelder (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that There are significant claims to notability in this admittedly unreferenced article. At first glance, he appears to be that rara avis, a notable, professional photographer with the restraint not to edit his own WP page. (We ought to give extra credit at AFD for that highly unusual quality in a WP:CREATIVE.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I ran a quick proquest new search on "david Noton" + photographer. 40 valid hits, all supporting notability. First hit was this article (Spend a day with David Noton. The Times [London (UK)] 08 Aug 2009: 25.) in the Times of London, which was running a photo contest offering a day shooting with David Noton as the prize. The Times describes Noton as : "an award winning landscape and travel photographer..."(He may well have sold photos to the Times, I have no idea, but he seems to have sold photos to pretty much everyone.) A feature story (City showcase for photographer's shots from around world

Coventry Telegraph [Coventry (UK)] 12 Oct 2011: 3. ) A profile (WHY I'LL ALWAYS BE 'CHASING THE LIGHT': After more than two decades hunting out the world's most beautiful images, globe-trotting photographer David Noton is returning to Bristol. He talks to DAVID CLENSY about a life behind the lens. CLENSY, DAVID. Evening Post [Bristol (UK)] 06 Aug 2009: 22.) Then you have this (A man of vision; McLaughlin, Martyn. The Scotsman [Edinburgh (UK)] 23 July 2010: 18. ) long profile of Noton in The Scotsman. A local paper (How chasing the light can make a stunning picture: World-famous landscape and travel photographer David Noton is preparing for a visit to Exeter next week to reveal the stories and adventures behind his most iconic images, writes Anita Merritt, Express & Echo [Exeter (UK)] 25 June 2011: 15.) all excited about a lecture he's going to give. User:Rathfelder, I suggest that you withdraw this and just leave it tagged for sourcing. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article certainly needs sourcing, suggest that we just leave it tagged for sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I've added some references, but the main keep rationale is that he easily passes WP:ARTIST with three Wildlife Photographer of the Year award. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:00, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henk Keilman

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

Promotional biography of a non-notable businessman. Zero usable sources in the article itself; I could find some minor news coverage about his business failures online, but not the significant coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG. Kolbasz (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources to indicate particular notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not at all notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:43, 17 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. WP:SNOW, WP:IAR. Nobody has disagreed the article should be deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darien Joseph

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

As a parent, I do not want 16-year olds creating autobiographies on Wikipedia (see WP:YOUNG). This is for their own good. I've already speedy deleted this twice as Darien Joseph (Personality) and salted; before I go any further, I would like the community to confirm this the correct thing to do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC for lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" - there's just one, minor secondary source of a local paper's six-sentence article about Joseph starting a fashion blog a few months ago. The "best music video" award from the Port Lincoln City Band does not seem to be a significant award. I can't find any other RS coverage online, as either "Darien Joseph" or "Darien Hage". --McGeddon (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG guidelines in almost every respect; note no WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above and WP:TOOSOON. Good luck, kid. OnionRing (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG guidelines; searches for RS to back up the notability found nothing (although I'm not an oracle, so I'm as imperfect as the next person!) - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all of the above. Maybe down the road they will meet WP:GNG, but not just yet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. The current content of the article may even be a hoax. The claimed 100,000 followers at Jo-Jo's talk page is questionable at best. I was unable to locate any Youtube channel, just a website for a Youtube partner company that advertises none of their client names. It's not even clear they have clients. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above; WP:TOOSOON. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What we have is 100% fluff except a local story from a paper in a city with 14,000 people about how a 16-year-old has created a fashion blog. In my county of 800,000 plus people the local paper runs for much of the year articles on successful high school seniors, some of which will mention not just what they plan to do but what they have done. None of them are ever close to being good grounds for someone passing GNG and this is such a case as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 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 no consensus. After three relistings, consensus for a particular action has not occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

33rd Ale Kino! Festival

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

Briefly, I feel that individual edition of Ale Kino! International Young Audience Film Festival fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability. I originally proposed a merger to the main article, but at Talk:Ale Kino! International Young Audience Film Festival not only the creator, but also User:PanchoS objected, and since the latter explicitly suggested AfD, here we are. I proposed the lastest, 33rd edition for deletion as it is most recent and so sources should be more forthcoming then for, let's say, the 17th Ale Kino! Festival (and judging by Template:Ale Kino! International Young Audience Film Festival, the creator intends to create a page for each different edition). As the individual festival articles are referenced only with WP:PRIMARY, WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources - festival's own website - I looked outside. I see nothing in international media (few mentions in passing and listings like [16] do not help much), but in Polish media there is a bit more coverage. I found two sources for the last edition: one in regional media ([17]) and one in a larger Polish Internet portal ([18]). Unfortunately, I stand by my view that such sources are not sufficient for individual editions. They would be good for expanding the main article (which, I feel, has enough room to accommodate a full merge of the awards table), but I don't see enough coverage to support keeping individual articles. All that the news sources stay can be summarized in a short pararaph: festival takes place in PLACE, DATE, FOO-number of films will be shown, including highlight A, B and C. Several winners have been announced beforehand. That's it as far as the news - do note that this coverage is before the event, in a semi-PR form of "come to the festival". There is no coverage of the festival itself, no discussion of awards aftermath, etc. The coverage is not very in-depth, and not very independent, as it seems to rely on quotes and PR-releases of the festival organizers. I doubt any of the past editions can show more coverage then that. I will once again say that I think the festival itself is likely notable (even through it is too minor to be listed in Template:Film festivals), but individual editions of it are most certainly not, and fail Wikipedia:Notability (events), WP:NORG and WP:GNG, whichever we chose. PS. If the consensus here will be to merge, I hope that the creator will also merge other created pages on individual editions of this, rather then waiting for them to be nominated here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not write "Briefly" and then follow it with a 414 word AFD rationale. Edison (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ale Kino! International Young Audience Film Festival. I don't think the individual years are notable on their own. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Merging all the Festival results into one article would make it overlong. The festival is international, old, under the auspices of International Centre of Films for Children and Young People and many important films take part in it, including Oscar, Golden Globes etc. nominees and winners. Many events like that have their separate articles, including Polish ones. Check Category:Polish Film Awards ceremonies. It's national, the articles are even shorter. And nobody claims it's not notable enough. There are others, too: Category:Sidabrinė gervė, Category:Guldbagge Awards ceremonies, Category:Yeşilçam Award, to name only a few. Yow will find more here: Category:Film awards by continent. I think there's enough space in Wikipedia to describe not only the wildly known things, events etc. but also those less known. They even should be described more detailful, since you may find Oscar, Emmy etc. results in many places, while not speaking Polish and looking for the Ale Kino! results you will only have Wikipedia. (Kyleall (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

"And nobody claims it's not notable enough" - actually, that's why it's at AfD in the first place. All the sources in the article are currently from the festival's website. There needs to be reliable third-party sources outside of its own site, eg news coverage, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are others. Not many international, I agree, but shouldn't Wikipedia be an encyclopedia, describing facts, things, events etc. to people ? It's easy to find Emmy, BAFTA, Cannes results - no need to repeat it. I'm not saying you can't do it, but you don't need it because interested in the subject will find them easly. That's why the presence of festivals less known, like Ale Kino! and others mentioned by me above (and more) is even more important.

But if you need other links, here they are: https://filmfreeway.com/festival/AleKinoFest , http://www.ecfaweb.org/ecfnet/festivals.php?l=Poland&f=36 , http://www.creative-europe-media.eu/festivals/festivals/item/545-international-young-audience-film-festival-ale-kino , http://culture.pl/en/event/the-28th-international-young-audience-film-festival-ale-kino-awards , http://www.csdpoznan.pl/en/ale-kino-film-festival , http://www.mfdb.eu/en/films-poznan_ale_kino_international_childrens_film_festival_y0_f85459 , http://www.poznan.pl/mim/turystyka/en/f,p,12685,12686,12693.html , http://www.wbimages.be/index.php?id=8975&L=1&tx_cfwbavmsearch_pi1%5Buid%5D=556 , http://en.pisf.pl/film-in-poland/festivals , https://www.facebook.com/festiwal.AleKino/ , http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000745/overview , https://www.youtube.com/user/festiwalalekino (Kyleall (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

First, we are discussing the 33rd Festival, so you should present sources for that one, not the 28th or others. Some of the refs you present are simply not reliable, like Facebook or Youtube. The best one is culture.pl, but again, that's about the wrong festival. And I think it is important to note that culture.pl does not cover the festival regularly. I see they have entry for the 28th festival awards, but not for the others - which again suggests that the festival does not regularly achieve notability. If we spend a lot of time collecting sources, maybe, maybe you could find a few editions that would squeak through, but frankly, I very much doubt that most would. Again, I do not see why we cannot merge the 1-2 sentence of history for each festival (date, location, attendees, occasional near trivia incident) plus the table of awards into the main festival page. If it would really become unvieldy, I think we can have a separate list of awards awarded at that festival page. No information needs to be lost, the only thing we will achieve is merging a bunch of individual mostly-award-table pages into one or two articles. This is the best solution for everyone; I really do not understand why you think having individual tiny pages for each festival would be beneficial to the readers (and anyway, the point is, they are simply not notable, i.e. not encyclopedic by themselves). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I realise neither Facebook nor YouTube are reliable sources. Having given those two I only wanted to highlight its being real and serious event, since nowadays most of them have their profiles on social media. I'm against merging only because it's going to make the article impossibly long and unclear. Now, there are only three or four editions made, but I would like to create more of them. Do you really think it's going to work well ? Other festivals, including many not widly known, have their separate articles, why can't this particular one do ? The second idea, creating separate article about the awards, is better but I still have my doubts about its length. And why do you think it doesn't "deserve" separate pages ? Have you seen ex. Category:Guldbagge Awards ceremonies ? It's even shorter and still have ones. (Kyleall (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only a reason to consider discussing the appropriateness and deletion of those other pages. The Guldbagge pages don't impress me with their notability, through them being Swedish, perhaps there are sources I don't see. For the AKF, I am pretty sure I don't see much in Polish sources (and since I monitor pl pages on en wiki, well, I am often "picking" on Polish subjects). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Rather than diminishing the number of film festivals which have coverage in the form of year-by-year Wikipedia articles, we should be encouraging contributors to create more such entries. With hundreds of film festivals spotlighted by individual Wikipedia write-ups, only 13 pages (including this 33rd Ale Kino! Festival) can be found within Category:2015 film festivals. While we await annual coverage for the past editions of Kraków Film Festival, Gdynia Film Festival, Warsaw International Film Festival and other Polish film festivals, such as International Festival of Independent Cinema PKO Off Camera or Etiuda&Anima International Film Festival (as well as other nations' festivals), retention should be granted to this well-assembled entry for 2015 which lists 12 awarded film titles, 6 of which link to their own Wikipedia entries. Some film festivals are more-prominently covered in world media outlets (and within Wikipedia) than other festivals, but it should be noted that, in 2015, this 33rd Ale Kino! Festival attracted submissions from at least 13 listed nations. A redirect or deletion would deprive Wikipedia users from accessing almost all such specific data. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check WP:ITSUSEFUL, and why it is NOT a valid argument in deletions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 21 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 07:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmax

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

The article is too over-promotional. Speedy turned down Atlantic306 (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Promotion is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE concern, and the article is actually much better than I expected, although apparently uses WP:UGC a few times. Profiles in the NYT and Financial Times, among others, satisfy WP:GNG. FourViolas (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article documents that it is the most trafficked online conservative website. I don't understand the desire to remove it. It is clearly significant and any promotional items can be corrected. JodyB_talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's got coverage in Forbes, for example this article. Someone can rewrite the Wikipedia article if necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to delete the Newsmax article. It looks just fine to me. 2601:281:8000:4F1B:1ED:F223:9282:CB4D (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Comment moved from Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion by Nat Gertler (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG just based on the sources in the article, and it doesn't look to be so completely unusable that it merits WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this highly inflated piece of hype - and either let the hot air out or tag for the need to do so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 11 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. JohnCD (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityMetrics

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

I missed commenting before at the 1st AfD or else I would've commented Delete, my searches and examinations have still found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost entirely sourced to its own publications: an obvious naive advertisement, listing its executives and its products. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert Prevan (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced only to press releases and own site. Plus, any company that lists as their only award a "Stevie" has no real awards to mention, although they do list some other awards on their web site relating to HIPAA compliance. I haven't been able to verify those, however, beyond their own press releases. LaMona (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG and purely an advertisement. For a moment I thought I am reading the "about us" section on their website. Company is not notable and just another company, doing regular business. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:37, 29 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Service (SmartWings) fleet

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

Unnecessary content fork which artificially conflates information from five small articles about separate (but related) airlines. YSSYguy (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge content back into main articles. - Ahunt (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content and depth of coverage was OK in main articles no need to fork and pad out with unencyclopedic content. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge encyclopedic content into main article and get rid off the non-encyclopedic stuff (which is unreliably supported by Planespotters).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge, everything in the article has been copied-and-pasted from one of five other articles. YSSYguy (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far nothing at all convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 16 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. Sandstein 20:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kipsu

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

Delete. Non-notable company. Just another company doing everyday business. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from routine announcements, the main reference offered is the NYT piece which describes it as "another start-up" while describing both this and another firm's applications. I added a reference to a Nov 2015 article about the company, though that is in its local press and also indicates the firm had 11 employees at that time. While it is a firm going about its business, I do not see attained notability at this point. AllyD (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable company....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 11 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Cass

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

Delete. Absolutely no secondary reliable sources could be found for the award and also to establish notability. Article was written by Kate A. Steel who has been blocked for SPI and is from a PR agency. Read my comment in the AfD John Lincoln (telecommunications) where I mentioned that a PR agency sent me an email offering money to help and keep the article. Clear case of paid editing. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself had encountered this and planned to nominate; despite the recent trimmings, there's still nothing minimally convincing of substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I note on the talk page, the award is not only unsourced, it is not found in the award site's database, and it is a place that gives daily awards (as well as monthly and annually), so even if it is a genuine award, it is likely to be a weak one. Other claims that were edited out were unsourced or weak sauce as well. Clear promo intent on a subject whose notability has not been established. --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. for (;;) (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where even close to being a notable designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turk Beezy (rapper)

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

Fails WP:NMG. No reliable, independent coverage. Sources are primary profiles or superficial press releases. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this might qualify for WP:G4, as this has been discusses at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turk beezy, and the article has been recreated multiple times at Turk Beezy (which is WP:SALTed) and Turk beezy. Grayfell (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What is considered an artificial/superficial press release? Most websites are independent third party publication that also cover large name artists along with major New York based radio personalities. From Thisis50 to Dj Enuff website, ThatsEnuff.com along with The Source Magazine. These are all created by independent editors. Don't be bias because it's not a larger considered 'creditable' publication such as TMZ or CNN/Fox. Also on terms of the previous articles they had very little verifiable information and many less publications covering the topics in which they should have been deleted. Now however the article has been significantly improved and simple research will find easily verifiable information. — HipHopWikiPolice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC).

Most of the sources used are about Trickin. All but two use the exact same promotional wording, which is only a single paragraph. The other two are even less substantial. Being covered by The Source would be useful, but this isn't coverage in The Source, this is just a PR blurb republished on their web domain. Many outlets repeating the same PR isn't the same as many sources, they're all the same source, and it's both very weak, and not at all independent of the artist.

The MTVArtists bio, the Facebook page, and the Vevo video are User submitted content, and are not reliable for establishing notability.

What is Digital Record Tracker? It doesn't look like one that's used by Wikipedia, and many of the artists on those charts are obscure. I don't see it at Wikipedia:Record charts, so I don't think it's usable for notability. I'm also not sure it's reliable. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple Independent sources, along with third parties not in anyway connected to the band. Also fairly popular artist in the the Central Florida Area with local radio airtime on local iheartmedia run 104.5 the beat. — Jamesthompson1978 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

See above for the sources. Local radio airtime is not enough to establish notability by itself, per WP:BAND. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well from what you just listed #6 under recordings from music notability states rotation under any major radio airwaves which makes it notable, and also your statement is contradictory because above you state that multiple sources have covered it, so the radio airwaves would not be a lone indicator of notabilit, but would be complimented by the blog publications. For more info on what digital radio fracker is simply go to digitalradiotracker.com and research under the about section. It follows a wide range of radio station air plays along with digital radio air plays in order to give a time gap of specific stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HipHopWikiPolice (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean #11, but yes, I already did that, and I still don't think Digital Radio Tracker is reliable or significant. A company isn't reliable just because they say they are, because they all say they are. The chart doesn't say that this was put in rotation by a major network, either. If you want to show that it charted, use Billboard or some other well-known company. If you want to claim this was in national rotation, you need to be able to point to the network that put it in rotation. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Multiple reproductions of of PR are not independent. Claimed airplay is not rotation, digital radio tracker is not a good chart. Not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G4 This article appears to be a copycat of Turk Beezy, failing to address the concerns raised at the previous AFD discussion about this topic area. Hx7 13:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was already addressed above as to the improvements and differences in the article. Do some research before making a proposal.

I'm still going to stick with my delete vote, per all the opinions raised by other trusted editors. The sources that you added just doesn't cut it - they are not independent reliable sources but PR releases. Hx7 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G4, salt and nuke from orbit It's a promotional piece for a non-notable rap artist. As stated above the sources are not independent of the subject, they are PR releases. Digital Radio Tracker is not consider a reliable chart as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Fairly popular" is subjective and certainly does not establish notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Badly-written promotional piece (redundant, I know) whose citations are either small niche sources or link directly to his music. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 16:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources lack significance and/or third part independence. All are self-promotional. Editors who are arguing for keep have failed so far to provide convincing, independent evidence that these sources have merit. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as everything the article lists says it all, nothing at all actually suggestive of both the needed substance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 23 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 07:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash

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

Article was redirected to Mitsubishi MU-2#Incidents and accidents after a discussion at Talk:Jean Lapierre. One User disagrees with the decision to redirect and has restored the article. The notability of the crash essentially rests with the notability of Jean Lapierre - if the crash involved seven non-notable people there would be no article. The reportage focuses on the person rather than the event of the crash. The crash is already mentioned in the articles about Jean Lapierre and the MU-2. I am !voting redirecting rather than outright deletion; if the decision is to delete or to keep, there are a number of redirects to Mitsubishi MU-2#Incidents and accidents that would also need to be deleted or retargeted. YSSYguy (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant accident involving a notable person, that has the potential to involve some enforcement action when the investigation is complete as well. - Ahunt (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I believe the article subject has notability. Of course the notable person involved in the crash is noted.Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 20:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC) (Banned sockpuppet of User:Carriearchdale....) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quality of sources would indicate that it passes the WP:GNG. Given who was invovled, this crash seems more significant than any of the others listed in teh Mitsubish MU-2 page, so could be a standalone article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that there are many reasons on why this article should be kept. The old article was deleted as it had little information, especially on the investigation. Since the investigation information has been released, and is still being released as it is ongoing, I believed that it would be way too much to fit in another article, so I reverted the deletion of the article and added the newly released information. I also added other information. The article covers a very notable event. The event had significant news coverage, and dominated the news in Canada for two whole days. Not only is the incident one of the largest in Canadian history (in recent times, as Canada has had a good aviation record for a while), it also has a very notable person onboard. Jean Lapierre was a Federal Minister and Member of Parliament in Canada, and Prime Minister Paul Martin's Quebec lieutenant. He was also a prominent radio show host. This victims notability is also evident by the fact that his funeral was attended by the current (and a former, I believe) Prime Minister and his wife. His notability is not the only reason why the article should stay. Seven fatalities is actually quite a bit for aviation incidents nowadays, and it even makes it one of the highest in number of fatalities this year. Canada's aviation record is very good, I believe, and other countries with a good aviation record has articles on aviation incidents even smaller than this one. Example: West Air Sweden Flight 294. If the crash involved seven non-notable people, there would likely still be an article. This is why I strongly believe that this incident deserves its own article. Beejsterb (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The crash did not receive large amounts of coverage, the death of Jean Lapierre was what received the coverage. The coverage was about him, his life, his political contributions and so on. If it was a car crash or if he had died in a bungee-jumping accident, there would be no WP article about it and nobody would think anything of that - the cause of his death would be mentioned in the article about him and he would be mentioned in List of notable people who died in traffic collisions or the bungee jumping article and that would be that; but if an aircraft is involved we seemingly need a separate article. As for the comment "The old article was deleted [sic] as it had little information", that is speculation. YSSYguy (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - established consensus is that aircrashes that kill wikinotable people are notable enough to sustain articles, even if said aircrash might not otherwise be notable enough to sustain an article. The MU-2 is not a light aircraft, having a MTOW in excess of 5,000kg. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The MU-2 is a light aircraft - anything with a maximum takeoff weight below 12500lbs/5700kg is a light aircraft and that is why the MU-2 in question was not fitted with flight recorders. Such consensus as you claim does not exist. In the past that was a criterion in WP:AIRCRASH, but - speaking as someone who used to invoke it all the time in deletion discussions - AIRCRASH has been thoroughly discredited in AfD after AfD over the years. YSSYguy (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:54, 12 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 redirect to Eels discography. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Dude in Love

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eels discography. It's not an implausible search term but the sources do not support an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:39, 29 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 07:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweatshirt (song)

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

Thoroughly nonnotable. "21st most disliked." Really? - üser:Altenmann >t 05:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepThe article needs improving, however the song has reached the Billboard Top 100, which does give the song notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No significant coverage. In modern days of youtube "Top 100" is subject to ridiculous quirks, based in youtube views, which are not based on fame and notability, but on random ways of gossip. In this case it was a result of massive trolling (of an idiot, deservedly), as evidenced by youtube comments. Of course this is my "original research", but there is absolutely no "relliable research" of the subject, hence my suggestion of deletion. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm finding some coverage it looks like here: [19], though this might be more about Musical.ly than the song. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment - the song appeared on the Billboard Hot 100 last week, at position #90. It is off the chart this week. As it passes WP:NSONG #1, I wouldn't call it "thoroughly nonnotable", but I'm not sure it passes generally in NSONG, either. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd suggest refocusing the article as Jacob Sartorius rather than on the single, as it is more likely that in coming months there will be sources that focus on the person than the song, but at the moment we don't know if he's going have anything more than his 15 minutes of fame, and this seems like it could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Richard3120 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Methinks this is unnotable. But I will "give the article creator sometime to improve the article". I LOVE YOU JACOB SARTORIUS XOXOXO (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update Tis been more than 7 seconds and no improvement at all has been made at all. I watched one his vines and it sucked, time to vote. I LOVE YOU JACOB SARTORIUS XOXOXO (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs normally take 7 days to reach consensus. Also, this isn't a vote but a discussion on if the subject is notable or not. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets Wikipedia's WP:MUSIC criteria. Notable due to charting on multiple Billboard charts. SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has made the Billboard Hot 100 and appears to have a claim about the dislike count that, on the surface spurious, actually means it's achieved a degree of attention and notoriety. It could also be merged and redirected to his article, however. KaisaL (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KaisaL - I mentioned this on the Jacob Sartorius article. Definitely notable. --Zero^talk 14:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I declined the A9 speedy due to the Billboard charting, which does meet our criteria for inclusion. Crow^Caw 18:41, 13 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. czar 23:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Delmas

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NHOCKEY and not finding significant, independent coverage. Rlendog (talk) 19:50, 18 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 09:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christiaan Minella

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NHOCKEY; not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article about an unremarkable minor-leaguer fails NHOCKEY, and shows no evidence of meeting the GNG. Created by an editor infamous for specious articles, for which he was community banned from new article creation. Ravenswing 05:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either GNG or NHOCKEY.Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 12 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Kraft

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

I've read discussion this page is unnotable. Anyways, all sources are mainly passing mentions. He is only known for his successful students but notability is not inherited. Other info is basic and non-essential ALongStay (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy this article . A recognized pioneer in Judo [20] He is the subject of a number of independent verifiable articles including "GROWING JUDO

JUNE 2009" [21] and Judo Master Bids Farewell To Famed Forest Hills Studio", Queens Chronicle, December 6, 2007, retrieved October 30, 2010 173.52.99.208 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--user 173.52.99.208 has been blocked for block evasion. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Are you going to go back to your CrazyAces489 account to fix it and re-submit it? I don't think you can keep flipping past more than one account as you please.ALongStay (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only came here to give an opinion. This was after you messaged me. [22] . Your general uncivil behavior is what has gotten you IBAN-ed and blocked. I will not be baited. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is hard to see what his notability is based on. The lede should summarize what that is - but all we have is what high school he attended and that he got a 7th Dan. A long coaching career and being a retired insurance salesman do not confer notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find nothing to show that he has the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG, nor do I see anything to show he meets WP:MANOTE. Passing mentions and rank are insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unnotable judo coach/trainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. No indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still thin regarding his own notability, there are some claims but it's still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 15 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Abbas

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

This article is doesn't cite any sources nor have any external links. It is also very short and possibly seems like autobiography. NepaliKeto62^{Talk to me} 01:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does have sources, in both the infobox and the external link. Both show that this person meets WP:CRIN and as he played in the 1930s, I'd be very impressed if it was an autobiography. The-Pope (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and improve. What a shamefully lazy AFD. A quick Google search for "sultan abbas cricket" brings up coverage on ESPN, CricketArchive, etc. Please read WP:BEFORE. OnionRing (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have been a player in first-class cricket in India, with 5 or 6 matches played, depending which source you believe. It's not a lot of play at first-class level, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and by our standards, apparently he's notable enough to merit an article. Rockypedia (talk) 03:53, 7 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. WP:V is the killer argument here: if an article has zero sources even after two weeks of AfD, it is gone. Our core policies require that all articles must be verifiable to readers through the inclusion of references to reliable sources, and this article has none. Sandstein 06:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Monsters

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

Trivial list of mostly one-shot characters. Even if reformatted into a proper article on the topic, there don't seem to be enough sources to really make a decent article out of it. TTN (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. Completely unreferenced, and I can't say that I see the value in a list of this sort. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Trying to delete this article again sounds more Wikipedia:I don't like it rather than deleting cruft and TTN admits he is basing this on the belief that it does not SEEM like there is enough sources even though there likely is. How many sources are enough to keep this article afloat? Yapool Seijin (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the above source links and tell me if you see anything that looks viable. If there's nothing good there, that is usually a very good indication that there are not enough sources to establish a topic as notable. There are obviously exceptions for obscure print sources and other language articles, but there's currently nothing to assert that those exist for this topic. TTN (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you did not type it in its native language. https://www.google.com/#q=%E3%82%A6%E3%83%AB%E3%83%88%E3%83%A9%E6%80%AA%E7%8D%A3 With 1.14 million results something useful is likely to turn up. Yapool Seijin (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfiltered search results are quite worthless for this kind of thing. That the topic is part of a long-running franchise and happens to be mentioned often because of that is not an indicator of notability. Pretty much any article that mentions the series will probably mention these, but that is entirely in the context of their in-universe role. Citing that the Japanese Wikipedia article is full of valuable sources would be a better argument, but unfortunately in this case the Japanese article is also just in the same exact state of disrepair. Honestly, even if there are sources, I think they're going to be limited to the production details of certain costumes and such, as is the nature of such a franchise. Maybe I'm completely wrong and there are an abundance of sources, but giving an unfiltered Google search does not show that. TTN (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case why not divide it up into character list articles? I've seen the Japanese Wikipedia do it and many Kamen Rider and Sentai articles to it, just include the humans. It's a suggestion. Yapool Seijin (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Ultraman was a freak-of-the-week show, so each monster was essentially one episode. Rather than list them all here, this information should be included in episode guides for their respective shows. No need for a separate page. On the other hand, I'm not sure who wants to undertake that daunting task. Maybe the otaku who made this list! Jergling (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate fancruft. — Wylie pedia 12:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft implies the interest would apply only to franchise fans, the google link I gave kinda disproved that since there is enough interest in these monsters to have massive amounts of merchandise. Yapool Seijin (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still indiscriminate. As the mom stated, "trivial" and "one-shot", even if this was a list for guest characters on a popular TV show. — Wylie pedia 13:10, 11 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 redirect to Sengoku Basara. The one "keep" opinion does not address the substance of the arguments for deletion, that is, lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Whether these requirements are documented in a style guideline or an inclusion guideline does not matter. The other contributors agree that this does not warrant article-level coverage. No clear consensus to outright delete, though, therefore I'm redirecting and it's up to editors to find consensus about whether to merge anything from the history. Sandstein 06:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sengoku Basara characters

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

List of non-notable video game characters is WP:GAMEGUIDE material and fails WP:VGSCOPE No. 6: " Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information." While there are plenty of news articles that mention that new characters are added to an upcoming game, none give any of the information crucial for a stand-alone list. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep failure to comply with MOS expectations is not a reason for deletion, but rather for cleanup. Citing an MOS in a deletion nomination is explicit acknowledgement that if an article were cleaned up appropriately that the nominator believes it would be encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: That you don't agree with me is fine, but that you're suggesting that I actually do believe this to be of encyclopedic nature is inappropriate. I have to ask you not to twist my words or motivations. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 03:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're citing an MOS in a deletion rationale, then you are asserting that the associated problems are not that it's not encyclopedic, but that it's presented wrong. If you don't believe that it's encyclopedic at all, then you can feel free to strike your MOS-based arguments. This isn't meant as an insult to your motivations, but rather pointing out the contradiction inherent in your argument. See also WP:UGLY. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jclemens:, I was on my phone earlier, which is pain when replying. When I say "non-notable" I mean it fails WP:N. Did I really had to point to that guideline? I did specifically pointed to WP:GAMEGUIDE, which says what Wikipedia is not. WP:VGSCOPE starts off with "Below is a list of content that is generally considered beyond the scope of information of Wikipedia articles on video games and related video game topics". If I say that this list of characters is "beyond the scope of information" of WP:VG, how am I saying it can be improved? I don't take it as an insult, I see it as WP:UNCIVIL behaviour to say that I believe something else that I'm saying. Could you also point to the guideline or essay that says "Citing an MOS in a deletion nomination is explicit acknowledgement that if an article were cleaned up appropriately that the nominator believes it would be encyclopedic"? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that both the MOS:VG shortcut and the navigation box on the right of that page include the article guidelines as a "manual of style" issue. In short, there is no way you can legitimately refer to WP:VGSCOPE in an article deletion discussion, because style guidelines only apply to things that SHOULD be kept at AfD, and failing any style guideline is not cause for deletion, only cleanup. You've now had and acknowledged your opportunity to remove it, so a closing admin can and should disregard your nomination entirely as not arguing for deletion.

Furthermore, you cite WP:GAMEGUIDE, but show no evidence of having read it and applied it to this specific situation. Character lists and plot elements are not covered in that, but only gameplay matters, if I can oversimplify it a bit. I'm sorry if you feel that me educating you about the shortcoming of your nomination is WP:UNCIVIL, but I have done nothing but politely point out the inherent contradiction in your own argument. I don't think you're any less of a person or editor because you're wrong, and if you got that impression, then I unreservedly apologize for it. Still, I will not insult your intelligence by presuming that you can't figure out why a manual of style issue is only applicable to material appropriate to be kept in the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sengoku_Basara#Characters. The very little that is sourced can be sufficiently covered in the parent article. These articles should not be split unless warranted by the sources. Please {{ping}} me and others if you find more sources to consider. czar 23:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or selectively merge per above. There is nothing to establish the article as its own independent topic, so the parent pages can easily cover the most important aspects. TTN (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 11 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. Defaulting to Keep. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skills for Care

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

Alleged to be a csd G-11 article, but its been here a while and without the additional iffy material it may have a chance. Letting the community settle this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I keep finding passing mentions of this (service?) in various articles, such as in the Guardian --> [23] -- along with the words "prestigious" and "prestigious awards" and similar characterizing. It seems the Brits like this one, but I haven't found it to be the actual subject of articles yet. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a lark I tried "Google Scholar" and found this: [24]. And I don't know how good a source this would be: [25]. And this might qualify for significant coverage [26] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, or possibly WP:SMERGE to Social care in England. Not particularly promotional in its present form, and appears to have some just-about-significant coverage on The Guardians website [27] and in books about social care, e.g. [28] [29]. Not sure if it's really worth a separate article to itself, but I guess there are quite a few other similar articles in Category:Sector Skills Councils, and merging might lose the infobox. Qwfp (talk) 12:18, 26 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. Sandstein 15:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Journalism

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

Requesting deletion per WP:NOTE and WP:ORG (with respect to the school), as no sources are independent (they are all interviews of or remarks by the supposed originator of the term). A search did not find any results which showed coverage with substantial depth. Thylacine222 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also noticed looking at sources that the one other person quoted on page is also associated with the school. I think this is a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:G11 Thylacine222 (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ (change to Delete - see below ) ~~to Al Giordano. The references and other sources in Google news search almost make this topic notable~~ - but not quite. It is unfortunate because it is an interesting school of thought. I am thinking some alternate-newspapers (the weeklies) are probably closest to this type of journalism - and some are not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Were you able to find independent sources in Google News? The only articles I could find clearly referring to the school of thought or the actual school were from NarcoNews, which runs the school. Honestly, I don't think any section of this article could be merged without making the other article significantly more advertorial. Thylacine222 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thylacine222: I was tired when I was at this AfD - maybe I misunderstood the sources I was looking at. I'll have another look. I'm certainly not interested in promoting adverts on Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

problematic sources of School of Authentic Journalism. This appears to have been some sort of short course for activist journalism. It may have taken place only once, not sure. Sourced to the small, online Narco News, of which Giardano is the founder and editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most search hits on this "school" are to Narco News here: [30]. There is this in the alternative/progressive Tucson Weekly: [31]. But it is "posted by," probably indicating that the Tucson Weekly (like many online and small outlets) allows some writers to post at will. Not the same as edited journalism. And this "article" is an advertorial shilling for donations to the "School"'s kickstarter campaign. This doesn't look good so far.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term itself, "authentic journalism," is a neologism being pushed by Giordano (whose own article could use a careful vetting - it's overstuffed with hype). Neologisms are fine, but searching on this one [32] leads into a tiny echochamber of Giordano buddies and admirers. It also lead to an article , in Narco News - surprise, surprise! [33] establishing that the School of Narco Journalism is a sort of Brigadoon that "exists once a year." E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best source for the neologism and for the "School" is this: [34] article in the Boston Phoenix. Unfortuantely, since the article is in the paper Giordano worked for at the time of publication, it is not an independent source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent validation found for either the "School" or the neologism. Not even enough to justify a redirect to Al Giordano.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (@Thylacine222:) 99% of the sources on Google News seem to be Narco News which runs the school, as has been said above. And, according to this discussion the other sources seem to be questionable as reliable and/or independent. I agree with this. I would rather see broader coverage in sources that are not questionable. I think my above comment was tainted by liking or being enamored with this topic. Also, the Huffington Post posted an article either related to this subject or on this subject [35]. I don't know if this had been noticed before. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 21 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MyBioSource

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

Alleged to be G11, but may be salvageable. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the nom - this is probably salvageable. It seems to be covered in two peer reviewed journal articles per references of this article already. I will see if I can find more. Hopefully these are peer reviewed journals - it appears that they are. So far, nice looking out to the nom ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this appears to be a good and reputable company, whose products appear in many peer-reviewed papers. In other departments, the company is reported to offer scholarships for high school students in STEM. For a company that was founded in 2007, it seems to be making a rather definite name for itself in its field. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 07:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Over 2200 hits on Google Scholar. That just proves that this article clearly meets WP:GNG. The article itself is slightly promotional, but that can be easily fixed. Omni Flames (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does it prove that? Its usual to state from were one purchased key reagents. As there are many tens of thousands of biological articles a year, a few hundred a year that use something from this company is not necessarily significant. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 17 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. Sandstein 17:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Berman (Strategist & Author)

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

Blatantly promotional biography. Lacks the references and sources to meet the notability requirements of WP:AUTHOR. Kelly ^hi! 07:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been edited to meet notability requirements of WP:AUTHOR. Joshmplant (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither meets WP:AUTHOR nor WP:BASIC. --Edcolins (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edited version cite with enough depth to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC. Joshmplant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps explain why you think that he meets WP:AUTHOR? There are four criteria, and in my opinion, none of them is met here. For example, he does not seem to be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Although he appears to be a member of the Intellectual Property Hall of Fame Academy, he is not an inductee into the so-called IP Hall of Fame as far as I can see. --Edcolins (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He meets critera 1 because he and his books have been cited many times in important publications. Many attorneys and other people within the IP field quote him, use his books as references, and write reviews praising his books. He meets criteria 2 through his career and the actual content of his books, which explain how and why companies should leverage their IP assets. He meets 3 because he has five well-regarded books on IP. Point 4 can only be shown through the people who have reviewed his books and the publications that quote and review his books. But at the very least, he meets the WP:BASIC requirements, if it is an absolute requirement that Authors meet every point on WP:AUTHOR. I have added citations where Berman has been quoted, where he has written, and where his books have been quoted and reviewed. He is a known figure in the IP world and has contributed a significant body of work to the field. I did not include multipal articles or reviews from the same publications, but I can. HIs website is full of links. Also, WIPO Magazine doesn't publish anyone, they do require that the authors of its articles have some level of respectability and notability. I truly to believe I have listed many qualifying sources. Joshmplant (talk)

I am afraid you haven't convinced me. In my opinion, he does not meet any of the four WP:AUTHOR criteria. As to WP:BASIC, he does not seem to "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Anyway, I leave it to others to weigh in, one way or another. --Edcolins (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two more books that cite Berman as an expert and added a US News and World Report article that quotes him as an industry expert. He doesn't have seminal theories like Einstein, but he is well regarded in the IP field. I have proven that he is cited as an expert in many high-level and reliable publications and books. I hope the other editors will ready my citations and agree that Berman's page is at least means WP:BASIC and is worthy of not being deleted. Joshmplant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and for adding further references. The three references you added[36] do not appear to discuss the subject (i.e., Mr Berman) in detail. I would say that they constitute -or at least are very close to be- "mentions in passing". --Edcolins (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot control what GoogleBooks scans, I only had access to the reference pages of the books, or one page where he was quoted. It is hard to determine the length of the mention in this context. The fact he is in these books, quotes in Forbes, WIPO, has 5 books in circulation should be enough to be granted the right to keep the page, even under WP:BASIC only. I have seen pages with far less information and far fewer citations and way fewer sources. Joshmplant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with both Edcolins and the nominator - it's promotional material and and as an author, he doesn't at all meet WP:AUTHOR. He's mentioned in passing in a few articles, but not the focus of any. Not close, in my opinion. Rockypedia (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional is not my intention, but I have added as many sources as I can, even removing some because they were marked as excessive. He is quoted as an expert in the field in top-level publications and has 5 published books from a top publishing house (John Wiley & Sons), I am not sure what else I can do. Any guidance is greatly appriciated. Joshmplant (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 07:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FlyBuys

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

The two articles in this disambiguation article have different names - flybuys and Fly Buys. A hatnote at the top of each article is really all that is necessary. Ollieinc (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The program in Australia (now known as flybuys) was originally termed Fly Buys, then FlyBuys. The current brand name flybuys has been in use for only four of the 21 years the program has been in operation. Accordingly, use of the term in Australia still varies between these three representations, one of which exactly matches the New Zealand variant, and therefore creates the opportunity for confusion between the Australian and New Zealand programs. As such, I believe the disambiguation, if a little non-standard, is helpful and valid. Murtoa (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disambiguation is needed for both sources which are not immediately distingushable Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd recommend a hatnote at the top of both articles, and keeping this page alive - it's a term that's close enough to "Flyby" that reducing confusion should be the priority. The disambig page will serve that purpose. Rockypedia (talk) 04:01, 7 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Hasan Khan

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

Mostly unreferenced article about a young musician not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. He comes from a family of notable musicians, but WP:Notability is not inherited, and I'm just not seeing substantial coverage online in English from WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions of his performances in the press. As one of the external links added by the article creator puts it, he's an "upcoming" musician, and this article is WP:TOOSOON. OnionRing (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article on the father of this musician, who does not WP:MUSICBIO for the same reasons as Ghulam Hasan Khan above. I have cleared out the promotional language used in both, and little remains:

Ghulam Abbas Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just a reminder that two articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just a reminder that two articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nomination, neither pass WP:MUSIC.Karst (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely as there's still nothing suggesting the needed convincing substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 23 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. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Turley

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. - Mr X 11:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a fine illustrator, but the refs are about the books he illustrates and/or the book authors, and not about him.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable illustrator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no coverage in reliable secondary sources. In the fullness of time, the subject might become notable. But not now. David in DC (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the NYTimes source barely mentions him, there's simply nothing else actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 15 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. Lack of discussion renders consensus undeterminable. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 03:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Census of the North West Frontier Province

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

This is a transcription of a primary source that is known to be unreliable. It includes links to numerous other articles that may or may not in fact be the communities designated in the census. Basically, it is verifiable only due to a failure to comply with WP:RS. Without context, and with the links, it is effectively useless. A similar article by the same creator has already been deleted. See: AfD of 1901 Census of Rajputna. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 11:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and redirect to Census in Pakistan, just as it has been done with 1998 Pakistan Census. No need to copy data across. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to something on censuses in pre-independence India: see comments on 1901 AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect targets have been suggested, but more input is needed for a specific target (if the discussion continues in the direction of a redirect result) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the target I imagine Peterkingiron had in mind was Census of India prior to independence. Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -- That is probably what I had in mind. I also recall discussions that 19th century British censuses in areas like Bihar that had long been under British rule were thoroughly unreliable, because many people managed not to get counted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 02:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:15, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jandral

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

Not at all a notable subject, completely fails WP:GNG. No references to verify the subject's notability. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing problems aside, Indian caste names should be notable per se in my opinion. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All these caste name related pages are just of 3 to 4 lines or maximum or paragraph or so. There are also no references available to present the information. If needed for the names to be recorded in the encyclopedia. All such articles can be put under an article something like List of India castes or something like that. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 14:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the argument "Indian caste names should be notable per se" is completely arbitrary. Just having a caste name here, without references or any reason to establish notability, is a perfect example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This isn't a directory, of caste names or anything else. Rockypedia (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockypedia: That's actually something that deserves a RfC - just as every secondary school is inherently notable per WP:NSCHOOL, every village in the world is inherently notable per WP:GEOLAND, etc. Will to it in spare time, unless you feel like asking this at WP:INDIA. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm only speaking in terms of this one article - until there's a Wikipedia policy that states every caste name is inherently notable (is there? I don't know), this article should be deleted. If an RfC results in a directive that every caste name is notable, then of course this can always be recreated. Rockypedia (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - Subject is not supported by significant reliable sources. I could not find any decent online sources using a Google search. -- Taketa (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sources (at least, I cannot find them with search terms given on page), with no prejudice to re-creation if an editor brings sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another Indian name. No sources discussing it and nothing even to indicate that it is a caste. There were ca. 1900 castes recorded in 1901, cf 4635 in the 1990s - people just create them out of thin air for self-interested socio-political reasons. It wouldn't surprise me if they use Wikipedia as a means of validating that process. See Sanskritisation, for example. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list. This options is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahra clan. Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such a redirect would require at least some sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An older version of the article did include a source. Uanfala (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only but only 1, and it is to a 1915 book with a bit of a reputation (that book , Punjabi Musalmans) for offering the author's idiosyncratic opinions. Asserting that an ethnic group or clan is notable requires stronger sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I were asserting it were notable, I wouldn't be !voting redirect, would I? Linking again to the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahra clan. Uanfala (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have. It doesn't change the fact that there need to be at least some RS (reliable sources) before we can consider a redirect. I do not see such sources for Jandral. ( I searched on Jandral + Punjab) The effective way to argue for a redirect is simply to find sources (preferably scholarly sources, well-regarded news media, or well-respected books). Without such sources, we cannot keep this putative clan/group, even as a redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a barely informative and then actually unsourced article is not something we should keep simply because someone wants it like that, we would need a better article overall. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marath

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

Not at all a notable subject, completely fails WP:GNG. No references to verify the subject's notability. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 11:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing problems aside, Indian/Pakistani caste names should be notable per se in my opinion. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All these caste name related pages are just of 3 to 4 lines or maximum or paragraph or so. There are also no references available to present the information. If needed for the names to be recorded in the encyclopedia. All such articles can be put under an article something like List of India castes or something like that.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - Subject is not supported by significant reliable sources. I could not find any decent online sources using a Google search. -- Taketa (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note, however, that we already have a Maratha, of which I take this is a variant- or mis-spelling. That article makes this one superfluous, since is somply one of many castes that extended across the subcontinent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this has been a common occurrence where it's completely unsourced and barely and contents, this is not acceptable and thus would be best restarted. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhidwal

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

Not at all a notable subject, completely fails WP:GNG. No references to verify the subject's notability. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 11:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing problems aside, Indian/Pakistani caste names should be notable per se in my opinion. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All these caste name related pages are just of 3 to 4 lines or maximum or paragraph or so. There are also no references available to present the information. If needed for the names to be recorded in the encyclopedia. All such articles can be put under an article something like List of India castes or something like that.

That's what called a stub: a few lines, little or no references, but notable enough to warrant inclusion. Disagree as to lists - items on such lists should be notable (more details at WP:CSC) and have own articles wherever possible. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - Subject is not supported by significant reliable sources. I could not find any decent online sources using a Google search. -- Taketa (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Bhidwal are mentioned as a group in an 1892 book "A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab" author: Rose. And in a handful of other 19th century books, search in search on Bhidwal + Punjab here: [37]. They do not, however, turn up in modern sources, making me suspect that either the ethnonym Bhidwal has gone out of use, or that or the identity has fallen away. Badduwal is a place (village?) in the Punjab, and Bidwal is a subcontinent surname. These, things, however, do not add up to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list in which this will be an item. Such a solution is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahra clan. Uanfala (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's barely any contents here, unsourced also, so there's summarily nothing convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 15 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 07:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De Taali (2016 film)

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

Non-notable 2016 remake of a semi-notable 2008 remake of a notable 2001 film. I can't find any confirmation online that it's even been released yet, and I can find no significant coverage of this new 2016 version online in WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: De Taali Sunil Suchak Kiran Aacharya Sanjay Mourya Vanraj Sisodiya Hari Dave

Delete for a short while. Available sourcing shows the earlier De Taali (2008 film) as notable enough for Wkipedia. Further digging reveals that the current film's music appears to have been released,[38] and lead me to believe this latest film actually released June 17 2016, there is still not enough available "YET" to show this as meeting WP:NF. As it has only recently released, we can revisit the topic and allow it a return if and/or when it gains enough sourcing. For now, it's TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:31, 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) 13:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 7 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. This doesn't preclude moving to draft. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potol Kumar Gaanwala

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

Non notable tv serial. There are numerous tv serials broadcast in indian tv like this. This is not a special one. Also there is no reliable secondary source for notability. Mar11 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TVSHOW. Non notable Indian TV serial of West Bengal state with no national audience.Lukerian (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But if it aired on Star Jalsha, would that not meet meet WP:TVSHOW as a national cable channel that is "the number one Bengali channel in India and is also very popular in Bangladesh"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Star Jalsha is indeed the leading or a major Indian Bengali-language cable channel, as its article states, it meets WP:TVSHOW. India is a country of several major language groups. We're not going to penalize the show (or the channel) for not attracting, say, Hindi viewers for a Bengali programme. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 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) 13:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft instead at best because this is still unsourced and this is actually a common occuence with these articles, unsourced and it often seems the author will not improve it themselves or not thoroughly. Draft for these improvements and then examine afterwards. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft - Poor quality at best. This series has potential important to Wikipedians, but this article needs improvements. George Ho (talk) 20:49, 18 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De Boss

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

Fails WP:BAND GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 00:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all minimally convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 15 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 TNT delete, because of issues such as verifiability and concerns about hoaxing. As with any other TNT-deleted page about an obviously notable subject, creation of a new page about Bertha is welcome. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha, Florida

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

Created by user as part of a series of questionable edits creating non-existent places in Illinois and Florida. The USGS link actually takes you to the page on Slavia, Florida, a real place, with no mention of Bertha. Smartyllama (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with WP:TNT. This follows the same pattern as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innisbrook, Florida. 1. Start with a real populated place (GNIS 294680). 2. Move the location. 3. Add bogus citations. 4. Add large amounts of unsourced and dubious information. This is part a string of 90% hoax articles. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place, USGS recognized, I found the link with a little search. Yes, it had a false link, now it has a real one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the GNIS information fixed, nothing beyond the first paragraph is verifiable. Aside from there being a U6 unincorporated community at that location, the article is still substantially a hoax. • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It's a real place, but sorting the real information from the fake is tricky enough that we might as well start a new article from scratch. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable community with no available sourcing. Meinnaples (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is a USGS populated place listed in GNIS, but all that means is it was a dot on a map. The location has no boundary. There is no CDP with that name and there is no mention of Bertha on the county website. The map boundaries (File:BerthaFlorida.png) that were added for it appear to be completely made up. The basemap, that the uploader copied but neglected to credit, (c:File:Seminole County Florida Incorporated and Unincorporated Areas.svg) was based on Census maps and shows that area as unincorporated. Namesake item is uncited for a person that lived 150 miles away from this location. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still been questionability about the factual information here, best deleted until a convincing case can be started again. SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 15 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. Consensus is weak here either way, but it does lean towards retention. Any questions regarding merges/renames can be handled at the relevant talk pages. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth Springs, Illinois

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

Hoax. Supposed USGS cite is actually about Flowerfield, Illinois. Fits this user's pattern. Smartyllama (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same pattern as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertha, Florida. Start with real populated place (GNIS 1771854) and build a hoax on top of it. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real page, just removed the unverified crap, which anyone could have done. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the lay of the land still suggests this user is making noticeably questionable articles, best deleted if there's still the factual questionability. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the unverified stuff gone, this doesn't look like an unincorporated community - GNIS doesn't explicitly indicate it is, just that it was a populated place (based on a source from 1901), and the coordinates place it on top of Oakbrook Center. This source claims it was the site of a spring, but not a community or populated place, so this may just be a GNIS misclassification. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Government-recognized populated place, based upon THIS. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: I concur that GNIS lists it as a populated place. However, WP:GEOLAND has two criteria in the first group; populated and legally recognized. From all available sources, this location was never a legally recognized location. The GNIS data does not, by itself, pass GEOLAND. The article, as it stands, fails WP:GNG. That the spring existed is not enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect into Fullersburg, Illinois; otherwise, Weak Keep and maybe rename to "Mammoth Springs (Illinois)" because it's more about a spring than a settlement: Part of the Bnnnperdue mess; this looks like it might have a chance at WP:GNG but I haven't found enough significant coverage to prove it, just a paragraph or so here and there. It appears to be mainly a (former) water spring, apparently owned by a single property owner, more than an actual settlement or community; I've only found one mention of a student in 4-H supposedly living in "Mammonth Springs, Illinois". This is a site in the area that, at that time, was called Brush Hill or Fullersburg, and is what "Spring Road" is named after. It's mentioned in passing in a few sources:
- Chapek, Etta Susan, Oak Brook in Thompson, Richard A. (1985). DuPage Roots. DuPage County Historical Society. Retrieved 2016-07-04.: "It was the Talmadge Family that is said to have been rudely awakened one night by the sudden eruption of a mammoth spring on their farm. The great volume of water was later harnessed and provided many homes in the Oak Brook/ Elmhurst area with running water for almost a generation before its depletion. It also contributed to the success of the Mammoth Spring Ice Company, established on the south bank of Salt Creek at Washington Street by the Ruchty family." The 1874 Atlas & History of DuPage County, Illinois map on the same web page shows the location, but not named: It's on the northwest side of the property marked "G.H. Talmadge" in section 23, about where the DoubleTree Hotel is now. (The adjacent "R. Reed" property is now Oakbrook Center shopping mall, the OfficeMax/shopping center across 16th Street, and some part of Oakbrook Terrace on the other side of the Kingery Highway.)
- Bulletin of the Illinois State Geological Survey (1939), Issue 65, Part 1, p. 34 also known as Geology of the Chicago Region: Part I. General; Part II. The Pleistocene, Issue 65, Parts 1-2, but it's only a snippet view on Google Books. The same paragraph exists in 1 or 2 other issues of the Bulletin. The paragraph is: "The largest spring in the Chicago region is three miles south of Elmhurst and 3 1/2 miles north of Hinsdale, on Spring Road just west of Salt Creek (Hinsdale quadrangle). It is almost in the center of section 23, T. 39 N., R. 11 E. Its unusual size seems due to subdrainage from an abandoned part of the creek valley west of the present route. The old valley contains basin-fill which is saturated to the surface. Elmhurst secured its municipal water supply from this spring until the population of the own exceeded 5,000. On the Chicago Folio map (1902) it is called Mammoth Springs, but the new map, though showing it, gives it no name."
- There's a photograph of the Mammoth Springs Ice Company's operation in Hinsdale by Sandra Bennett Williams (2013), p. 19), but no other mention of it as a location; it's unclear from the photo whether the ice is actually taken at Mammoth Springs or they just used the nearby name for their company further south.
A reminder that a GNIS entry is not an indication of legal status, therefore not WP:GEOLAND on its own, and this is not even a census-designated place, and maybe not even be what someone would call a settlement. --Closeapple (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin: If this ends in merge/redirect, since I rewrote the article as a two-sentence summary stub, I can just copy-paste my own sentences into Fullersburg, Illinois (or whatever other target) under my own username so I show as the author in the page history and we don't have to "preserve attribution" from this article page. --Closeapple (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but I'm ok with deletion too. I concur with Closeapple that a GNIS entry is insufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND. This place isn't a place by any terms of WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Ok, there was a spring. We can verify that, and that it had an impact on the local population. But, there's nothing that supports the idea, in any official way, that this was any sort of town, village, settlement, what have you. Information about the spring can be verified and merged. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hammersoft. Doesn't seem like a real place. Prevan (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename (which is really a talk page issue). Even Accuweather recognizes it [39], so it isn't a hoax, it is a geological feature. As such, it needs to be treated like one and not a town. Generally speaking, we keep articles on geological features that have any official notice at all, that is the goal of an encyclopedia after all. This qualifies. It is broken, not non-notable. Farmer Brown (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accuweather is redundant: that, and millions of spam sites, autogenerate robo-pages for anything that shows up in GNIS, whether its real, a typo, or what. Those are all just a shortcut for geographic coordinates. I don't know why people keep over-emphasizing mere entries in a government list as conferring some kind of legal existence. Some strip malls and most churches and schools, going back 100+ years, back to one-room wooden schoolhouses, are also in GNIS. There is no Wikipedia guideline that says that a feature is inherently notable just because it showed up on an old map — particularly when the subject comes up for discussion, like it has here, and can be shown to meet or not meet WP:GNG based on evidence of significant coverage (not robolistings) in multiple independent sources (not database dumps of the same list), rather than presumption. --Closeapple (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And most schools and churches going back 100 years are notable, btw, so not sure your example is as powerful as you might think. As for guidelines, prior consensus has been that geological features that receive ANY coverage are considered noteworthy. Consensus trumps guidelines, as guidelines are written based on consensus, not the other way around. This isn't a rising pop star or new dot com start-up, it is a geological feature that is found on many maps, and that is precisely what an encyclopedia is expected to cover. Again, rename as described above and keep. Farmer Brown (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please point to this prior consensus that trumps GNG and GEOLAND? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about you simply not WP:BLUDGEON the discussion by replying to every single keep vote? Farmer Brown (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion. Note a vote. I'm attempting to discuss. Sorry you don't like it. Could you please point to the prior consensus you mentioned? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, as cleaned up, meets the standards for populated places specified by WP:GEOLAND. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: Really? How? GEOLAND stipulates "Populated, legally recognized places" (emphasis mine). I grant GNIS categorizes it as a populated place. That doesn't make it a legally recognized place, which must go hand in hand with populated. You can't pass GEOLAND with just one of those two criteria being met. That is, unless the place pass WP:GNG...which it clearly does not. Did the spring exist? Yeah. That doesn't mean it deserves an article. We can prove a tree in my front yard exists. That's why this is a clear candidate for merging. Please reconsider. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 07:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fullersburg, Illinois

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

Hoax article. Only cite is USGS info on some other place. Follows this user's pattern. Smartyllama (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fullersburg is a real populated place according to GNIS (1771758) but the citation was wrong. Unlike other articles by the same creator, the coordinates are correct and the USGS says the the forest mentioned is nearby. The postal info is dubious however. USGS does not call this an independent U6 settlement. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a real place, the extra stuff can be deleted if it cannot be verified, but that's true of most of our articles. :-( Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carlossuarez46--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hinsdale, Illinois. Fullersburg was one of the early settlements at what is now Hinsdale, according to this, but it's now part of incorporated Hinsdale and doesn't seem to justify having a separate article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is, so far, the only Bnnnperdue (talk · contribs) article creation I've seen that probably meets WP:GNG. (See the chaos in all the similar nominations at User talk:Bnnnperdue and User:Closeapple/issues/User:Bnnnperdue.) Not only are there several sources available (assuming they're not all copying each other), but it's difficult to determine an appropriate parent article to merge to, because different soruces say different things — its history appears to be involved in the origin of both Hinsdale and Oak Brook. So it should probably be its own article unless shown otherwise. The first part of http://www.dupagehistory.org/dupage_roots/Hinsdale_11.htm (same page TheCatalyst31 mentioned above) gives a history of Fullerburg, but that page says "Interest has spread to Oak Brook where old Fullersburg stood. An effort is underway to create an Historical Gateway linking the two towns, including Graue Mill, the Ben Fuller house and old St. John's Church." The 1874 subdivision plat map on that page doesn't match the names currently in use on DuPage County GIS Parcel Viewer: For example, parts of what are "Original Plat of Hinsdale" on the 1874 map is in the subdivision "Town of Fullersburgh" (with an "h") on the GIS, and parts of what are in the subdivision "Plat of Hinsdale" on modern GIS is shown as "W. Robbins" on the 1874 map. "Ben Fuller Farmhouse" on the Salt Creek Greenway Association website describes the "old Fullersburg" as being at "the present day intersection of Ogden Avenue and York Road", and "By 1860, Fullersburg had become one of the leading communities of DuPage County. Its buildings included 15 to 20 houses, two hotels, three taverns, a post office, a blacksmith shop, a school, a cemetery and a grist mill." There was a Fullerburg Historic Society as of last year: The website http://www.fullersburg.org/ is down, but the society's presentation announcements have been in the paper: see for example Daily Herald in September 2015. --Closeapple (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just rewrote the entire article and removed the remaining unreliable claims from the infobox. Also, when I noticed Graue Mill was part of Fullersburg, I just realized that I'd encountered this place name before: A year and a half ago I found a bunch of historic images on Commons that were said to be of Fullersburg, and put them in Commons:Category:Fullersburg, Illinois. Meeting WP:GNG looks pretty sure at this point. --Closeapple (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Closeapple. There's enough information out there to pass WP:GNG. It certainly did exist, and we have credible sources to assert so. A geographic feature does not have to exist now to be notable, and the area in which this place existed isn't easily identifiable with one distinct community now, thus a merge is inappropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 12 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 keep. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innisbrook, Florida

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

Created as part of a series of questionable edits by a user creating probably non-existent places, and editing other articles so they corresponded. Tarpon Springs is directly north of Palm Harbor. There is nothing in between. This Innisbrook Resort is In Palm Harbor, which is what the page said before this user messed with it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article is bogus, but the USGS says there really is a U6 unincorporated community called Innisbrook at another location in the Palm Harbor, Florida area. GNIS entry: 295375. Otherwise, the article is unverifiable in its current state. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, my comment above and other similar articles by the same creator. The place may be real but the article one in a series of hoaxes. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place as shown by USGS, just removed the unverifiable crap and now it's fine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fake stuff is gone now, so now that we have a properly sourced article with correct information, there's no reason to delete it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator or Merge to Pinellas County, Florida unless actual sources demonstrating separate notability for this specific spot are shown; entry in USGS GNIS is not legal recognition and doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND, and it being "verifiable" just means WP:ITEXISTS, not WP:GNG. (Boilerplate I'm using for all these nominations: This is a series of WP:HOAX articles by Bnnnperdue (talk · contribs), each one using a USGS GNIS entry, then copy-pasted claims from other towns or patently-false claims about being incorporated or otherwise a legally-autonomous entity or having some other significant history, so that it appears to the casual viewer that WP:GEOLAND applies or otherwise gives the façade of meeting WP:GNG, and a mess like this deletion discussion ensues. In each case, the bulk of the article has been fantasy, often provably false, sometimes with alleged locator maps, also invented by Bnnnperdue. USGS GNIS populated place entries only mean that a place with that name was once on a map or reported to exist at some point; lots of USGS GNIS entries have no significant cultural history and don't meet WP:GNG; for example, many were mere train stops or intersections with few buildings or other activity. Given the creator's hoax history over the last few months, there's no reason to presume that a subject is/was notable; go look at User talk:Bnnnperdue and User:Closeapple/issues/User:Bnnnperdue and you'll see what's going on here.) --Closeapple (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 14 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. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Elmhurst, Illinois

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

This page was created by a user as part of a series of questionable edits creating pages for non-existent locations in Illinois. The ZIP code allegedly corresponding with this place is actually for South Elgin, in a completely different county. PRODed as hoax a few months ago, but PROD was removed by another editor. Delete as hoax. Smartyllama (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried really hard to assume good faith, but this appears to be a demi-hoax. GNIS notes the subject as a "populated place" but at different coordinates. It is not a CDP and it has no relation to the cited Boulder Hill CDB, which is in a different part of the state. An independent search only gets real estate listings. Not 100% false but essentially a hoax. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only use of "South Elmhurst" seems to be as a description: the southern portion of Elmhurst. Hoaxilicious. Delete the article, ~~block the editor for disruptive editing.~~ Edison (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By whom? The USGS recognizes the place as official, methinks you didn't look too hard so your delete !vote is based on incomplete information and a false assumption. Hopefully, the closing admin will assess that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that the "Census Designated Place" referenced is "Boulder Hill," a different name than this hoax place, and that it is in Kendall County, a different county from the county this place is supposed to be in? This was pointed out above by Gene93k.Edison (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the USGS recognizes South Elmhurst as a populated place (see U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 7). As the rest of the article could be bogus, it should be pared back but not deleted per WP:BEFORE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carlossuarez46--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Elmhurst, Illinois or Delete — No evidence at all of WP:GNG; plenty of evidence that this is an occasionally-used neighborhood/directional name, not a separate place. Even when I look for "South Elmhurst" history on Google, about half the time it shows up with a lower-case "s" instead of "S" in "south". My guess is that it probably has a USGS GNIS entry because it had a railroad stop at some point: "Elmhurst" in DuPage Roots says "The coming of the Chicago Great Western Railroad in 1887 and the Illinois Central in 1888 stimulated commercial and residential development in south Elmhurst." (Note lower-case "s".) I also found the name as a cutoff point for a section of rail line in Past History and Future Prospects of the Great Chicago Western Railway Company (1900), p. 84. A USGS GNIS entry is not recognition as a legal, or even statistical, entity. Methinks Carlossuarez46 (to use his own words) didn't look too hard into what USGS GNIS classes indicate, and criticizes based on incomplete information and a false assumption. (Boilerplate I'm using for all these nominations: This is a series of WP:HOAX articles by Bnnnperdue (talk · contribs), each one using a USGS GNIS entry, then copy-pasted claims from other towns or patently-false claims about being incorporated or otherwise a legally-autonomous entity or having some other significant history, so that it appears to the casual viewer that WP:GEOLAND applies or otherwise gives the façade of meeting WP:GNG, and a mess like this deletion discussion ensues. In each case, the bulk of the article has been fantasy, often provably false, sometimes with alleged locator maps, also invented by Bnnnperdue. USGS GNIS populated place entries only mean that a place with that name was once on a map or reported to exist at some point; lots of USGS GNIS entries have no significant cultural history and don't meet WP:GNG; for example, many were mere train stops or intersections with few buildings or other activity. Given the creator's hoax history over the last few months, there's no reason to presume that a subject is/was notable; go look at User talk:Bnnnperdue and User:Closeapple/issues/User:Bnnnperdue and you'll see what's going on here.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elmhurst since, even if it is a real place, all that exists is a one sentence substub. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:10, 17 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Barr Tabor

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

Does not appear to meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:BIO. Only mentions i can find in Google are one oral history interview, and multiple copies of the same article after her passing. PGWG (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. PGWG (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree. Tragic early death but no indication of notability. I put the notability tag to the article but forgot to follow up with the AFD. Quis separabit? 14:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill soldier, not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG - No indication why she is notable. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending more information - it would be worth digging in the timeline of women joining the U.S. Army to establish just how early/pioneering she was. "First woman to do X" is notable for being the one to break the glass ceiling. How close was she to the first woman paratrooper I wonder? MurielMary (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Able to answer that myself quite quickly! First woman to graduate from the Basic Airborne was Rita Johnson in Dec 1973. Would like to know how many women there were between Johnson and Tabor. Will continue to investigate. MurielMary (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing at all for independent band and there's certainly nothing new for information. SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 7 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tutak

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. It was recreated with the new creator (I am not sure if they were also the original article creator, but they are WP:SPA in either case) noting on article's talk page that the sourcing is improved. I can't compare it directly to the deleted version, but the new sourcing is not sufficient and very much fails policies cited above as well as WP:CREATIVE. This is essentially a cv with primary references; no source seems to discuss the subject more then in passing, and even in passing mentions are simple film credits or such. Majority of references fail to mention him at all, at least one is written by the subject... In the end, it is worth remembering not all filmmakers are encyclopedic, and this article very much proves the point. Pinging participants of the first AfD: User:Duffbeerforme, User:Staszek Lem, User:SwisterTwister and User:AKS.9955. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I double-checked the refs and not a single one neither speaks of notability nor covers the person in depth, and none of them is an independent reliable source per wikipedia policies. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dispute delete IMDB^[1], United Nation^[2], International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam Archive ^[3], DIALOG 9/1978 issue : Antonin Artaud: Teatr a rytuał by Robert Tutak is under Wikipedia:General notability guideline. So further verification and contribution is needed. Adamme18 (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I frankly don't understand what you are trying to say. Nobody is disputing he made a few films, but not being a filmmaker does not make one autonotable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still an overly promotional lovefest for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not seeing anything confidently better convincing, sources, yes, and still not enough substance. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babafemi Raji

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

No evidence of any significant notability. One amongst many for Nigerian broadcasting awards and the rest of the refs tell us he has been married 6 years and has one child. Nothing substantial that conveys any notability. The lack of in-line refs make this more difficult top judge but a review of all the external refs produced nothing of great merit. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and no indication from the article that this meets WP:BIO. OnionRing (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 7 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. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sukriti Kakar

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

Does not satisfy WP:BAND. Was previously CSD'd (June 9) and was deleted. Don't think she became notable or did notable things in a matter of 10 days. Nairspecht Converse 09:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 7 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey K. Miller

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

Failed BLPPROD and PROD. Child actress fails WP:NACTOR, and certainly fails WP:GNG (no in depth independent coverage). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to listing on IMDb has only one significant role in Just Add Magic and guest or co-starring roles in other series. WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" which she does not have. WP:GNG, which could override NACTOR, requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and all I can find in a basic search is passing mentions in articles about the shows she is in and interviews mostly talking about her characters. I couldn't find anything that had significant coverage of her as a person. I'd say WP:TOOSOON but probably worth giving it some time to see if GNG references can be found. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I am unimpressed with what we have, I think she passes the notability guidelines for actresses. I have found sources that cover her in ways that suggest that her role in Just Add Magic is so important and defining that she passes the notability threshold just on that. True, they are vacuous and hard to read if you hate vacuous writing, but she does get coverage. In 2016 a 36-minute long work entitled Wordplay was released, where she appears to have had the main role, or at least is listed first on the IMDb entry on it. We lack an article on the work, but that does not mean it is not enough to put her over the top. There is also the film Little Savages released earlier this year. We appear not to have an article on it, but I have found reviews, and Miller was in a role that got her listed on a cast list that had a total of 7 people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (emphasis mine) Even if you are claiming she passes the former (and I don't agree – Just Add Magic is really her only "significant" role, and even there she's a co-lead...), I don't think you can really say they she passes on the latter (e.g. "notable films, television shows") for the very reasons you outline. More to the point, there's the larger WP:GNG issue – she simply has had no significant independent coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My argument is that Just Add Magic and Little Savages are enough to establish multiple, significant roles. We do not need an article for something to be notable, Little Savages is notable, we just lack an article, and here role is clearly "significant" in that and in Just Add Water.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - On what level is Little Savages notable? There are literally zero reviews of it at Rotten Tomatoes. It has gone utterly unnoted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Everyone for your input. I'm really wanting to keep this person on Wikipedia, and I'm not close to her at all. I am a Neutral user trying to help this page get on Wikipedia with No Problems. If there is a way you could help me, I would really appreciate it. Once again, I really appreciate the feedback given above. Thanks! Dannywestmusic (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Like Dannywestmusic, I'm one who would want her to have an article in Wikipedia. I know she has been around the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon circuit in the last few years ... Austin & Ally, Sam & Cat, and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn. Unfortunately, she had minor roles in all those, and other shows and films she has been in have not shown a significant presence. Except for Just Add Magic, but that is only one significant role and it fails WP:NACTOR. And right now, gauging from what I'm seeing in Google searches, there is little, if any independent, significant coverage in reliable sources, so general notability is out, too. While I could also go with the TOOSOON argument, she has been in that state by Wikipedia standards for a few years now. She definitely needs a stand-out significant role on TV or in a film if she is going to get past that. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I have no problem saying that her role in Just Add Magic qualifies as one of the multiple roles needed under WP:NACTOR, but I cannot scrape up the second one. Her role in Little Savages is not inconsequential - she gets included in the short cast list on Amazon, her character appears in and is named in the trailer - the film itself is not notable. An apparent direct-to-video release (no MPAA rating), the film not only has no Wikipedia page, it has zero reviews at Rotten Tomatoes . It is unnoted and thus unnotable. I would not be surprised if this person crossed that notability horizon in not too long, and would certainly have no objection to the page being userfied. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I would have suggested Draftifying if there was likely to be more to the article. But the "proper" article is likely to be a two-sentence stub (with the Filmography table) which probably isn't worth keeping even as a Draft... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing actually convincing for her own notability, nothing else convincing overall. SwisterTwister talk 18:59, 15 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 00:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Management Plan

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

I cannot tell I am sure this should be deleted. Of course, right now it is a badly-written promotional piece and a look at the creator's contributions does not give a good impression, but those are not valid reasons for deletion.

A search for Commonwealth of Virginia "Emergency Management Plan" yields few results, most of which are educational institutions, and possibly false positives like this and that. The question is whether the "academic" sources are considered independent (they are from the uni's management, not from researchers), and whether there are enough of them for GNG. I tend to think not. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan is wrong. The article is not poorly written, the sources are legit, and the pieces has nothing to do with promoting a business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtDCollins2017 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CurtDCollins2017: The sources may be reliable (i.e. "legit") but the problem is that the notability of the subject is not established - Wikipedia simply does not cover everything that is true or verifiable. Only independent sources (without a close connection to the subject) can establish notability.

As for the WP:PROMOTION issues, they are not necessarily connected with monetary gain. The CoV employs a very comprehensive set of procedures (...) is promotional, for instance. And no, the article is not written in decent encyclopedic style, see e.g. Review of the documents leads me to conclude that (...) (and replacing "me" by "one" would hardly be better). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delet or stub I too cannot find WP:RS to support notability in the Wikipedia sense for this specific topic. But the article itself is mostly just a completely unsupported analysis and opinion essay about the topic, which fails to meet GNG even if the organization or other underlying subject itself did. DMacks (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research essay, unconvincing in terms of GNG. Sandstein 07:43, 29 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Shifidi

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

Assuming the article is correct (for some reason the NA sources lag forever and I cannot access them) this person is a councilor of Endola Constituency, population < 40k. That fails WP:NPOL by by a landslide. If someone tells me they can access the sources and they do establish notability by WP:GNG I will happily withdraw. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's note: I also think this can be reverted, if the AfD ends up deleting. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Between the article's lack of clarity and my own unfamiliarity with the structures of Angolan government, I had to check sources to determine whether "councillor for Endola Constituency" made him a local official on Endola's own local government body, or Endola's representative in the national legislature — but the sources confirmed that it's the former (local) body. But a local government body which governs just 36K people does not give its officeholders an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, and this isn't making a particularly strong claim that he's more notable than the norm — apart from the initial statement that he exists, this is just a campaign-brochure biography rather than a substantive analysis of his career in politics, and that's not how you get a local politician over the inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge to Endola Constituency. Could squeak past GNG, with a generous (for WP:SYSTEMICBIAS) interpretation of "in-depth" and heavy WP:MINEing, but to avoid making a WP:PERMASTUB the verifiable material could be added to the town's article (keep the election results, and add "Shifidi is former principal, low-level party official, and brother of Immanuel). Sources:

Brief reports that he was elected, [40] [41] [42] [43] minimal background like "former principal" & his age, and vote totals. He won by a landslide, and said he intended to build better roads.[44] Turnout was big, election was fair. [45][[46]]
Some coverage during campaign, with some encyclopedic info [47]
Interview about local issues relating to a drought [48]
Brief quote and photograph in this paper focusing on his brother's death
In a list as "believed to be in detention" [49] [50]
Wildcard: several paragraphs I (and Google Translate) can't understand. [51] [52] [53]

FourViolas (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nonotable. A merge to the constituency is absurd considering there are 7 other people holding the same position who arent mentioned at all. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely only also since there's nothing actually suggestive of his own independent notability, deleted and mentioned there suffices. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Channel email

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted at AfD in 2009 as a totally non notable concept mentioned in a single source. Current article was created in 2011 and has been tagged for notability since shortly after creation. Still no indication of notability other than the publication in which the term was coined. Since current article has existed since 2011, obviously CSD G4 is off the table. Safiel (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing seems to have changed since this was deleted last time. Vectro (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A topic proposed in a single paper is not notable. No objection to a brief cited mention in email or spamming. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any evidence of notability. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 19:02, 14 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. Sandstein 06:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic Ashram

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

Non-notable organisation. Clear cut and paste. The Banner talk 17:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a strong feeling (but no proof) that is AfD is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedic Institute of Canada. The Banner talk 20:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added better content and explanations.

SNOW delete This clearly is a re-creation of the previously deleted article on the the Vedic Institute of Canada, and it suffers from the exact same deficiencies: absolutely zero sources to establish the notability of the group and garbled content in broken English that is just barely unintelligible enough to demonstrate that it is a blatantly promotional sales pitch for the business, utterly lacking is encyclopedic information or tone. Two of the four sources provided are non-RS webpages attached to the business and the other two have absolutely no relation to the topic of this article.

The authors of this article clearly hoped that they could copy and paste their previously deleted advert article and then fly it under the radar by sticking two actual notable terms ("vedic" and "ashram") together to create a notable-sounding topic. But this article is clearly not about either Vedic traditions broadly, nor about ashrams or monasticism, as is clear by the second line of the lead through every other word of the article, which is essentially a replication of a business webpage, violating numerous content policies. This one is a no-brainer, and at this point it may be necessary to start looking at the behaviour of the authors of this content, who clearly either do not understand or do not care to respect Wikipedia's policies regarding promotional materials and notability requirements. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:23, 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 redirect to Islamic schools and branches. There is near-unanimous consensus to not keep this as a stand-alone article. Opinion is somewhat more split between outright deletion and redirect. Going with the redirect, partly on strength of numbers, partly because of WP:ATD, and partly because that's what this was historically.

One of the points of contention here is what specific meaning the word denomination has, in the context of Islam. As near as I can make out from the discussion here, it has a less specific meaning in Islam than it does in Christianity, but there's no real consensus on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim denominations

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

This page duplicates Islamic schools and branches primarily, but also Islam by country to a certain extent. "Muslim denominations" has been a redirect for years, until this Turkish IP user converted the redir into what it is now. I have seen this IP frequently edit pages that list Islamic subgroups, such as Template:Islamic theology, and seems to be oblivious about the common English definition of "denomination" (see this discussion). Islamic schools and branches is the main list for the classification of Islamic subgroups, having gotten its current title after discussions several years ago. Eperoton and I agree that Muslim denominations is a redundant page and should be reverted to a redirect, but the IP needs convincing. Hopefully this AfD will do. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. The content is copied from other articles and a quick review of dictionaries confirms that the term "denomination" doesn't have a specific meaning beyond Christianity to distinguish it from "schools and branches". Eperoton (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
but consider this issue: Islamic schools and branches is too long and does not tell anything about the Muslim denominations immediately. The reader has to spend a lot of time to understand what the Muslim denominations are. Islamic schools and branches give a lot of information about the all type of schools and denominations but it does not give the answer quickly if the person is asking what these denominations are...212.253.113.70 (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 212.253.113.70 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And guess who made it that long? It would save thousands of bytes if you would have used a WP:BULLETLIST instead of sub-sub-sub headers, and if you would've simply used a link in the main text instead of calling Template:Main for each subsection. - HyperGaruda (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per rational here[54] by 212.253.113.70 and there are ample citations in Google scholar[55], news[56], newspapers[57] etc. Denominations exist within Islam such as Sunni Islam is the world's largest religious denomination followed by Roman Catholicism. Such denominations should not be covered under Islamic schools and branches. Drikulaeri (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drikulaeri: One simple question: what is the difference between a branch and a denomination? - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most common term, judging from phrase counts in Google books, is "the Sunni sect", followed by "the Sunni branch", followed by "the Sunni denomination", and I see no evidence that these terms are used differently in RSs. We don't create separate articles for synonyms of a word. Eperoton (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most Kazakh Muslims are Non-denominational Muslim. Drikulaeri (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relevance to this AfD discussion? Eperoton (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schools of Islamic theology and Sufism do not belong to the denominations. But, Sufism might be considered as part of Branches. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you will nevertheless find they are Sunnis.

Merge or redirect to Islamic schools and branches. Denominations is a term arising in Protestant Christianity and is far from ideal when applied to Islam. The merge target has tags on it about duplication. I would say that it is thoroughly appropriate to have an article giving an overview with "main" articles on particular topics. The mistake is to allow the overview article to become cluttered with detail that should be in the "main" ones. When this happens, an editor needs to Boldly prune the overview of excessive details, if necessary merging that to the "main" article. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just looked up RSs on the various uses of "denomination" for Religious denomination: Within Islam, it can refer to the branches or sects (Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya),^[1]^[2] as well as their various subdivisions such as sub-sects,^[3] schools of jurisprudence,^[4] schools of theology^[5] and religious movements.^[6]^[7] This range of use is basically identical to the scope of Islamic schools and branches. Eperoton (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Aaron W. Hughes (2013). Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam. Columbia University Press. p. 62.
^ Theodore Gabriel, Rabiha Hannan (2011). Islam and the Veil: Theoretical and Regional Contexts. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 58.
^ Aaron W. Hughes (2013). Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam. Columbia University Press. p. 129.
^ Muzaffar Husain Syed; Syed Saud Akhtar; B D Usmani (2011). Concise History of Islam. Vij Books India. p. 73.
^ Ali Paya (2013). The Misty Land of Ideas and The Light of Dialogue: An Anthology of Comparative Philosophy: Western & Islamic. ICAS Press. p. 23.
^ Joseph Kostiner (2009). Conflict and Cooperation in the Gulf Region. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 212.
^ Muhammad Moj (2015). The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies. Anthem Press. p. 13.

Comment - 2 : The information provided above is incorrect. Ash'ari alone which is aqida in Islam is not a denomination since there is no such group of people following this. Reference provides false information 212.253.113.70 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there's another policy you need to consult: WP:NPOV. Eperoton (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to recommend the IP to read WP:TRUTH. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's an unhealthy trend with lot of these Madhhab and Fiqh related articles that needs to be corrected, beginning with deleting the overlapping content. There are entire physics articles on Wikipedia with less word count and equations than certain subsections of some sub-sub-sub denomination and their obscure details. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an online seminary. cӨde1+6^TP 22:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schools of Islamic Theology

If you read the article on Amman Message, it gives an impression as if Maturidi and Ash'ari were "Muslim denominations". But this is not true since nobody calls himself as a member of Maturidi orAsh'ari alone. In order to define their denominations they have to define their own madhhabs as well. Otherwise, they will be non-denominational. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you glance at the template-Islam, you can easily see that the Denominations section is in contradiction with what is written in Islamic schools and branches article. The Schools of Islamic theology are mentioned and summarized in the Islamic schools and branches article, even though everybody knows that they are not Muslim denominations, but different denominations have something common with them. For example, a member of Hanafi denomination may have views or share some ideas of Maturidi or Ash'ari aqidah. Similarly, a member of Zaydi denomination may have views or share some ideas of Mu'tazili aqidah. Hence, we need Muslim denominations for details. When you click to denominations section in template islam, it automatically takes you to Islamic schools and branches article. This article includes things which are not related to Muslim denominations, therefore this links needs correction as well. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me again recommend reading WP:OR. You have been prolific in expressing your personal take on the meaning of the word "denomination" here and elsewhere, but personal opinions don't carry much weight around here. Eperoton (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to template - Islam they are not denominations, this is your announcement and template - Islam is well-protected, ıf they are really denominations why they are not listed in the template - Islam? 212.253.113.70 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to consult WP:RS. WP templates are not RSs. Whether or not that template needs changing is a discussion which belongs not here, but on its own talk page. Eperoton (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should be in contradiction with another Wikipedia item since all these article's contents are closely related with each other. Actually, people learn from Wikipedia pages when they continue to make heir contributions. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get far by sharing your opinions ex cathedra and disregarding WP policies. Eperoton (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd try to stay within the boundary of the previously approved Wikipedia articles and the template - Islam is restricting our actions. If you will express something which is in contradiction with the template - Islam you're supposed to make the necessary changes there first, I believe. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "approved" articled on WP. Sometimes an extensive discussion yields a WP:CONSENSUS. A quick perusal of the template's talk archives shows that it's not the case here. Eperoton (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Then. I thought we are restricted to these templates, because there was a long discussion in the past about this template. As a result of these discussions, they did considerable modifications on the Template:Religion topics, and they were very useful.

I've learned more than 90% my knowledge from Wikipedia pages. Also consider this: There were Hanafi denominations from Mu'tazila aqidah in the history even tough today all converted Maturidi & Ash'ari. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islamic schools and branches and protect. It is not apparent what the distinction between the topics might be, and we do not need WP:CFORKs. Sandstein 06:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic schools and branches provides false information about the M-denominations

Schools of Islamic Theology cannot be a part of M-denominations: Nobody calls themselves as Athari, Maturidi or Ash'ari when their denom. is asked. In addition, template:Islam concurs with tis notion.
Amman Message declares the officially recognized M-denoms as Eight. You can increase this number by adding some other minorities, who are not accepted by the declaration of the Amman Message.
Sufi tariqat cannot be included under the denominations since they are all sunni or Shi'ite.

Therefore Islamic schools and branches cannot be identical to Muslim denominations] 212.253.113.96 (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Denominations can be presented as a subset of the Islamic schools and branches page and the current re-working of the page goes a long way to eliminate the need of the M-denom page existing by itself. cӨde1+6^TP 15:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
severely Needed to KEEP Muslim denominations separately: Why will everybody read all of your staff under the schools as you claim, if they just wondering what those Muslim denominations are?

212.253.113.96 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic schools and branches article is inconsistent with the M-denominations section of Template:Islam: Denominations section does reflect the reality neither in Islamic schools and branches- article nor in Template:Islam, hence it is inconsistent with itself. In addition, Islamic schools and branches-article does tell nothing about the populations and their distribution around the globe. This is crucial if you are talking about the populations on the contrary to the schools.

212.253.113.96 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I voted for a merge/redirect above. I am not a Muslim and do not know the detail well. However, if articles and templates are inconsistent, the solution is to edit things so that they are consistent. If someone can provide a robust definition for "denomination" in a Muslim context, as something distinct from "Islamic (theological) schools of thought", then it will be acceptable to keep both, but they should be providing complimentary content, not repeating what the other says. If a robust distinction cannot be provided, then the articles should be merged, with one of the present names becoming a redirect to the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as all of this suggests it's best. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamic schools and branches. This doppelgänger serves no function.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 28 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 23:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Electric Corporation

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:COPYVIO if nothing else. This one is hard because there are a number of other companies with the same name, including one that presumably created the airplane mentioned in the article. I suspect the airplane was NOT built by this American Electric. To search on this it is necessary to add "culver city" to the search. Having done that, the only information I find is in newspapers and it is about various product recalls: here, here, and here. Unfortunately, in my searches I found this, and the current article is a straight copy from that, so it should be deleted for WP:COPYVIO. LaMona (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "america.pink" is a chinese site witch mirrors wikipedia content without attribution. No comment on the AFD, but this is not a copyvio; at least not from that site. Kuru (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references, including the brief product review in the NYT, do not demonstrate notability for the company itself, nor are my searches identifying anything better. AllyD (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no historical significance to this company. Two product reviews - food processor brands - mention this company only in passing - no noteworthy coverage of this company. Another article discusses a 1931 American Brown-Boveri Electric Company's electric division to be absorbed by some other company - that is not this company. Recall blurbs and heating pad blurb only mentions this company in passing. The airplane article is a 1931 newspaper article and that is not this company. The more current articles in the 1970's show only this company once existed. There is no indication of significant impact or notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also see this related (newly created) AfD - WP:Articles for deletion/American Food Processor. --Steve Quinn (talk) 01:20, 22 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sector7seven

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

Full disclosure: I created this article way back in April 2005. Based on our current guidelines, which were in their infancy and much more open to debate back then, this fails WP:MUSIC comfortably. Only claim to relevance is winning a contest run by MTV and eJay at the turn of the millennium which was not major in itself. Limited references, no major releases, no charting songs. Cannot delete myself as creating user as others have contributed over the past eleven (!) years. KaisaL (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources to add here. As such the act fails WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As our notability standards have got stricter over the years, this no longer satisfied GNG or WP:BAND. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:06, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lindum Group

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

Non notable and promotional. Regional firm/ The "awards" are merely "Best company to work for", a type of award which is entirely promotional, based on no clear criteria. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORP includes this, which is often forgotten: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." For a local-only company to meet WP:CORP something extraordinary has to be visible. I'm sure it's a perfectly good company, but it is not in any way encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I planned to comment sooner, there's still nothing minimally convincing of the needed substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:A WP:SPA article on a firm. Placing in a newsaper's "Best Companies to Work For" list may perhaps be worth noting within an article, but is not itself evidence of notability. Nor are my searches showing anything substantial: local coverage of routine announcements, planning disputes, an OFT list in 2008, etc. AllyD (talk) 13:33, 7 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Jurgensmeyer

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

Article relies entirely on self-published sources and unreliable sources (FamousBirthdays and IMDb). nyuszika7h (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Generates some sourcing "heat" for Legends of the Hidden Temple: The Movie and The Little Rascals Save the Day, but I'm inclined to think it's not enough. I lean in the direction of this being WP:TOOSOON here. But I won't vote yet, and could be persuaded otherwise, sourcing quality permitted... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need very good sources to keep articles on minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Ulch! I can't believe I'm saying this, but under Wikipedia's current (what I consider to be low) notability standards, I think Jurgensmeyer actually clears WP:NACTOR – among The Little Rascals Save the Day, Adventures in Babysitting (2016 film) and Legends of the Hidden Temple (2016 film), I think he's got it. I've added some mainline sourcing to the article to, and cut down on the promotional stuff. It's possible there's even more secondary sourcing out there (though I tend to doubt it). In any case, under the current "rules of the game", I think Jurgensmeyer is currently a "weak keep". (Failing that, this article would be a strong candidate for "Draftifying"...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are 1) his own site 2) a short article about him (good source) 3) the rest are name-checks. I don't find anything better in a quick search. (There is one St. Louis Dispatch article, but it's all quotes from him.) Too soon, plus, really, what is there to say in any depth about a child star? Let's hope he has a good career ahead of him. LaMona (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- By that standard it's "one and a half" (at least) – THR one is good, and the Variety one on Legend of the Hidden Temple is more than a "name check" and is a fair GNG ref. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. marginal. but there was this "Nashville, It's 'Jet's' World.(Malone, Janice. The Tennessee Tribune [Nashville, Tenn] 23 June 2016: 2B [58]) profile in a hometown paper in Nashville, with details from which bio can be sourced - first role was in his parent's dinner theatre. There another home state/regional paper wrote up a role he played when he was a 5-year-old Sharayah Daves lands big role in Alan Jackson video [59]), More coverage form when he was 5 (Concert at the Loveless benefits flood relief, The Tennessean [Nashville, Tenn] 06 May 2010. Chattanooga Times Free Press [Chattanooga, Tenn] 28 Aug 2009: H.23.) Most coverage of his more recent roles are mere mentions, but as user User:IJBall says, unless we are going to change the WP:NACTOR guideline, there is the fact that this can be sourced to RS, there is at least a some actual coverage (going back to minor child actor stints), and he has been in several bluelinked films. (btw, which one was "Spanky"?).E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NACTOR. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there's at least enough convincing for now. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 3 August 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) 05:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ines Temple

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. for (;;) (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom did not do WP:BEFORE. There are plenty of sources about Temple. I've added several to the article. These include both sources in Spanish and English. Anyone more fluent in Spanish than me can probably find a ton more in Spanish. Subject of the article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not passing mentions, or any old site that happens to have the topic's name in it, and certainly not Blogs. JMHamo (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Blogs from established news sources, like El Comercio (Peru) are reliable sources. She is written up fully, with a very in-depth profile in La Republica. Her book, as you can see if you look in the article itself, is a best-seller in Peru. These are all good for establishing notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with kudos to User:Megalibrarygirl for her WP:HEY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a leader in her field and a best-selling author. MurielMary (talk) 10:00, 24 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 keep. If a merge is still desired, a discussion can be started on the talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Town Council elections

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

This article is simply a brief sentence about how the Council's name changed (which is already covered in the Liverpool City Council article) and a list of around 40 redlinks. It will very likely be deleted, but I'm sending it to AfD because I don't speedy delete unless the article obviously qualifies. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to wait and see if the creator is going to create those articles before deciding that this would make sense to remove. It's a bit of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment, but current town council elections do have articles - see Hartlepool Borough Council election, 2002 - so there's precedent for the actual articles linked to exist. If they remain red-linked then definitely delete. KaisaL (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Will go with merge (with redirect) per User:Number 57. KaisaL (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Liverpool City Council elections It's the same organisation, just renamed when it got city status. Number 5 7 19:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a predecessor of Liverpool City Council elections, however I would suggest that the difference between a town and city council are significant. I am in the process of obtaining the data to fill the red links for this page. I have today added Liverpool Town Council election, 1879 which is almost complete. The references are links to scans of pages of the reference documents held on Google Drive. I have much of the data going back to 1845 and am working on completing this as much as can be done. The town council goes back to the 1830s and was itself preceded by a 'Common Council'. However, as I'm sure you all appreciate, it does take time to conduct proper research. If this page were to be merged with Liverpool City Council elections, the resultant page may better be named 'Liverpool Council Elections', however this would be inconsistent with the naming of the other election pages within the Local elections in Merseyside template. Considering the expansion of Liverpool (for example the 1895 expansion, see Liverpool City Council election, 1895 and subsequently, consistent parts of the current city previously had separate electoral arrangements, for example the Urban District Councils of Walton, Wavertree and West Derby. Therefore I think it is logical to keep Liverpool Town Council elections. Thank you for your considerations.Pat.moloney (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City status is less significant than changes in the structure of local government, such as the creation and abolition of metropolitan county councils. Councils that have only had city status more recently (Preston City Council elections and Sunderland City Council elections) don't have separate pages for when they were borough councils. The appropriate date to cut off is probably in the 1830s when Liverpool became a municipal borough. Peter James (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a prospect of populating the red links we should keep it.Rathfelder (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The links can and should be added to Liverpool City Council elections as it's the same organisation, just renamed. Number 5 7 18:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The justification for it being a page to include the links to the individual elections is the standard way we deal with this. I'm convinced by Pat.mahoney's argument DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 31 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Hustle

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

Non-notable recording artist. Zero mentions in any reliable source. Appears to be a vanity or promotional page for an unknown artist. Rockypedia (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N and WP:MUSICBIO. Finding no significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Heck, AFAICT the record company he's supposedly signed to doesn't even exist. Kolbasz (talk) 17:55, 7 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 redirect to MWA World Heavyweight Championship. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MWA World Heavyweight Championship (Ohio version)

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

This article has been redirected several times to MWA World Heavyweight Championship and reverted back, so I thought I'd bring it here for additional discussion and consensus. Apparently the MWA article is about the Kansas City version, which was different. Local world titles for the same organization seems ridiculous to me, but the point is that this article has no significant independent coverage. I don't really care whether this article is deleted or redirected, but there's nothing to show this should have its own article.Mdtemp (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:55, 21 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) 06:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Since the article has no significant independent coverage, it fails to meet WP:GNG. A redirect seems less harsh than outright deletion. Papaursa (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 7 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 redirect to Calcium sulfate#Other uses. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drierite

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

This has been around for many years but there are still no independent sources. It is a drying agent containing Gypsum. Nothing notable there and nothing notable in this article. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 17:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. ~~Delete~~ No independent sources that show any notability. I generally consider redirects with brand names like this, but I don't really see a obviously fitting article to redirect to either. DMacks pointed out below that it is mentioned (unsourced) at Calcium sulfate#Other uses, so that's probably the best place for now. It technically should redirect to [Anhydrite] based on the definition, but I'm fine if it redirects to at least one of the two articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calcium sulfate#Other uses. It's a fairly common name in chemistry (and some related fields) for this use-case of this chemical even if the brand-name itself isn't notable. DMacks (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the problem with brand names is finding articles on the history to distinguish them from the tens of thousands of mentions in Google Scholar and Google Books. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 7 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abacoa, Florida

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

Another article with the vast majority of content by a user who has created numerous articles on mostly non-existent pages, many, including this one, with USGS links to other places claiming to be links to this place. He didn't create this one, unlike the others, but he's the main contributor. Smartyllama (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a neighborhood or development in Jupiter, Florida. It had a USGS reference, which was false and I removed it. A GNIS search for "Abacoa" shows a Golf Course so named, but nothing by way of a populated place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article predates the user who introduced the bad USGS links, and it appears to be a major neighborhood of Jupiter; see here, for instance. At the least it should probably be merged to the Jupiter article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly not a hoax, based upon THIS, and thus an automatically notable populated place unless the case is made that this is an isolated, artificially contrived neighborhood and thus unworthy of coverage. That is not the case being made here. Consider my Keep opinion being provisional upon resolution of that issue. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 07:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a populated place. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This town meets WP:NPLACE. "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source". This and a few other reliable sources already cited in the article confirm that this place actually exists in Florida and isn't a hoax. Omni Flames (talk) 23:49, 16 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bel Air, Minot

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

Page about same supposed place was previously deleted as blatant hoax at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bel Air, North Dakota but seems to have resurfaced here. Get rid of it again. Smartyllama (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't the same place as the hoax article; that article was about a supposed city of 5,000 in Adams County, while this article is about a neighborhood of Minot (in Ward County) that has sources verifying its existence. The notability of the neighborhood is pretty borderline, but it is a real place. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As mentioned in a previous debate, this is a real inhabited place, not a hoax creation from thin air, thus the case for deletion being made falls flat. We have the lowest of possible bars to keeping articles on populated places; if a case is to be made that this neighborhood is not notable due to small size and artificial contrivance, that case needs to be actually made and opinions can be rendered at that time. As to the deletion rationale here, I believe that argument is not well taken. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Consider this withdrawn per above comments, since it appears this place is legit. Can an admin close this, please? Smartyllama (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 7 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FX School

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

Article about a private digital media institute. Sources consist of a press release and trivial mentions of the company. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 13:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable per WP:CORP, and I can only find a few passing mentions in WP:RS, not the substantial coverage you'd expect from a notable organisation. OnionRing (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-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 08:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no real evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 12 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. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extrême contemporain

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

Merged page; but merged for being non-notable and confusing (see Talk:Contemporary French literature#Merger discussion); @Pierre et Condat and V.rota:; non-notable indeed.- Trysta Xude (talk) 12:08, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 07:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:49, 21 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 03:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flow-through test

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

Article is pure commercial spam that just promotes the medical services and products of one company. All refs cited are to the company and any potentially useful text is not referenced. The article has been justifiably tagged as having been the product of WP:COI. Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs independent sources not those of the products manufacturers website. If appropriate sources are found no concern with recreation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with the same addendum as Doc James. --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an obvious piece of COI work, but (as is said above), if independent and significant sources are found later for what appears to be pin-prick blood testing, then OK with recreation. Kudos to M. A. Bruhn for bringing this article to a good state. Changing to Keep. Pinging @RexxS and Doc James: HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AfD is explicitly for deleting articles that cannot be improved through editing. This is a common enough point of care assay, with a well described history, and which is easy to find discussed by independent sources. I've gone ahead and deleted the medmira references, included new sources, and rewritten most of the article; as it is now there should be no more objections to keeping it. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is great work, it looks a lot better now. Based on these improvements I now am in favour of keep. - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : chapeau to M.A. Bruhn for addressing the concerns of the nomination by editing the article. DeVerm (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A successful fix. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That was a fast, quality de-COI-ification on M. A. Bruhn's part. Jergling (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bravo to M. A. Bruhn. There may be some ambiguity remaining in that non-clinical "flow-through assays" also exist (I added a MEDRS-compliant source discussing some), but that's a minor concern. Article as it stands approximately meets WP:MEDRS, with clinically relevant information cited to respected recent reviews. FourViolas (talk) 06:36, 7 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. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Singh

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

Delete or Redirect to Shorgul : I think it's too soon for an individual article as he only directed one film so far which is still to release plus I fail to find any independent reliable sources to support WP:NOTABILITY. Thank You – GSS (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animali In Calore Surriscaldati Con Ipertermia Genitale/Cat in Red

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 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. I think it's established that a mere listing on allmusic does not establish notability , and there does not seem to be anything else. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Souls: Folio A

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge. Has an entry at AllMusic and was announced at Exclaim.ca. There may be others. If anything, merge to the band's article. Woodroar (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources other than AllMusic and that is a bare listing, not even fan reviews. Acc. to Web of Mimicry, which is the band's label, they are founders of the label so it's almost a form of self-publishing. LaMona (talk) 23:46, 24 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. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Supersonic Vol. 1

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 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. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Le Mani Destre Recise Degli Ultimi Uomini

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds intriguing, but ... every source I found was a slight variation of every other source, ditto the content of this WP article. Their own web page isn't reachable at the moment. A listing of the article on the band's page seems sufficient. LaMona (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a quick google search found that there are reviews available that can be added and used for information references and to have a reception section Atlantic306 (talk) 17:50, 30 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xaphan: Book of Angels Volume 9

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has an entry at AllMusic and a staff review at Scene Point Blank. Woodroar (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above DISEman (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 07:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:49, 21 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 (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Path of Most Resistance

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

Does not appear to satisfy notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has an entry at AllMusic and was reviewed in The Skinny. Woodroar (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one review and an entry at Allmusic does not establish notability. I tried to find more - it doesn't exist. Rockypedia (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Secret Chiefs 3.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 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 merge to Secret Chiefs 3. A single review is not significant coverage. czar 05:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book M

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has an allmusic review which counts as a reliable sourceAtlantic306 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on band. The AllMusic entry is a reliable source but I'm unable to find any professional reviews. Woodroar (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 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 merge to Secret Chiefs 3. czar 05:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes of Flesh, Eyes of Flame

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on band. The AllMusic entry is a reliable source but I'm unable to find any professional reviews. Woodroar (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 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 redirect to Secret Chiefs 3. And merge whatever is deemed appropriate from the history. Sandstein 07:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second Grand Constitution and Bylaws: Hurqalya

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

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on band. The AllMusic entry is a reliable source but I'm unable to find any other professional reviews. Woodroar (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 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. czar 23:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Regen

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

Non-notable company; promotion by affiliated churches (or callouts from unaffiliated blogs and such) does not substitute for significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched [60], [61], [62] and cannot find sources. Not even sufficient sources to suggest recirect/merge to sponsoring Church's web page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 14 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 22:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hellointern

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

I had PRODded this with the rationale "Does not pass WP:CORP or WP:N only one of the sources is about the company, the rest are columns by company employees. No significant coverage for the finding either." The article was deleted but then restored after that as a contested PROD. I think the same rationale still applies. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The website receives good web traffic and there are sources that are relevant in its country of origin. An equivalent website based in the U.S. would, probably, be overwhelmingly kept and I think it's important to avoid cultural bias. There seems to be slightly too little coverage to keep it, but I'd not object to it. KaisaL (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:57, 21 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. Sandstein 07:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The West European Symphony Orchestra

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

You would have thought an orchestra with such an illustrious title would be an easy article to improve, but that turns out not to be the case. In fact, I came up with a complete blank when searching for truly independent sources for the orchestra aside from a few passing mentions in some Portuguese news pieces (and even then I'm not sure as to what quality of news that is), and I have to wave a white flag and declare it "unrepairable". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too found some scattered articles in Portuguese that mentioned this orchestra, but this orchestra was not the focus of any of them. Without any sources to establish reliability, I also recommend a delete. Rockypedia (talk) 03:46, 7 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.

[1] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm1249950/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

[2] ttp://www.unaff.org/2011/files/UNAFF2011-program-full.pdf

[3] ttps://www.idfa.nl/industry/tags/project.aspx?id=188e1fc0-5e94-4e95-a019-e7883b443a55&tab=dfs

[4] Aaron W. Hughes (2013). Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam. Columbia University Press. p. 62.

[5] Theodore Gabriel, Rabiha Hannan (2011). Islam and the Veil: Theoretical and Regional Contexts. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 58.

[6] Aaron W. Hughes (2013). Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam. Columbia University Press. p. 129.

[7] Muzaffar Husain Syed; Syed Saud Akhtar; B D Usmani (2011). Concise History of Islam. Vij Books India. p. 73.

[8] Ali Paya (2013). The Misty Land of Ideas and The Light of Dialogue: An Anthology of Comparative Philosophy: Western & Islamic. ICAS Press. p. 23.

[9] Joseph Kostiner (2009). Conflict and Cooperation in the Gulf Region. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 212.

[10] Muhammad Moj (2015). The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies. Anthem Press. p. 13.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italiaonline}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romina palmisano}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Deegan (meteorologist)}}