Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 September	3 September >

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 speedy delete by Jimfbleak as unambiguous advertising (G11).(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Durso

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

Most sources are either self-made, or by his dealer. Eat me, I'm a red bean (t • c) 23:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Schulze

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

Very minimal notability. There is a lack of genuine significant third-party sources. Searches turn up nothing significant. Article claims, which are largely not referenced, seem inflated. New Media Theorist (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What New Media Theorist says. (And I wonder about the appropriateness of the article Public Delivery, too.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you Hoary about P.D. One deobfuscation at a time! New Media Theorist (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per New Media Theorist's arguments. --Theredproject (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. To merge at this time, that is. Clearly nobody considers deletion. Sandstein 17:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Centauri Bc

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

The original researchers are not confident about their discovery, and this source indicates that there have been no follow-up surveys to corroborate. Until Bc is confirmed, it should stay as a sub-section of the Alpha Centauri page. Primefac (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So by that logic, Alpha Centauri Bb should also be deleted, due to lack of certainty. It was only five months ago, no one has had a chance to do a follow-up survey. It's certainly notable for being one of the two closest exoplanets along with its fellow planet. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bb has been confirmed, as far as I am aware, though you are free to nominate it for deletion. If no one has had a chance to do a follow-up survey then it is TOOSOON for an article on Bc. Primefac (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so we would convert this to a redirect to the section? (Merge and redirect) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There's nothing that can be said about this planet except a couple of sentences and a data table. That can certainly go in a subsection rather than requiring a separate article. If/when more information becomes available then a split can be considered. Note that this reasoning does not apply to Bb, which has had an awful lot written about it. Modest Genius ^talk 13:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a planet. Planets should be considered notable enough for their own articles, even if the information about them is scarce and this one probably is mostly harmless. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NASTRO would beg to differ with that assessment, never mind the fact that it doesn't even meet WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant quotation from NASTRO is 'The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability'. Modest Genius ^talk 10:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I am usually a fan of separate pages for interesting exoplanets but there is so little about this potential candidate that I do not see the point of having it forked. As a proof, the current article contains absolutely no specific details about this potential candidate. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Nergaal has summarized this well so I'll just point upward. The article is a textbook merge case, and it's not even fully confirmed. KieranTribe 11:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a planet it should have a separate page. What would this be merged into anyways? The already crowded Alpha Centauri page? It needs references though. We can't even tell if this was even detected or if this is just a troll. If there are no references or evidence that someone even detected this than it should be deleted. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbuddy9, you seem to have contradicted yourself, but to answer your questions: yes, this would be "merged" into Alpha Centauri, but seeing as all of the relevant information (including the two references I listed in my original post) is already there it's really nothing more than turning it into a redirect. At the moment there is one team of researchers who think they might have possibly found something, but have not conclusively determined it (and there have been no followup surveys of the star). Primefac (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Its is clear that there is no information about the planet. However I don't want it to turn out the same as how Gliese 581 g and d were merged into Gliese 581. That was a disaster because all the parameters and info about the object's were lost. However since this object has no parameters it as much of isn't a concern. I do not like to support the idea of merging planets into its star(s) page because of that incident. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair enough. That seems like a completely reasonable concern. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Until Bc is confirmed, it should stay as a sub-section of the Alpha Centauri page." That quote is an invalid point, just because its unconfirmed doesn't mean it should be deleted. Should we put all the pages for KOI's up for AfD if this is the reason? QuentinQuade (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is suggesting that the information should be deleted, just merged into another article. Comparing to KOIs isn't really relevant, because we're considering one single instance rather than a list of many hundreds. Modest Genius ^talk 10:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Instead of deleting the article more information should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.21.115 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there ISN'T more information available. That is the whole point of this AfD. Nergaal (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alpha Centauri B per WP:MERGEREASON #3. Praemonitus (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to note, Drew ex Machina has some info about this object that I have applied to the page. This contradicts the statement(s) that there is no information about the exoplanet. -Davidbuddy9 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful here. All of the available information is being drawn from a single source: Demory et al (2015). There is no other information available since nobody else has confirmed it. Even the original authors saw only one transit-like event. Praemonitus (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is clear that there are reliable sources with information about this exoplanet. I would not suggest merging as all this information about this planet will be lost as pointed out by Davidbuddy9. We've seen all the disaster mergers regarding the Gliese 667 C and Gliese 581 systems, just a brief mention everything else was lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.36.31 (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A poorly implemented merge is not a reason to avoid any further mergers; it's a reason to correct that merge. Praemonitus (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Paterson (presenter)

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a radio host associated exclusively with a single mid-sized media market. This does not satisfy our inclusion standards for broadcasters — a radio personality needs to have a national profile, such as being on the CBC or airing nationally in syndication, or at least be reliably sourceable as getting over WP:GNG on pure volume of available sourcing. But neither of those have been demonstrated or even attempted here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've seen the occasional references to him made by reliable sources, in my own searching, but he seems to fall below the bar of notability as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find anything about him. I assume that there may be sources that cover his local market area, so I'll check back to see if anyone closer to the "Maritime region" (wherever that is! - there are, after all, two coasts) finds anything. LaMona (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Canadian context, "Maritimes" is reserved specifically for the east coast provinces of NB, PE and NS, rather than the "left coast" in BC. Just so you know for future reference. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see WP:RS that would cause this subject to pass WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing more than two links (news article and and a radio website) and thus no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Futurama characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes Conrad

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

This article is made up of plot description only, and there are only two references cited. Such information is better suited to a fan-based Wikia. It is difficult to tell if Hermes Conrad is actually notable, because there is no real world coverage present. A merge to the character list is possible, but there may be some detractors. Notability is not inherited, and having a significant role in a work of fiction does not automatically make a character notable.

eg.: In the Castlevania franchise, the Belmonts all play important roles, but many of them, including Simon, do not have their own Wikipedia articles. DJ Autagirl (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll point out that this could be merged or redirected to List of Futurama characters. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this is common with characters and may be best. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Futurama characters. The article appears to have little or no real-world perspective. –anemone projectors– 16:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept overwhelmingly -- Y not? 17:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Davis (county clerk)

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

For all her presence in the news over the past few days, I just don't see how she has attained any kind of enduring or permanent notability as a topic that should be permanently enshrined in an encyclopedia — she's a low-level county official (not a level of office that satisfies WP:NPOL) who's gotten a brief blip of media coverage which just makes her a WP:BLP1E. It's a core principle of Wikipedia that we are not a news site — every single person who happens to get into the news for a couple of days does not automatically become somebody we should maintain an article about. ~~Delete~~. Redirect to Miller v. Davis, per our binding policy about writing about a BLP1E in an article about the event rather than a standalone biography of the person as a separate topic from the event. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ Keep for now. Obviously notable as a figure discussed far and wide, and there's no time limit on notability. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've eased my position somewhat. If this blows over very quickly, then a redirect/merge may be called for. I don't want to get out a crystal ball, but I see no harm in keeping the article, given the propensity already demonstrated by this individual to continue blowing up this controversy. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This Stand in the Schoolhouse Door moment will come and go, but I think that it will likely have a legacy akin to other, past stands by hard-line government officials. As stated above, notability doesn't have a time limit. Having said that, it's the event that's the center of everything and not the person, so I do feel like some kind of shifting about may be in order. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't meet WP:BLP1E because it has to meet all three conditions, and it does not meet #3: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. She is the George Wallace of our time, standing in that doorway. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is it about her that requires us to maintain a BLP of her and an article about Miller v. Davis as two separate topics, considering there's virtually nothing even remotely noteworthy that we can actually say about her outside the context of Miller v. Davis in particular? Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONEEVENT, In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. ... If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. In this case, I think those parameters are met. Details about her four marriages are not at all related to Miller v. Davis. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was wondering about this myself, but discovered, as others have said above, that keeping is easily justified by the third condition of the BLP1E guideline. This is a very notable event which has been covered in multiple news articles, and her role within the event is primary, therefore a biography is appropriate. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Maybe merge later, but it looks like she will go down in history as a minor character in the gay marriage debate, and there's plenty of refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - First, Bearcat, you neglected to notify me of this AfD nomination. The subject of the article is at the center of a historic series of events directly related to the most significant civil rights legal case of the past 40-plus years. BLP1E exists so that we don't have articles about little Johnny who scored in three high school football games and was arrested one weekend for drunk driving. It exists so that we don't have trivial articles about private citizens private lives. Specific to the criteria of BLP1E, (#1) Has the subject been covered in reliable sources outside of the current series of events? Yes - [1][2]. (#2) Is the subject likely to remain a low profile person? No, she's already a public figure, a politician, and she has taken her fight to SCOTUS. She will be remembered in history books for her unlawful activism and for obstructing the constitutional rights of US citizens. (#3) Is the event significant or is the individual's role substantial and well documented? Obviously. There are 841,000 Google news hits for "Kim Davis"+"Rowan County", a strong indication that the subject is of significant notability as required by WP:BASIC. Every major news source has covered the subject, some in exhaustive detail. - MrX 22:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notification is not required. Notification is only a courtesy when there is only one major contributor of an article, which is not the case here. The fact that you responded to the AfD within 2 hours after the AfD started is good evidence that the notification was not needed. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This case, and this individual's likeness are becoming very well known all over the world. While other public officials have taken similar stances, this one shines out because her case has gone to SCOTUS, and because her own tangled marriages invite comment on her wider moral stance. That last point, more than the first, is making this case colourful and memorable. Also, this looks like growing longer legs, given the upcoming court appearances, which we may be confident will attract heavy media attention. We're not a newspaper, but this whole affair is already well beyond being a footnote to history. --Pete (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"[T]his one shines out because her case has gone to SCOTUS" is incorrect and misleading. I see quite a few online publications making similar incorrect and misleading assertions. About 10,000 writs of certiorari are filed annually with the US Supreme Court, and I don't know how many other motions of various types. Anybody can file a writ of certiorari or a motion for a stay. Almost all are denied, as was this one. This doesn't make anything notable. The Supreme Court did not hear her case at all. Quite likely, none of the justices even read her emergency brief — there's no way any of them could read 10,000+ briefs annually. Only their law clerks read most of them. Rahul (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your clarification. However, on looking at today's New York Times, I find Ms Davis on the front page, and the paper is calling her "a national symbol"[3] – that's a pretty good reason to keep this BLP, I reckon. --Pete (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand the nominator's concerns about WP:BLP1E, but I think it's pretty obvious that Kim Davis herself is now getting coverage that's beyond the scope of rule 3, which says "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." It's pretty obvious that her role is significant and well documented. The Guardian has written an article about her history leading up to becoming a clerk ([4]) and there's been coverage comparing this to the schoolhouse stand. I think that's well beyond the requirements to keep. Nomader (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have no words to counter this immature afd nomination. Reasons mentioned in WP:PEOPLE are quite self explanatory. --Badnaam (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to have a different opinion on the keepability of this article than I do, which is why the process allows for debate. But you most certainly are not allowed to dismiss my perfectly legitimate different opinion as "immature". Read WP:CIVIL and watch your mouth, because I will file an WP:RFC if you insult me again. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was being very polite but given your choice of words, I would like to add that your nomination is not just immature, it is entirely stupid, ignorant, idiotic and waste of time and energy of all involved. If you have got a lot of free time to kill, I'd suggest that you try not to waste time and resources of others too. --Badnaam (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was made in good faith and reflects a reasonable interpretation of the policy, even though I disagree with it. If your best counterargument is to insult the nominator then there's no point in even participating in the discussion. - Mr X 12:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Will somebody please WP:SNOW this and put this AfD out of its misery? Victor Victoria (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a story that seems far from over with more information quickly coming out and has already, in the eyes of what seems a unanimous majority, met the criteria of notability. Her marriage history, and the SCOTUS cases, merit this. Everyone else is making this argument far better than I. 172.90.226.8 (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As everyone has already proved above quite clearly, the article is obviously notable per all accepted procedures and guidelines. I really don't understand this rush to deletion that people keep trying to push through now seemingly every time one of these things comes up, which it seems is almost inevitably followed by a speedy keep, whether it be one of these police shootings, or who knows what not. It seems to me like there needs to be a better procedure in place so we don't keep wasting time on this continuous merry-go-round of deletion discussions that just waste time, and also discourage people who may wish to work on the article but worry that they're just wasting time because it might simply just be deleted anyway. (And yes, I suppose I put one too many "waste times" in there.) ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's obvious BLP1E. Everything she is known for is related to the gay marriage issue and while it's a big deal in the 24 hour news cycle, it won't even be a trivial pursuit question in 10 years. Pure WP:RECENTISM. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close now: I appreciate the purpose of the AfD, but we've done this a million times. We can revisit in six months and if it warrants merger elsewhere, it is always decided more calmly when at a distance from the original coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As online news publications come under increasing pressure to attract hits, they more and more feature controversial stories that are, in the long run, of little or no consequence. Ten years ago, a person like Kim Davis might have been mentioned in a tiny column in the back pages of newspapers. Today she is front-page news, not because her role is of any importance, but because people like to read gossip about other people, and she is connvenient fodder for meaningless gossip. Furthermore, most published articles about her, while overtly reporting the facts, are in almost every case opinion columns disguised as journalism. If Wikipedia keeps a page for her, it will remain there long after Kim Davis fades away in the public consciousness. I don't think Wikipedia should dignify this situation, and add to it, by having maintaining a separate page about Kim Davis. Let the event speak for itself and keep the person out of it beyond mentioning her role in the event. Rahul (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This woman is notable: her case has gone to the Supreme Court as well as the 6th Circuit Court. Keep also per Nomader's comment and WP:People. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 04:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"[H]er case has gone to the Supreme Court" is incorrect and misleading. Please see my more detailed response above that begins with: "[T]his one shines out because her case has gone to SCOTUS" is incorrect and misleading. Rahul (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Very notable, and she's doing all she can to remain so, and RS document it. Being the subject of a Supreme Court decision/order is rather powerful evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Being the subject of a Supreme Court decision/order" is incorrect and misleading. Please see my more detailed response above that begins with: "[T]his one shines out because her case has gone to SCOTUS" is incorrect and misleading. Rahul (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP She is wrong but it is a story which will be of interest in the future, just as Governor Wallace's ridiculous rant in the schoolhouse door is memorable and should remain findable in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.159.77 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's the allusion I was searching for. I was a young child when it happened so I couldn't remember who it was. - Mr X 15:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To apply WP:BLP1E and delete is to stretch both the second and third criteria. The controversy is, at least for now, notable in its own right. Also, by consciously taking a public religious stand, rather than allowing one of her deputies to issue the licenses in her name, she has, at least for now, become a high-profile individual. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's in the news on multiple continents. She was just jailed for contempt of court, the first person to be sanctioned after the SCOTUS ruling. Clearly notable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources, which is distinct to the coverage the case has gotten. Easily meets the notability requirements of WP:BASIC. Tiller54 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strongly agree with the above poster. Kim Davis is a highly noteworthy manifestation of a movement, the Christian right, which will continue to influence American politics and society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyzex (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per most of the arguments above. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deciso

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

Self-promoting page for non-notable company. Majority of references are primary, unreliable, or one-sentence mentions and are breaking all possible rules and guidelines including WP:GNG. Mnlth (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated above, notability is not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost entirely primary sources, plus the contents of the sources is "business as usual". Non-notable company. LaMona (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than press releases and the amount of that concerns me so there's nothing to suggest better signs of notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to clearly fail WP:CORP and WP:GNG. No significant coverage, refs are not WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palagonia double homicide

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

newspaper. reddogsix (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wealth of coverage. This is not an ordinary crime because there are reprisals, and reactions from the country's legislators. Many American crimes get similar coverage and get articles. Just because most of this coverage is in Italian does not negate that it is well covered. It is also being covered in top-bracket English-language sources including Yahoo, Telegraph, Guardian, and Reuters. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition: I found Spanish-language sources which say about politicians wanting the migrant centre in question to be shut down. While this is expected reaction from politicians in nationwide populist parties who have no connection to the area, it's also being said by the town's mayor. There is nationwide political influence in this crime because blame (rightly or wrongly, I'm not here to judge) is being put on the government, who have explicitly reacted. Then there's the local influence that there is now unrest in the town and the camp has been ordered by the mayor to close. But that local story also becomes an international story because of the range of refugees from across the globe staying there. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note The above comment are from the article creator. By the way, the Google News link you misleadingly posted contains stories relating to all news about Palagonia, not just about this crime... AusLondonder (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It appears that the event has picked up a strong socio-political dimension that's pretty notable, and that's the kind of thing that establishes a legacy for such events beyond mere bits of news. As stated above, a lot of the coverage is in Italian and may be easy to miss at first for English language editors as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:CoffeeWithMarkets. Note that this incident is one in a recent series of articles in which crimes that happen to be committed by recent immigrants inflame an anti-immigration response, see: 2012 Paros (Greece) rape, 2015 Ikea murders and Shooting of Kathryn Steinle.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- E.M.Gregory Funny how the Paros case was also nominated for deletion around the same time, with the rationale starting with it apparently failing WP:GNG, and then turning into a rant saying that the article only existed because the rapist was Muslim, put his status as an illegal immigrant in scaremarks (convicted rapists are illegal, full stop). There was also a strawman/other stuff argument to write an article about every single rape in England, because this one by a Pakistani received another media attention for an article which most by anyone doesn't get. Somebody has an axe to grind. It's like asking for an article on every single person shot by law enforcement just because some get more media attention than others, or an article on every child who drowned because one now has an article due to media coverage. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs '''tAD''' (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Did not generate lasting coverage. Another abusive attack by User:The Almightey Drill, this time behind by back, in total violation of WP:NPA. Quotation marks are not "scaremarks". No one has an axe to grind, so take off your tin foil hat. This is about basic editorial standards. Given you are the creator of this article and defender of others, maybe you have an axe to grind. I am considering referring you to ANI over suggesting yet again that editors are engaged in bad faith defence of rapists. AusLondonder (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take it somewhere else -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment The editor above who suggests other editors have an "axe to grind" has a record of creating articles about Islam and immigration related controversies, some now deleted. No editor has more of an axe to grind than The Almightey Drill. Apart from creating weird article about, for example Clown porn the editor has created the following:
Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015
- and its incredibly negative reception '''tAD''' (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Bonehill-Paine (failed far-right candidate)
- He is and I wrote why '''tAD''' (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Killing of Palmira Silva (murderer *happened* to be Nigerian born, very little lasting coverage)
- See below for how fucking stupid you are about this '''tAD''' (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alvin Tan (blogger) (anti-Islam blogger)
- I wrote how much he is thought of as a moron by his peers '''tAD''' (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2014 Dijon attack
- It happened, I wrote of it neutrally '''tAD''' (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2014 Endeavour Hills stabbings
2014 Australian counter-terrorism raids
- Ditto '''tAD''' (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom and ISIL
- Every man and his dog has written about ISIL, does this article have an agenda? '''tAD''' (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
National Action (UK) (neo-Nazi protest group)
- I wrote of their opposition and failure '''tAD''' (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Party (incredibly obscure right-wing party)
- LOLOLOLOLOLOL EVERYONE IS RIGHT-WING!!!!!!!!! '''tAD''' (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are suggesting by remarking on the similar timing of the nominations. I assume you are simply engaging in more smearing without evidence. There is no doubt that the Greek rape was only given an article because the criminal was an immigrant and a Muslim. AusLondonder (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Roman Party is not right wing. The Silva murder shut off a part of London and made headlines. Silva herself was born abroad and the article refutes the Sun's theory that it was an Islamist attack. My articles are neutrally written, writing about topics does not equal endorsement. Most are resoundingly about criticism of right-wing figures and groups. So jog on. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your guilt by association accusation is not exactly that well thought out. Please tell me how creating an article on a bloke in Reading who likes Romans or the accurate account of a (white) criminal from Yeovil is having an axe to grind. Anti-paranoia medication may be available '''tAD''' (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- The Greek rape received attention because the criminal was just that, which put their fascist party into action. Just because such inequalities in news coverage happens, doesn't mean it has to be ignored '''tAD''' (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit my comments. You have no idea about how Wikipedia works, do you? "The Silva murder shut off a part of London and made headlines" - WP:NOTNEWS. You have written an extraordinary level of articles relating to Islam and immigration related controversies, often POV Pushing. The Roman Party is remarkably obscure and also right-wing "send teenage parents back to school" and "when in Rome, do as the Romans". Don't forget you started this by accusing me of defending a rapist, having an axe to grind and suggested badfaith motives. I therefore find it remarkable you would recommended "anti-paranoia medication" for me! You jog on sad (personal attack removed).. AusLondonder (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your posts, not edited them, you (Personal attack removed) '''tAD''' (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have written an even more remarkable amount of stuff on other subjects, and you still haven't pointed out any example of me writing a biased article on immigrants, nor has anybody else ever tagged one as such. Do you endorse everything you write about? What agenda was I pushing on the Roman Party, to begin with – a French eccentric who has entered elections, hardly someone MI5 has their tabs on. I'm not even sure if you're trolling with some of this logic and contrarian remarks: you said I was editing pro-Bonehill, I said I made the article an accurate reflection of how the majority of sources are on his political failures and criminal history. Then you called me awful and BIASED AGAINST HIM. You can't make your mind up, you just want to be like a yappy little Yorkshire terrier winding me up. Well, politics means absolutely jack shit to me, especially if my neutrally written articles get this kind of ludicrous reception from random nobodies, so take me to ANI and I'll gladly get a topic ban on ALL politics, ALL religion and avoid ever coming across you again! I'll fucking love it m8. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you take the WP:NOTNEWS argument to all other crimes which end up on this website? Where do you draw the line between "news" and "event"? Amount of coverage? Length of coverage? Amount of factors of discussion? Or "I don't like it" '''tAD''' (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The crime has received major coverage, of which a good portion in English from major newspapers. The event is in nearly all cases reported as part of the broader issue of immigration to Italy (WP:NOTNEWS), which is arguably the biggest source of concern in the country right now, likely to even decide the next election. The article is neutrally written (I was expecting the worst) and the sources reliable, it might be helpful to add a few reliable liberal-leaning sources as well (the Guardian, BBC news...) for balance but even at this time it answers notability and neutrality requirements. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I known, this is an awkward article for pro-immigrants, however this event meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not for AfD pages -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't think the esteemed gentleman is pro-immigrant, just a control freak. He deleted my responses to his false accusations and has accused me of bias that nobody else has seen in 45k edits. I write neutrally, is he saying everyone who ever wrote about x supports x? Fkn mental m8 '''tAD''' (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of bias first, bad faith and effectively supporting rapists. Truly disgusting lies. If you keep up this shameful abuse, such as "anal retentive sack of shit" I will take this to ANI. AusLondonder (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After you swore at me...you really are an odd one. And tell me how creating an article equals endorsing it. I'd keep an eye on whoever edits the holocaust in that case. Funny bloke '''tAD''' (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You swore at me first. Unbelievable level of hypocrisy. AusLondonder (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol nope. And why did you remove my responses? I didn't edit what you wrote, I signed my own work. You are living ina bubble of victimhood, snap out of it. No wonder you want a bit of authority, you strike me as someone who got a fair bit of flak at school, to put it lightly '''tAD''' (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A reminder to please limit the discussion to the topic itself, and to comment upon content, rather than contributors. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is more than just a passing news story. The first reference alone, the Telegraph article, describes a political impact of sufficient significance to warrant a Wikipedia article. Edgeweyes (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have added even more sources (in Italian) that the migrants apart from the criminal himself found this attack appalling, and that the locals felt that Italy's furthest right party was exploiting a tragedy. Seriously, anybody who feels this article was written with bias fails WP:COMPETENCE and I'm not sure if people of such judgement should be allowed outside unaccompanied. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another pathetic attack in violation of WP:NPA. I didn't say this particular article was biased, nor did I say a large number were. I meant you have a pattern of writing about Islam and immigration related controversies of borderline notability, such as Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 AusLondonder (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability. Wide range of good reliable sources and news coverage. AlbinoFerret 19:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikinews per WP:NOTNEWS, until sustained coverage demonstrates notability (which is different from newsworthiness). Incident is less than a week old. Miniapolis 22:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If there's an ongoing personal war going on between contributors, then can some administrators or something seriously take that to another place where it can be hashed out? We're still in the midst of a reasonable discussion on if the article should be kept or not. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - I will voluntarily withdraw from all subject areas where I am likely to encounter said editor. It is a small amount of my Wiki interests. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have ceased replying to the nasty and vicious personal attacks in-kind but I would welcome the conduct of the other editor being raised at ANI. Totally unprompted, the editor began attacking my character and accusing me of bad faith and having an unspecified 'agenda'. The vile personal attacks such as "anal retentive sack of shit" and "you strike me as someone who got a fair bit of flak at school" are just childish and juvenile insults you would expect from a teenager. For an editor to manage to get this angry about deletion nominations is a serious concern AusLondonder (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The crime has received major coverage and passes. WP: N. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears to meet GNG through its coverage. Rubbish computer 19:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Las Brisas condominium

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

Non-notable condominium in Ottawa. Other than local coverage about a single incident with a resident, searches on Google, News, Newspapers and JSTOR revealed nothing significant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Open-and-shut case of an article about a subject that's not notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not about a single resident, it is about a condominium building which faced a special assessment of $65,000 per owner in ~~January 2014~~ 2013:

the old board was ousted by the condominium’s owners and new board members elected. The owners revolted because the old board did not consult with them before agreeing to go ahead with the $15.3-million overhaul — which will cost each owner between $40,000 and $65,000, depending on the size of their units.. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC) +addition on 07:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC) +16:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - still doesn't make it notable. Except perhaps to the residents of the condominium. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment Is this your personal opinion or can you substantiate it by pointing to precise established policy? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite to what Ottawahitech thinks this is not a newspaper. News paper articles are BARELY reliable sources nevermind the fact that not every event needs to be documented here! This is not archive.org or LexusNexus this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Stop with this nonsense! Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Off-topic Comment It seems user:mrfrobinson has made it his mission as an editor to pursue my edits. See for example;
  - Delete vote in another condo related AFD (COA Ontario)

more of the talk page. Ottawahitech (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The proper forum for making such an allegation is ANI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, Ottawahitech, but this is just one random condo building out of a hundred thousand in Canada. The fact that its residents were given a rather large special assessment does not make it notable. Just a local interest news story. Reso lute 14:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The cash call is WP:NOTNEWS and does not make the condo notable. Hwy43 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note to the closing editor I don’t like to monopolize the discussion here, however it is not clear to me how one is supposed to address a proposed deletion of an article that one spent a fair bit of time researching. Yes the article does not show the results of this research, yet. However, it was my understanding that as long as the topic is wp:notable there is no deadline?

This nomination continues to baffle me. It stated that it was “local coverage about a single incident with a resident” which is clearlly not the case. When I questioned this statement the (flipant?) answer was "still doesn't make it notable." with a suggestion that an article supported by references from the Ottawa Citizen is only of "local" interest. When I questioned the nominator again I received no answer.

In my effort to not to clutter this page with offtopic comments, I tried to move these comments to the talkpage, but it appears few are interested as there have been only 17 views of it. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per more than one section of WP:NOT in general and WP:INDISCRIMINATE in particular. MarnetteD|Talk 15:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please see question on talk page. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anju Kurian

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

URLs used for References are abuse and there's no importance of the article. The Page creator is creating pages by submitting invalid URLs to confuse the Wikipedia and I am also requesting to block him from previous edits. Josu4u (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May not be notable, but I do not understand what the nominator is saying. The urls seem real enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello DGG, What i like to say is that the article is created by submitting invalid URL (That's there is no mention about the article on the reference link used within the article. You can also search on Google News regarding the title of article, there too you cannot find any mention about the article.) That's why i say there's no importance about the article. Hope you understand what i mean.Josu4u (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An invalid url is a url that does not work. All of the urls work. Are you trying to say that the material in the references is not sufficient to support notability? Is it because they are not reliable sources, or because she is not discussed in them? If so, please explain further. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am very sorry DGG. What I mentioned about all the Articles for Deletion is about the notability issue and Article creator is creating lot of pages like this by using fake URLs and other Wikipedia creators got confused by seeing these URLs and they feel they are significant without reading the references links. I'm from Kerala. This article creator is creating Wikipedia Articles as a package here for an amount, according to the latest method for verifying Facebook pages, Facebook check whether Wikipedia is there for that person or not, because Wikipedia is referred as an importance of significance of the person. Did you get what i mean?Josu4u (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this because it's sat open for two weeks without being transcluded to the log. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of this page is not mentioned in the one reference provided. I can find publicity shots and photos in fan magazines, but no articles (albeit this with a US-based Google search). The second film listed here appears not to be yet released. I'm assuming this is WP:TOOSOON unless someone can provide references that aren't available to me here. 142.254.111.113 (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ENTERTAINER criteria do not appear to be met. Listed reference does not mention the subject. Could also be a case of WP:linkspam.--Rpclod (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. very minor actor so far in her career. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarikh Aliyev

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

Search results returned zero hits, article currently has zero RS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable subject. Zero GNews, Gbooks and Highbeam hits. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources after additional searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person just is not notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. For his position as a state-level supreme court judge, basically. The problems with content unsupported by reliable sources can presumably be addressed by judicious deletion of such content. Sandstein 18:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Bahadur Aga Sayed Hussain Thakkar

(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

Non-notable person. Claims of significance are either unclear (first matriculate of Kashmir? what does that mean?) or are of limited significance and are not verified by reliable sources (first Muslim judge and only Muslim minister in the Dogra rule (presumably the Dogra dynasty)). Sources consist of family history blogs, mentions in passing, books that don't mention at all, etc. No better sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matriculate means to be enrolled at a college or university. Aga Syed Hussain was the first person to pass that examination which was considered as a great achievement those days. Moreover it was important especially for the Muslims of Kashmir who were living in a deplorable condition.Aga belonged to the Shia Minority group which has always been suffering. His achievements have made a great impact on the community in particular and the Muslims of the state at large. Aga syed Hussain opened the gates for other Muslims to study and participate in the exams and enter the civil services. He was the first muslim Judge ( for source please see the official website of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir with its History ) He was also the only Muslim Minister during the Dogra Rule. sources have been given from various book , including History of Kashmir. He has been an inspiration for many civil servants. His Judgments are still being consulted while pronouncing decisions in the High Court. His works and achievements have been published in the famous Urdu Journal that is published in Lahore and Lucknow including kashmir. "Hakim-ul-Ummat. There is also a chapter dedicated to him in the book written in urdu by G Sufi..book Kasheer. Khan Bahadur Aga Syed Hussain was great great-grandfather of the Late American Poet Agha Shahid Ali. The name of Agha Shahid's father Agha Ashraf Ali is already mentioned in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zehnaseeb (talk • contribs)

Yes, we all know what matriculate means. But as I read the article, Syed Hussain was the first Kashmiri ever to matriculate, which is an astonishing claim, and requires exceptional proof. As to the claim of being the "first Muslim judge", he apparently was one of the three founding judges of High Court of Judicature in J&K, but the cited source does not mention him being the first Muslim judge. Surely, Islam had existed for over 1200 years when Hussain was seated as a judge; there must have been Muslim judges before him, if not necessarily in Kashmir, which did not appear to have a judicial system prior to Hussain's appointment. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed Sayed Hussain was the first Kashmiri to Matriculate. With due Respects i would like to mention that the sources are many. including noted writer Amitav Ghosh who has written a chapter in his book "The Imam and the Indian, Chapter name "the Ghat of the only World". there is a mention of how Agha Shahid's Great Grandfather Aga Syed Hussain rose to prominence after passing his Matriculation. Also there is mention about this in the book Kasheer by G M Din Sofi, An urdu journal "Hakim Ul ummat" mentions the same. Certainly Sayed hussain was not the only and First judge in the History of Islam. The article specifically mentions the First Muslim judge and Minister in Dogra Rule. with due respects one has to study the History of Kashmir during the Dogra rule. Historians alone can understand the importance of a Kashmiri Muslim reaching to prominence. Book by Mridu Rai. "Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects" is enough example. another Book The Kashmir of SM Abdullah by C Bilquees Taseer. Kashmiris Muslims during the Dogras were the most suppressed. Begar was a common thing. this article mentions how a muslim rose to prominence despite the hatred towards the Muslim Community at that time when nobody could see the light of a School, Education..not to talk of entering services of the Autocratic Maharaja. it might help the students of History in understandg how few Muslims managed to make a mark despite all odds in the small state of the Indian Continent, though an independent country during that period. With Best wishes.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali1872 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are many pages and articles on wikipedia only which say that Aga Syed Hussain was the first Kashmiri to pass the matriculation (In Kashmir) and later ved lal zutshi was the second. (without relying on the persons Family Blog etc). The matriculation pertains only with respect to the state of j&k being ruled by the Maharaja then. Moreover he was the first Muslim Judge of the state of Jammu and Kashmir..not the first ever Muslim judge. Nobody claims that. So this article can be helpful in reseach for those who study Kashmiri History especially History of the Muslims during Dogra Rule.Moreover Sayed Hussain descends from the eighth Shi'te Imam . Quiet an Important figure for the Minority Shia Muslims of the state in particular and the whole country in general. please let me know if i can add or remove some elements in order to improve the article. or add more resources ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zehnaseeb (talk • contribs)

@Zehnaseeb: Could you please point out which articles on Wikipedia point out this fact. I find that his name is only mentioned on two pages in the entire encyclopedia: the page presently under discussion, and the article about the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Whether or not the article can be helpful in anyone's research about the history of J&K or the history of Muslims under the Dogra dynasty relies largely on whether the information in the article is reliably sourced. Several books have been mentioned in the arguments above; I don't have access to them and cannot evaluate the relevance. Perhaps others familiar with the history of the region will come to our aid. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not noteable, no sources, lots of seemingly (historical) hoax and self-made claims. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the link already mentioned from the chapter "The ghat of the only world" from the book Imam and the Indians- by writer Amitav Ghosh..a review published in the Outlook Magazine of the book,, also https://books.google.co.in/books?isbn=0547527136. one can easily Google it. He has mentioned how Aga Syed Hussain managed to go on a tonga from srinagar to Rawalpindi to appear for the matriculation exams and how he passed it for the first time.in the chapter Poet Agha Shahid Ali has also claimed this and nobody so far has contested his claim that Aga Syed Hussain was not the first matriculate. what more authentic source can be found than that of an internationally acclaimed poet. This article certainly would have been of help to many. however if you think it is not supported by enough substantive and authoritative proofs you may delete it. We do not want to Impose things which are not in accordance with your policies. as far as the other families of kashmir are concerned.. This man Aga syed hussain commands a great deal of respect and has been praised by many people including the Founding father of Pakistan M.A.Jinnah. i am quoting this all from the Urdu Book Sources which are authentic and i have relied on them in my sources which you couldnt locate unfortunately. rest All your prerogative.

Comment. A starting point is "Khan Sahib Aga Syed Hussain was one of the first appointments to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in 1928.[5]". If the article used inline citation to reliable sources instead of just listing a lot of unreliable family and hobby sites at the end, it might stand a better chance of survival. I also suggest, if the page is kept, that it is moved to his name. Article titles do not usually include honorifics, etc. DrKiernan (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's packed with such WP violating material. It's just too much and too much of a waste of time to mention all errors. For example, it furthermore claims that he's a descendant of a 8th century Arab imam (Ali al-Ridha), an Iranian bureaucrat from the medieval era, and Turkish warriors from Anatolia also from the medieval time. Pure historical hoaxes on all possible fronts. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. This article should 100% be deleted by these reasons. We can't leave such bogus material on an encyclopedia. Even if he wasn't an unknown person. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: you claim to be so well read about medieval history. You claim to be of Russian , Iranian and what not heritage which prima facia sounds a hoax ! Don't want to discuss that anyway. Before using your limited intellectual skills you must study the History of Kashmir. The fact the one cannot find much about Aga syed Hussain is that much of the work is in Urdu literature and unfortunately it hasn't been digitalised. All we wanted the younger generation to be aware about him and his achievements. Regarding his lineage your approval is not what we need. You can only be good at what you think you are and close your eyes and think that's all and nothing exists beyond that. The family has all the proof with pictures and family trees from both paternal and maternal sides and contacts with relatives in Iran and other parts of the world. The family heritage is safe. And is not a hoax which you believe on all possible fronts. I suggest you Go and search for your lineage and see to it what you claim is a hoax or truth. You are not a historian. Nobody is perfect. Before calling it impossible and hoax you should have asked if there is any proof of the lineage which the family does have but your Dense intellect made you jump the gun. I pity your wisdom of concluding without proper research and questioning!

Aga syed hussain was certainly one of the first three judges of the High court of Jammu and kashmir when it was established , but he was also the only Muslim among the three . and at that time it was quiet an extraordinary thing when Muslim were not even literate. I hope recent changes supported by proof which is included with reference links is of some help. please let me know if any other changes can be made. I would emphasize that the sole aim to create this page was the general awareness about how a Muslim rose to a high rank in the administration when Musilms in kashmir were suffering badly and there was no education. There is no intention to violate any of the policy and rules of Wikipedia. we respect the rules and would abide by the same as and when directed by your good offices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zehnaseeb (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zehnaseeb: It is a matter of original research to claim that having a Muslim on this court is "extraordinary". The sources do not support that, so that is your own interpretation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to make necessary corrections from the page of Aga Syed Hussain. i have also added some reference links. please let me know if more changes are necessary. thanku for your time and valuable advices. i appreciate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali1872 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if the article is still in the list of the ones which might be deleted or has it been approved. The notice for deletion is already there ??? Is the article still being considered for deletion or has it been approved??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zehnaseeb (talk • contribs) 07:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is still being considered. An administrator will remove the notice when the discussion is closed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanku. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali1872 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the article's nomination, numerous links have been added, but none of them mention Aga Syed Hussain in any detail (many not at all). As yet we have not been given any evidence that he was ever the subject of substantial coverage in any book, magazine, or newspaper. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally acclaimed poet Agha Shahid Ali has himself testified to this...substantiated by the writer Amitav Ghosh in his book Imam and the Indians.what more could have been an evidence. there are books but they are in Urdu... if u wish we can send you page snaps and chapter names and all details..but you wont find those books online. thats what we can do. rest its your prerogative ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali1872 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrible article, but he certainly seems to have been senior enough. A high court judge is a big deal for a start. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. WikiDan61's points made in his above comment are also spot on. Searches turned up nothing to show this person meets the notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: too obscure and non-notable. Quis separabit? 19:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep . One cannot say the person is non notable just because there isn't much on the Internet. Let those judge who are well versed with the History of the region especially Indian Kashmir. He was the first matriculate and a first judge which is quiet evident from the interview link of late American poet Agha Shahid Ali and the website of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. No doubt about that. As far as the lineage goes there is enough evidence from the Urdu literature with which the you seem so less acquainted with and which certainly is not digitalised. There are family trees and old pictures which substantiate the text and if needed Wikipedia will be provided with that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zehnaseeb (talk • contribs) 12:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The interview with Agha Shahid Ali has to be taken for what it's worth: the claim that Aga Sayed Hussain was the first matriculate from Kashmir comes from his son, who cannot really be counted as an authority on the subject. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As there is an article about Richard Theodore Greener (the first black graduate of Harvard University), I suspect that being the first Kashmiri to matriculate at any university would be sufficient claim of notability, if it can be independently proven. But if not...

Hussain's position as one of the first judges on the High Court of J&K might, in itself, make him notable, but that would reduce the biography to essentially one sentence. As to Hussain's lineage, this is largely irrelevant. Many people can claim significant lineage throughout the Middle East (and for that matter, in any other part of the world). Family trees grow large and all-encompassing as one proceeds through just a few generations. Such claims have little relevance in terms of a person's own notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have already provided with the names of Urdu journal Hakeem Ul Ummat where an article was published about Aga Syed Hussain. but the Journal is not on the internet and not digitalised. Moreover it is in Urdu. We leave it for Wikipedia to decide. We have provided with our best and and trying . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali1872 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPOL #1 : "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" which de facto confers inherent notability, see also WP:POLOUTCOMES. There can't be any doubt (there are sources in the article, and I found book sources on-line) that he was a judge on the highest court in what is now an Indian state and wa sthen a princely state (first level below national). The shape of the article is irrelevant when it comes to establish notability. The subject was also a state minister, and there is a claim to have been a member of the Jammu & Kashmir Legislature which would also pass NPOL but needs verification. Kraxler (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subjects meets the notability criteria WP:NPOL; another thing, there is no end to the arguments. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Junior Karate Championships

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

An age level competition for a non-Olympic amateur sport in Asian level, doesn't sound notable enough for me. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   AKF HISTORY
   Regulation
   COUNTRY MEMBERS

AKF HISTORY About AKF

The Asian Karatedo Federation (AKF) is the governing body of sport karate of about 45 countries of karatedo federation in Asia. The AKF is a non-profit organization and performs its activities on an amateur basis in compliance with the principles set forth in the Olympic Charter, duly recognized by the World Karate Federation, the largest international governing body of sport karate with over 190 member countries. It is the only karate organization recognised by the International Olympic Committee and has more than ten million members. The AKF organizes the Asian Karatedo Championships, the Junior and Senior AKF Championships in every two years in between the Olympic and Asian Games and participates in WKF World Karate Championships. AKF HISTORY APUKO (Asian Pacific Union of Karatedo Organizations) Founded in 1973 until 1992.

AUKO (Asian Union of Karatedo Organizations) Name changed in 1992 until 1999, after WUKO was admitted to IOC

AKF (Asian Karatedo Federations) In 1999 the name was changed again, in line with WUKO changed to WKF

CHAMPIONSHIPS Junior 14th AKF - Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Aug. 2014 13th AKF - Dubai UAE Dec. 2013 12th AKF - Tashkant Uzbekistan Jul. 2012 11th AKF - Quanzhou China Jul. 2011 10th AKF - Hong Kong China Aug. 2010 9th AKF - Sabah Malaysia Sep. 2008 8th AKF - Singapore Oct. 2006 7th AKF - Macau China Nov. 2005 6th AKF - Tokyo Japan Sep. 2002 5th AKF - Macau China Aug. 2000 4th AUKO - Macau Nov. 1998 3rd AUKO - Taichung Taiwan Sep. 1996 2nd AUKO - Hanoi Vietnam Sep. 1994 1st AUKO - Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Sep. 1992 Senior 12th AKF - Dubai UAE Dec. 2013 11th AKF - Tashkant Uzbekistan Jul. 2012 10th AKF - Quanzhou China Jul. 2011 9th AKF - Quanzhou China Sep. 2009 8th AKF - Seremban Malaysia Aug. 2007 7th AKF - Macau China May 2005 6th AKF - Taoyuan Taiwan Feb. 2004 5th AKF - Genting Malaysia Nov. 2001 4th AKF - Singapore Dec. 1999 3rd AUKO - Macau Jan. 1997 2nd AUKO - Manila Philippines Sep. 1995 1st AUKO - Taipei Taiwan Nov. 1993 ASIAN GAMES 17th Asian Games - Incheon Korea 2014 16th Asian Games - Guangzhou China 2010 15th Asian Games - Doha Qatar 2006 14th Asian Games - Busan Korea 2002 13th Asian Games - Bangkok Thailand 1998 12th Asian Games - Hiroshima Japan 1994

http://www.akf-karate.net/ About — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayuna (talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main article has no independent sources and is merely a list of events. There's no indication of notability or significant coverage. The article on the 2014 event is a single sentence saying that it occurred. That's insufficient to show notability and there's no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a sub-page of the main article. It was just created by the same author (who is also aware of the AfD having commented on it). In fact it is the same as 2014 Asian Junior & Cadet Karate Championships which has previously been added to this nomination.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Asian_Junior_%26_Cadet_Karate_Championships i am delet it

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Asian_Junior_Karate_Championships is correct and compelet and better than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Asian_Junior_%26_Cadet_Karate_Championships — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayuna (talk • contribs) 09:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage and no indication that these events are notable.Jakejr (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Lal Shahbaz Qalander. As redirects are cheap, I am leaving one as suggested by SwisterTwister. Randykitty (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Kabiruddin

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

Non-notable person. Kabiruddin is mentioned in passing at biographies of Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, but none of the sources are about Kabiruddin himself. Notability is not inherited. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not pass WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:BIOFAMILY. Kabiruddin fails the notability test. Faizan (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lal Shahbaz Qalander as my searches found a few enough results to suggest he was known mostly from coverage for his son. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. I guess a redirect could work, but it doesn't seem necessary. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I totally agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Oxtoby, Artist

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

Untractable and unusable biography of an artist who might be notable. A Google search for "David Oxtoby artist" brings up a number of relevant hits about gallery shows and bios at different galleries, but it's not clear from that whether he would pass muster. But even if he does, this current article is such a mess of unverifiable facts that we'd need to blow it up and start completely anew. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLPPROD applies as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - kaboom!!! Just deleted 99% of the article and added three references. It was kind of you not to go speedy on this one as I think it would have been gone already due to lacking any references. The reference from the Independent is in depth but I am searching for another in depth before leaving a !vote. --TTTommy111 (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at a much reduced size. He shows up in two notable collections: the Victoria and Albert Museum and the National Portrait Gallery in London. They have a couple of his pieces-- enough to say that they have a little slice of that era. I'd say that, along with the album covers for notable musicians, carries the notability claim. The blow-up of the article seems to have brought it down to a size that is about 20% of the size it should be, which is much preferred over being 6000% of the size it should be. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at a much reduced size, per last comment. More could be added from the short museum bios & Indie. And rename after this please. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as although my searches found no better results than this and this, I suppose the new version is more acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhem Brannigan

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

Pro wrestler for a new minor wrestling organization. Only coverage is in articles reporting the results of PWR events and they're all from one website. Fails GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wrestler and the promotion is now prominent in Philippine media. With various media platforms doing coverage for the event such as TV5 and other sports and entertainment websites. Events that include this performer have been covered by some news program such as GMA news. (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. The coverage of the promotion has nothing to do with the notability of the wrestler which is lacking for GNG. The promotion itself should be considered for AfD. Most of the references are from its facebook page.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being "a rebel against the society" as his article states would indicate that he himself does not want a Wikipedia article ;-) no notability established. I think it is telling that no opponents or partners are linked, not even red links. MPJ-US 15:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notablity isn't established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Secor

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

MMA fighter who has one top tier fight and is not currently fighting for a top tier organization. Fails WP:NMMA and GNG since coverage is routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. The single top tier fight was a loss and his total number of professional fights is also very low. Looks like he almost got his chance for a second top tier fight but even if that happens it would still be too soon.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight (a loss in 2012) and all of the coverage is routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MMA fighter. One top tier fight doesn't make him notable. Jakejr (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green Capital

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. References are either self-published, promotional, or directory listings. ubiquity (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are mainly promotional sources listed here. As expressed by the nom, this article should be deleted unless someone is willing to find other non promotional sources. At this point this article is not notable enough to be here. --CyberWarfare (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sourcing could be better and my searches found nothing outstandingly good. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded it before I realized it is here. What a nice surprise. Spam, fails NCOMPANY, burn. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Global Electronics

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Run-of-the-mill company. Winning one award that is awarded to 100s of companies doesn't make it special. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing aside from a few passing mentions at Books. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find anything beyond sales sites - no business articles, nothing notable. 142.254.111.113 (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger_González

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

~~Auto Biography and Auto Promotional article. No relevance, independent sources, references or objectivity. Coconuto (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: For other users, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/38.109.64.219.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ignoring the edit-warring that took place around this article as not relevant to this discussion, I do not see anything nearing notability. I got no relevant sources on a search in US Google, so finding reliable sources is going to be up to folks able to tap into Mexican media. However, of the two sources here, one shows the actor taking the ice bucket challenge, and the other is an interview. Neither weighs toward notability. 142.254.111.113 (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content of this article has no relevance at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetankpatt (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; found no evidence he's notable. Only a handful of minor Mexican sources, but nothing that alludes to him passing WP:GNG. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's nothing to suggest improvement and better notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: some brief mentions in Mexican press but no significant coverage. Deleted 4 times from eswiki for a variety of reasons. Vrac (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian People Party

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

WP:N: No source available, no indication of significance. Seems a fake party to me. Pahlevun (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any party which operates from a default settings wordpress blog which has only 3 blog posts from 2010, is almost definitely not notable. Brustopher (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indication of significance. I could create a 'People Party' page for almost every country using the same three sentences in this article. I'm not sure if it is the notable Iranian People Party or the Iranian People Party that operates from someone's basement. This article requires its readers to play the guessing game in order to ascertain the subject and is not worth keeping. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Thompson

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

Fails WP:NSOCCER with 0 professional appearances and WP:GNG. Any coverage found seems to be WP:ROUTINE. Player does not appear to still be playing. GauchoDude (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY because he has played in Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. Even though he has only played one game and has most probably retired, he still passes the criteria. Spiderone 18:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per GiantSnowman Spiderone 21:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one appearances a number years ago (to technically meet WP:NFOOTBALL) is not enough when he comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takumi Ogawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Fish (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Nițu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Ginchev, amongst others. Giant Snowman 20:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might only just meet WP:NFOOTBALL, but if it passes the guideline, then it passes the guideline. As GiantSnowman stated in the first AFD, "The article needs improving, not deleting". And I would ask the closing admin to consider that nothing has changed since the last AfD, in which there was consensus for the article to be kept, on the grounds of the subject passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NFOOTY, and doesn't really matter if he's playing or not currently. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Request for clarification, actually. Can someone explain how he passes WP:NSOCCER? I understand it used to have a bullet point contained which said something to the effect of "a competitive match between two professional teams", meaning a lot of US Open Cup matches would count towards notability, however that is no longer present. For me, "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable" coupled with "For the purposes of this guideline, played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute" shows that he fails WP:NSOCCER. I'd love some clarification here. GauchoDude (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GS and per WP:NSPORT: the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. This is an individual who made one appearance in a cup game featuring two fully professional teams over four years ago. He has since not played at anywhere near the level required by WP:NFOOTY. The techincal pass of a subject specific guideline does not trump GNG. This player is not generally notable since the field in which he claims notability is one in which he has actually done very little. Fenix down (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Fenix down, and GiantSnowman. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Research Inc.

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

I found nothing aside from the Scholar results to suggest improvement and there isn't even that much in this article. This orphan has rarely been edited much less significantly so I hope we can get some attention to this. Inviting tagger Johnanth for comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is hardly anything non-academic either, and I place less emphasis on academic sources than most. One would think the company doesn't even exist from the internet search results. Hence my motion to delete. Yannis A. ^✆|☑ 10:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The little bit of results are only passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article and a Google search indicate that the subject does not meet WP:ORG criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cypress Semiconductor. Anything worth salvaging for a possible merge is available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramtron International

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

My searches found nothing to suggest improvement, here, here, here and here, and it's probably best to redirect to Cypress Semiconductor where it is mentioned but I want to hear from others (I'm willing to close and redirect myself if needed). SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - they're notable obviously through bring F-RAM to mass market availability. This then made them a tempting target for an acquisition, which Cypress then did. However notability isn't temporary. We give readers a clearer history through a separate article. At most we'd merge this into Cypress, and then UNDUE becomes a problem to give them appropriate depth of coverage. As F-RAM becomes an increasingly important technology - mainly through the growth in smart metering - we shouldn't shrink our coverage of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as promotional. The distinguishing feature here is the sections 2 "F-RMA Technology" & section 3, "F-RMA Technology Benefits." This is typical wording of a web age or an advertisement. It has no place in an encycopedia article, because a link does it just as well. Nobody would write it who was trying to describe the company for an encyclopedia. To be sure, we could eliminate it , but it's time we started actually rejecting promotional articles of this sort. Notability is not the only reason for rejection. G11applies if its so promotional it couldn't easily be rewritten, but we can delete here for any reason. The only way to stop this sort of editing is to delete the articles. If the company is important enough, someone with a neutralPOV will write the article--such as Andy. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. If you think something needs copy-editing, then just go right ahead and do it. There is no virtue to deleting it first. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - AfD allows for deleting articles where they are simply promotional. About the only 2 items in this entire article which are not promotional are the first sentence, and the two sentences about the merger. I'd say merge that info into Cypress Semiconductor, but then that would be giving WP:UNDUE to this one company above the others. So simply delete. Nothing in the searches shows that this company, as a separate entity meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"About the only 2 items in this entire article which are not promotional " Did you read the same article as the rest of us? I can see how a reader unfamiliar with F-RAM might question the significance of this article, but there's nothing over-promotional about it out of line with other articles on companies. Being about a company does not make an article implicitly promotional in tone. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect over to Cypress Semiconductor given that the firm doesn't seem notable outside of its relationship with that larger company CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. delete and salt per twice-deleted in unanimous AfDs. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Survivor (video game)

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

No evidence of notability. Although I cannot remember the state of the article at the time of the second AfD, and cannot see it as I am not an administrator, there is every indication that this is substantially the same. Laun chba ller 15:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki should remain a draft --Sykess (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Survivor (game)
Delete and salt. Article topic still lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. I also don't think it's worth drafting until it has at least one secondary source. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 01:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the idiots

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

Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. The only hits I could find online are its IMDb page and casting calls. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being WAY TOO SOON. If or when this receives coverage, a return might be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ankylosing spondylitis. Any content worth merging is still available in he article history. Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spondylitis Association of America

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

Although this may not actually be as blatantly promtional as others, I'm concerned about the almost virtually non-existent good solid coverage. I added a sentence about Rico Brogna being a spokesman but that's the best I could add to my best abilities. My searches were here, here, here, here, here and here. This is an interesting subject and I hope someone familiar with this can improve and move this past its current state. Unfortunately, if a move elsewhere is better, there's no target as this is an orphan unless it's mentioned at the AS article. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proba bly the result of undeclared paid editing. What's diagnostic is the statement of origin & motivation: " Her goal was to get word out about ankylosing spondylitis and help support others with this disease". This is a particularly meaningless example, and nobody would use it who wasn't trying to write according to a bad pattern. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree about paid editing. I can't imagine anyone paying this editor Special:Contributions/Sackofrice, who seems to be the major contributor. I think this is just some well meaning soul trying to improve an article, but based solely on the SAA website. --Derek Andrews (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that good references are hard to find, but judging by the number of times their publications are referenced, they are obviously a respected organization. I think a better way forward would be to tag the article for improvement of content and sources. Sadly, I think that references from mainstream media will only be common for organizations that are mired in controversy or some other big story.--Derek Andrews (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have since made some improvements regarding the tone of the article and added a few more independent references. I will keep plugging away at it. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in limited form into a section in Ankylosing spondylitis, or delete. Not convinced by the coverage. Sandstein 17:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The organization is somewhat notable, but I don't think that they have received (or are likely to receive) the kind of reliable source coverage that we really need here. I feel inclined to just delete this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World War II: Heroes of Valor

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

Fails WP:GNG. The1337gamer (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This video game fails WP:GNG by a mile. Eat me, I'm a red bean (t • c) 23:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This game has been developped by a long-time veteran Wikipedia (although he hasn't edited the article, so no COI/promo involved) and I've pinged him to see if there was any media coverage that would change my mind. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it was a different guy with the same name so I've struck my comment but this just cements my opinion to delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 18:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Impact India

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

Plain advertising, but contested speedy deletion The Banner talk 10:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think This article is for advertising or promotional. This article is about a non-profit organisation which motivates other corporate companies by their books or presentation to give funds to NGO's as a part of their Corporate Social Responsibility. It also provides consultancy to NGOs to raise more funds to help poors. Besides that, It also does some for-profit works to run their company. I don't think they are doing this for promotions and we should support their good works.They are also supported by some of the big non-profits and NGOs of India.If there is something looking promotional please help me to solve the problem and also help me to learn. ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there multiple, reliable and independent coverage of I Impact India? No. It is not notable, the article is clearly written by someone from the organisation that overstates the role of what is in effect a fundraising company. It's claims are not backed up by any sources and the way to "solve the problem" as stated by the PR team member above is to delete the article pure and simple. You can find hundreds of fund-raising companies in London for example that get more coverage than this one, which doesn't make any of them notable. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It all seems like hot air. No evidence that the subject actually does anything, let alone anything notable. Maproom (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete no significant third party coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- overt advertising and no evidence of notability. Flat Out (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly I CSDed this as G11 when I first saw it. Then I googled it and there seemed to be quite a bit of coverage so I thought that maybe someone could fix it. I can't see that it has really improved any, and a clean slate is probably needed. Maybe someone will remake it and it wont sound like a bad advert.--Savonneux (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a lot of backlinks but nothing of any substance that I can see. Flat Out (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If finally it is considered for deletion, I would like to request to userfying it. So that It can be reintroduced after a certain period of time. @ArmstrongJulian: This is to inform you that it is not like "find hundreds of fund-raising companies in London" because it is not a fund-raising company at all. It is a non-profit CSR consultancy. Fund Rising contacts other companies to get fund and takes a part of total money as a profit. III gives proper strategy to NGO or other organisation. so that they can get fund by themselves and no profit is there.

And I created the content and I am not a part of the organisation. I have no relation with the company. It is my 2nd Wikipedia article creation. Maybe I could not create it properly but that does not mean I created it for the marketing of the company. I asked help from everyone to make the content better but I got only advice and negative comments from most of them. ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft & userfy as mentioned) as my searches simply found nothing better and the current sources could be better as well (more third-party coverage such as news and magazine). SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wubi method. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wubi 86

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

This article looks like an product installation instruction, not like an item for encyclopedae. After reading it, I could not find any description on what wubi 86 is, or what is the difference between Wubi and Wubi 86, and most of all there is no source at all. — GoldenQR (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Wubi method which covers the input method well and mentions this, briefly.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olly Harmer

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

Seemingly promotional article about a person who doesn't really seem to satisfy the GNG. Slashme (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I have only found mentions of the subject in passing. Nothing where he is the actual subject of an article. Therefore doesn't meet WP:GNG. Happy to change my vote if multiple sources covering the subject in depth can be uncovered. -- Shudde ^talk 09:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only in depth sources aren't independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although may be to soon. Harmer is regularly nominated in his field at the New Zealand Music Awards although I note he seems to usually be a runner up. NealeFamily (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently there simply isn't enough coverage to show they meet the notability criteria. Searches on the engines failed to turn anything of significance up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miyoko Akashi

AfDs for this article:

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

last AfD 2 years ago was no consensus. But I notice a number of keep voters used an incorrect assumption of inherent notability which is not true. Secondly the Japanese coverage found was shown to be limited. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there a notability guideline for diplomats? That would be helpful. I notice there seems to be lots of coverage in Lithuanian. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is no notability guideline for diplomats , there was an attempt for a guideline to make ambassadors all notable but that failed. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've read through the previous discussion (one I did not take part in), and thinking about it, I would agree with the view expressed there that if WP:POL includes every representative of the people, then diplomats should cover every representative of a country. The sense I get is that there is no consensus as to whether ambassadors are inherently notable — not that there is a consensus that they are not. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, you are arguing ambassadors are inherently notable when they are definitely not. Many have been deleted. There was a discussion at WP:BIO months ago to give inherent notability to ambassadors which failed. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. As a side note: the argument that Ambassadors are 'representatives of the people' and should be presumed notable based on WP:NPOL requires a gross misreading on NPOL particularly noting that most Ambassadors are appointed civil servants or, from less developed or politically inclusive countries, sinecures. While it is arguable that there is not consensus that Ambassadors are not presumed notable there is certainly no consensus that they are and that is what is required to make them not subject to GNG. So it is a distinction without a difference. Jbh ^Talk 14:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and read again. The gross misreading is yours. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no gross misreading from Jbh. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will clarify my point, since neither of you has grasped it. Ambassadors are not 'representatives of the people'. Nobody has said they are. Nobody has said that NPOL applies except by analogy. Ambassadors are representatives of nations. An elected politician can pocket their expenses and their bribes and faff about for five years, and still be considered notable by virtue of having been elected. Similarly, it makes no difference whether an ambassador is an appointed civil servant or (as in America) a sinecure: by virtue of having been appointed to represent their nation, they are a figure in world affairs. I am clearly not alone in thinking this, since it is a case made by others on the previous AfD for this article. It is not a consensus view, but nor is the contrary view. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realise now that this is what you mischaracterise in your rationale as "an incorrect assumption of inherent notability which is not true", but a more honest statement would have been "a conviction of inherent notability that I do not share". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point but I do not agree with it and I think the analogy with NPOL is stretched well past breaking. Specific notability criteria ie presumed/inherent notability, exist because they presume that, by virtue of those criteria, that reliable sources are likely to exist even if not readily found. One can presume that material exists on, for instance, a national level political figure. (Note - I do not concede NPOL is a good policy only that it is one and it must be dealt with.) In the case of Ambassadors most of their work is not public, it deals with state-state international relations. There is no reason to presume that sources on them will be available and indeed the vast majority have done nothing worthy of note and have no significant coverage. Those Ambassadors who do make a significant public contribution will be covered in the press or in some other reliable source so they will pass GNG. If they have done nothing of note there will be no significant coverage and no need for a stand alone article. Arguing for presumed notability in those cases is arguing for perma-stubs or articles based on non-independent sources. Jbh ^Talk 18:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As was the case two years ago when the article was last discussed at AFD, the article still lacks in-depth coverage to demonstrate actual notability as mandated by the General Notability Guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambassadors, unlike politicians, are appointed. There's no inherent notability, and this particular diplomat does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles. T. Canens (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tile Depot

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

A company with very little notability online regarding its operations, especially as I am not seeing much in the way of links. This article was created by a sock as part of the Orangemoody paid editing thing, as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absa Komal

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

Fails notability criteria. We can't have articles on every newscaster. sami ^talk 05:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Musa Talk 07:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC. No reliable secondary sources, No awards or nominations, No specific incident/event or contribution to establish notability. Faizan (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show this person meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darksong Chronicles

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

Newly released Windows game app. Unable to find independent, reliable refs, only social media. Not exactly sure what the article is. Looks more appropriate for Wikia. Prod removed. Announced on the game's Facebook page that the article is up and anybody can edit. Series of SPAs have been editing. Bgwhite (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I can't find anything to show that this game passes notability guidelines. The majority of the hits are comprised of the game's creators posting around trying to drum up interest. I wish them well, but this is just too soon for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or preferably Draftspace it - No coverage at all in RS/Situational VG sources, but I suspect that might change, so I'd be comfortable with seeing this sent to draftspace for now. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lefteris Choutesiotis

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played for the Greek U-19 team, and that he has been an unused substitute for Olympiacos. Both of these reasons are explicitly excluded as sources of notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is he a Greek U-19 international player ([6], [7]), he is also included in Olympiacos F.C. players' list for the 2015-2016 UEFA Champions League [8] and he has won 2 Greek Championships, 1 Greek Cup and 1 Double with Olympiacos: Choutesiotis Trophies: Super League Winner 2x: 2014/2015, 2013/2014, Greek Cup Winner 1x: 2014/2015. He has won two titles in a fully pro league, which is a very important source of notability. 10:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Tsimikas is a Greek U-19 international player (Hellenic Football Federation - Kostas Tsimikas) and he has won 1 Greek Championship, 1 Greek Cup and 1 Double with Olympiacos: Tsimikas Trophies: Super League Winner 1x: 2014/2015, Greek Cup Winner 1x: 2014/2015. He has won a Championship title, a Cup title and a domestic Double in a fully pro league, which is a very important source of notability. Gtrbolivar (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the articles can be recreated if either of them ever make an appearance for Olympiacos in a professional competition. Spiderone 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Greg McKeown (author). Sandstein 18:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less

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

I don't believe this book meets WP:NBOOK. The article, even after a bit of editing, rings of advertising. No reviews are provided towards notability, and I'm not having too much luck finding substantial coverage in recognized outlets. Searching is a bit tedious as I'm tripping over interviews and placement pieces for the authors PR campaign. (Note that this article was edited by the same three or four authors (in the same order?!) that the author's page was. Further, I'm nominating that page for deletion, too.)

The article offers the claim that the book was #4 on an Amazon.com list of picks for 2014, which I was able to reference. However, Amazon's clear goal is selling books -- not editorial review or academic analysis and therefore doesn't confer notability. The article further claims the book was "a NYT and WSJ best seller". It hit #7 on the specialized NYT "Advice & Misc." list for the week of May 4, 2014.[9] It is not on the May 11 or the April 27 lists. Mikeblas (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bestseller lists can give notability now, but the general consensus was that only the main lists (fiction, non-fiction) would give notability. Places like Amazon would not count towards notability at all because it's a merchant site and extremely difficult to verify. I'm seeing some light coverage, but I think that I'll probably just endorse a redirect to the author's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greg McKeown. There are a handful of reviews, but the coverage here is so light that I think that we could probably just sum this up in the author's article, which admittedly needs to be completely rewritten, so this will just be one more thing to throw on to the pile of things that needs to be done with the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Greg McKeown (author), per Tokyogirl79. -Zanhe (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greg McKeown. Not enough notability for a stand-alone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Numerically, the discussion is divided, but only the nominator presented a substantive argument, and based their criticism purely on the current state of the list rather than its potential. And edits since the nomination have already mooted that criticism. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of PLC manufacturers

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

WP:NOTDIR. This is a simple business directory, with no encyclopedic scope or additional annotation. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(post close comment) Given that the closer seems happy to mind-read the nominator, can I please clarify here that the list still has no sourcing, no encyclopedic content beyond listing names and still warrants deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Pburka (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why nominate for deletion when you can simply add the items that you believe are missing on this list to make it encyclopedic? Why discard a list that 118 distinct authors have contributed to? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Andy Dingley and User:Pburka can you please be more specific about WP:NOTDIR: which section are you relying on as a reason for deleting this article? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no encyclopedic content in this article beyond the bare listing of company names. There is no external referencing. Most of the names here aren't even linked. Just what useful information does that convey to the reader of an encyclopedia? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me5000 cleaned up the list and I have added a short description for each item on the remaining list. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC) ... and BTW this list has been viewed 6095 times in the last 90 days (see talkpage). Ottawahitech (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed all advertising and anything that didn't have a wikipedia article. There are many lists on Wikipedia as long as it contains links to wikipedia articles I don't see a problem. Me5000 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Alden_Ehrenreich#The_Collectin. Randykitty (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Collectin

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

I had a good long scan of sources and a good think of whether to bring this article here or not, but I can't seem to find too much that puts this on the right side of notability. Use this case sensitive search so searches don't get piled up with a protein. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 19:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No opinion on notability, but I did remove all of the merchant sources. You don't really need those to establish that something was released via VOD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's my rundown on the remaining sources:

Sources

Vanity Fair. This article initially seems like it's about Ehrenreich, but the article is about a show that they're putting on. I'd consider it to be usable for the most part, though.
NYT. The NYT is a RS, but this just reprints e-mail correspondence between two people involved in the production of one of the group's shows. I'd consider this to be a WP:PRIMARY source because there's really no commentary on the exchanges. So it'd be usable as a primary source, but it wouldn't give notability.
Huffington Post. This one is iffy. It's the HuffPo, which has always been highly contested on Wikipedia, but it looks to be one of their articles and not one of the blogs. At the same time, the word "Collectin" is never actually mentioned in the article. It might be usable, but it's certainly not the strongest source and not really the type you'd want to be the deciding factor between notable and non-notable.
DaMan. This is pretty much entirely about Ehrenreich. The Collectin is briefly mentioned, but isn't really given enough notice to where it'd be considered an in-depth RS. If the article was about the Collectin it'd probably be usable but this is pretty much a WP:TRIVIAL source given that it's really only briefly mentioned. It's also an interview, which is considered by many to be a primary source.
Interview. This is about the Collectin, but it's also an interview. The reason a lot of people contest interviews and call them primary sources is because so much of the article is just the person being interviewed and is presumed to be unedited, whereas an article written about an exchange with the other person would be. I don't entirely agree with this, but it does make it a weaker source than we'd need to really be able to firmly argue notability.

So far I'm leaning towards a merge and redirect to Alden Ehrenreich, given that his article is fairly short and could contain this information quite easily. I'll see what I can find, though, before making a final decision. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Alden_Ehrenreich#The_Collectin. This actually didn't take long because a search made it fairly clear that what is currently on the article is really all that's out there. Merging this into Ehrenreich's article would be the best outcome here since the group is close to passing on its own, but isn't really enough to fully pass criteria. From what I can see, the group's main claim to fame is that Ehrenreich is one of its founding members and since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by Ehrenreich's independent notability, the merge/redirect is the best outcome. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start merging the info. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Tokyogirl79's arguments and proactive edits. Theredproject (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The HodgeTwins

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

Blatantly failing general notability, this article is a puff piece that includes phrases such as "the twins display an exceptional knowledge" and "play an important role in bringing information". Only solid source I found is this one, and there is certainly no extensive coverage about them in reliable sources. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable; just being identical twins does not confer notability. Quis separabit? 17:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article doesn't exist because they are twins. There is a case for notability here, also saw [10].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your argument "because they are twins". The source you've provided is non-reliable and a puff piece. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only non-promotional source I found was the one listed above in Body Building online magazine. However, that is only one source and as it mainly exists to entice advertisers (the first link on the site is to "Store"), I have trouble considering it a highly reliable source. LaMona (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jourdan Younis

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

not notable as academic or businessman. "worked on" is a term that can mean anything-- DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree -- fails GNG and ACADEMIC. Quis separabit? 01:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's briefly mentioned in two articles about other topics, the remainder are non-neutral bios. And, quite honestly, magna cum laude (3.70 grade average) at Cal Poly SLO is not a measure of notability. LaMona (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the (somewhat puffed up) accomplishments listed in the article rises to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches didn't reveal anything which would indicate this person meets WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted (Stevie Nicks song)

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

Was PROD'd and author contested. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. A non-notable, non-charting song. Azealia911 _talk 21:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Newly discovered information shows song charted in Canada. - Visnvoisnvo

While the song charting does give it some solid ground, it isn't automatically a means of notability. Note that while WP:NSONGS states that songs are probably notable if they've charted, they should also be " the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." and alls I'm currently seeing is links to Fleetwood Mac fan forums and AllMusic, not one review, or reliable third-party source that discusses the song. Azealia911 _talk 22:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what! You said it was non-charting. Don't you dare delete this until more votes come in. - Visnvoisnvo

I'm not sure what you're getting at, like I said, a song charting doesn't automatically give it grounds for a keep... perhaps devote less of your energy into giving editors attitude and more time finding reliable sources so this doesn't get deleted. Azealia911 _talk 16:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Fleetwood Mac "Ledge" forum and the site it's based on are not reliable sources. I've said it often enough so I'm just going to remove them where I see them. This article is heading for a delete from me if there aren't going to be any proper sources which discuss the actual song. A crappy chart placing isn't really enough in this case. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not a very well known song from Ms. Nicks. The only things I see going for this are the fact that it charted, the article at least has some sources, the song was featured in a soundtrack, it was the cataliyst for the reformation of the Buckingham Nicks lineup, and there is some information other then chart positions and the infobox. On the other hand, the song wasn't a smashing success, there aren't really any strong third party sites, and it's not very well known in general. I was initially undecided, but I feel like the article is notable enough to stay. Just barely. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing: This, along with the other deletion discussions sat in my watchlist are going incredibly slow as of late. While the two other articles up for deletion aren't really being provided any reasonable grounds for a keep, the new chart placements are a solid foot on the ground. May this be another stub for all of eternity. My withdraw means this can be closed pretty much immediately. Azealia911 _talk 19:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOOEC

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

I declined a speedy on this for blatant spam, but nonetheless don't think it's an appropriate article subject. While the list of references superficially looks impressive, upon reviewing them, I can't find a single one that even mentions the subject "MOOEC", let alone covers it in sufficient depth to allow for an article. The article appears to be based mainly, if not entirely, on original research, and given that a search for secondary sources specifically covering this subject comes up empty, there's no way to fix that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the article is about MOOCs rather than about this particular course. Most of the references in the article predate the existence of MOOEC, and the only ref that actually is about the article subject is the MOOEC website. Since the article has existed since January 2014 and there is still no coverage in secondary sources, it simply doesn't seem to be notable. --bonadea contributions talk 14:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My take agrees with Bonadea -- the article is about MOOCs because there is not enough to create an article about this MOOC fork. The article reads like an essay about MOOCs, and is greatly padded beyond the presumed topic of MOOEC. LaMona (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any real references for MOOEC. Fails GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Largest population centres in the European Union

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

There is List of largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits, List of urban areas of the European Union, and List of larger urban zones of the European Union. Why do we need another article just for the 15 largest cities? I recommend redirecting this page to a new article named Lists of cities in the European Union, which would include links to the articles above, as well as any others. Rob984 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary, and badly compiled/sourced WP:CONTENTFORK Kraxler (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This content should be merged into an existing article, but since the article is just a summary of a single source, this might only involve adding the source to the References section of an existing article. In proposing deletion, I'm not saying that this article uses the wrong criteria and the existing articles use a better criteria; I'm just saying the existing articles are already better developed, so anyone who wants to further develop this topic should add their data to, and edit, existing articles rather than starting a new article for their data. Gronky (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alan Ayckbourn. Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Reality (play)

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

The play is not published or available for production. The only source is a primary source, and a quick internet search didn't find any others.

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

Delete or redirect to Alan Ayckbourn (which would probably be best) as my searches found nothing particularly good but probably enough to for redirect, here and here (these two the best results I found). SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree with SwisterTwister, enough there to redirect to Alan Ayckbourn. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Using these searches I found a couple of notable reviews (inc.Billington, Gdn), though probably this should still go to Alan Ayckbourn, since it would not be enough for its own page. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Rhidian Crichton-Stuart

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

Genealogy Project, not notable. Does not fulfill WP:NRVE Surgent (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPOL, he was a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Tangier International Zone, and there are lots of sources metioning him in this context, see here, here, here and here... Kraxler (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tehnology Services

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

Written as a dictionary entry, belongs on Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. If not deleted, should be moved to 'Technology services' instead of the mispelled 'Tehnology Services' SecretName101 (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete (don't even wiktionary) "Technology services are services about technology" isn't even a DICDEF. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a definition, and not a good one at that. It restricts itself to IT, and there's more to technology than that. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bluecorner

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

This sounded like an interesting subject but my searches found nothing at all with News, Books, browser, highbeam, the free library, BBC, The Guardian (aside from the two articles currently listed), SKY News, The Mirror and The Telegraph. In fact, the only links browser found were from 2006 and 2007 and with both company websites now closed, I suspect this closed shortly after this article started especially as there have have hardly been any edits since. At best, the only possibility to save this would be mentioning elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently never really important; does not seem to be active, so there won't be much more information to be found. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good example of why we shouldn't be adding pages for start-up companies into WP: the failure rate is high, and it leaves us with a lot of "well it might have made it" cruft. The first-listed website for the company redirects to something entirely different, the second 404's. LaMona (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Codal

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No significant coverage in major sources. Extant coverage consists of a minor local announcement and press releases. Ibadibam (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Not too sure on that. Currently looking into it and already found a few articles from major news sources that could support the article. Also - being a Chicago area tech employee I can vouch for their credibility within the midwestern tech scene. To my knowledge they are one of the major players. Just my two cents. I'll add some references when I get a chance. Thanks! :: RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 15:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Please provide links as soon as you're able. Ibadibam (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RatedRestricted: Anything? Ibadibam (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure essentially until I see any possible improvement and it indeed seems it's locally notable but my searches found nothing particularly good here and here so I'm willing to say draft & userfy for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not think there is even local notability. The links are PR or mentions. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO advert, sources in the article can not establish notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BC Institute of Property Inspectors

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

My searches found nothing at all to suggest improvement much less independent notability with noting but the ASTTBC website and, considering, this group was founded in 1999, this is something else. This can probably be mentioned at the ASTTBC but, again, there's not much aside from that website. It's not nsuprising this never got coverage as it only existed 10 years and was mainly a subgroup owned by the ASTTBC. With this group closed and no significant edits since December 2008, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 02:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never was notable. National groups of this sort often are, but not those limited to a province. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and DGG. Nothing in searches would meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to List of Teen Wolf episodes. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Wolf (Season 6)

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

Fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Eat me, I'm a red bean _(discuss)^(contribs) 00:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion: Article already exists here as a redirect to List of Teen Wolf episodes. Alex|The|Whovian 01:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect List of Teen Wolf episodes following small case version. Blatant WP:CRYSTAL when (according to the main list) Season 5 isn't finished airing yet. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already redirected. Alex|The|Whovian 00:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Saldías

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

Article is not clear why he is notable. Having written a few books and mention by his brother in a local small-town newspaper does not confer notability. Antonio Saldías does not pass the professor tests nor the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Sietecolores (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator is disrupting the project by nominating every Pichilemu-related article he's found. WP:IDONTLIKEIT does apply here. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article without any encyclopedic relevance. --Keysanger (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep thanks to Diego G-C's links to sources. Was: This person would either need to pass the criteria wp:academic or that for authors. If the information exists to support either of these, it isn't available to me. I can verify the fact of the three books through the catalog of the Nat'l Library of Chile, but that doesn't confer notability. We would need significant reviews of the books for him to be a notable author, or some information about academic achievements for the academic criteria. LaMona (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- LaMona, here are some reviews on some of the most important newspapers of Chile: El Mercurio de Valparaíso, El Rancagüino, El Mercurio de Valparaíso (again), El Mercurio de Santiago, Las últimas noticias, La Tercera, Fortín Mapocho (now extinct newspaper), Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografía, and so on... there are plenty. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diego Grez-Cañete! I'll change my !vote, and I've done a quick copy of these links to the talk page of the article so that they don't get lost. I would advise adding a few to the article ASAP to show the notability of the subject. LaMona (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage is significant and in enough non-local sources to pass WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage? Local Pichilemu newspapers edited/written by his brother Washington Saldías González? –Sietecolores (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage posted in this AFD under LaMona's vote. Vrac (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HappyFunCorp

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

Tagged by DGG for speedy deletion "as an article about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." I believe it should be deleted as not notable, but I do not believe that it merits speedy deletion. Karl Dickman ^talk 00:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines of notability, HappyFunCorp has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I implore you to point out or edit examples of bias or non-neutrality in the article, so we can make the necessary changes and remove this deletion notice.Imarapaholic (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More precisely, a company with many minor products, none of the individually or collectively notable. The article tries to borrow notability from the major firms that have at one time or another used some of the products, but not everything a notable firm buys is notable. One of Inc's 5000 fastest growing means not yet notable--and not particularly fast-growing either if it doesn't rank higher in that list. The references are mere mentions or PR, or both. They're in my part of Brooklyn, more or less, but that doesn't make them notable either. . DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I speedied this once, and DGG has made an excellent summary of the case against above. It seems likely that Imarapaholic has an undeclared conflict of interest too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than results at Books, News and browser which were not enough for improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you trying to improve the page, instead of delete it. What about the more than 15 News sources cited on the original page? How does that not make it notable? SwisterTwister All the best. Imarapaholic (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and DGG's excellent summary. Searches didn't help to show any notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you do a Google News search for "HappyFunCorp," there are plenty of articles that appear, which can add to this page. This company has more than 15 published articles written about it. Can someone please chime in? I appreciate DGG's work, but I think we should improve the page instead of delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.191.242 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company struggling for attention, the sources are their own website, blog posts and trivial mentions, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - They've received some coverage, so I'm not particularly sure. However, I feel like on balance they're just not particularly notable because they only tend to be slightly mentioned. I also find the above arguments to be rather reasonable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7; the author requested deletion. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enamul Hoque

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria at WP:CREATIVE DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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