Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 February	21 February >

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 redirect to Allie X. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Habits Die Hard (song)

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

unremarkable song KDS4444^Talk 14:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As it stands this fails WP:MUSIC, the song hasn't charted anywhere yet and the references are mostly WP:PRIMARY. Case of too soon.Karst (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, cyberdog958^Talk 01:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Allie X per the notability problems addressed above. I would, however, suggest to the nominator of using a different word other than "unremarkable" to explain the lacking notability of a subject, as it would suggest you're meaning that the topic is bad and it makes it sound like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, which now thinking about it I don't think you're trying to do. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 09:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just no independent reliable coverage to be found. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allie X. Agree that it isn't notable, but a redirect to the notable artist would make sense in this case. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Play It Again (2013)

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

unremarkable album KDS4444^Talk 14:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request close of nomination with Possible Keep. The article is in far from good shape, but the EP and song do exist, and while I don't really like Becky G's music either, the nominator's argument is pretty much WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, this search did find some material to work with. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John McNaught

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

Full disclosure, I'm the original creator here -- in 2005, when our notability and sourcing rules were very different than they are now. But both WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG have been tightened up considerably over the past decade, and my own sense of what's suitable for inclusion and what isn't has evolved alongside them -- but under the standards that apply today, there's just not enough substance here beyond "he existed", and I just did a ProQuest search and found that save for his obituary and some glancing namechecks in coverage of his ex-wife, he's not the subject of enough media coverage to add anything more than we already have. So it was acceptable by the standards of 2005 -- but by the standards of 2016, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard topic to decide on. One the one hand, he clearly fails GNG by my Google search, but that is mainly because he is from a less digital era and many references (especially media) would not be available at this point. That said, I feel that an argument can be made to keep the article based on WP:CREATIVE point three, on the basis that he created a well-known body of work at the time with his various news and journal articles (non-academic). It is difficult to judge the impact that he had this far after the fact, but I think that overall the page is worth keeping. Ajraddatz (Talk) 08:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ejikeme Alozie-Nwagboso

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

Candidate but no indication or source that I can find which says he won the seat Uhooep (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for office are not automatically eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that they were already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of their candidacy, then they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the election. So if we can't find properly sourced evidence that he won the seat, and there's no other real claim of notability even present here at all, then he just doesn't get an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON until he wins an election. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Trending to keep. Sandstein 22:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Noiseam

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

Article topic lacks in-depth, significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The closest it got was listings and a brief description in a custom Google search of reliable music sources—not nearly enough for a full article. The last AfD said to use sources from the frwp article: that would be a dead article from Igloo magazine (unclear reliability) and an interview from a patently unreliable source. Someone also mentioned the number of people on the roster—few are actually notable and most are redlinks or links to unrelated pages. All in all, the source coverage just isn't here. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 16:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 16:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As User:Czar has said, article has no independent sources, as the only one has fallen to WP:Link Rot, and as such I am of the opinion it should be deleted.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tentatively saying keep. We tend to keep record label articles if the label has multiple independently notable bands, and I've found at least one that passes that bar so far, Dälek. I'm going to look into the others and see what I can find. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at best for now and the only other option I would say is to Draft and Userfy but it seems this article may be notable enough to be accepted, even if it's actually questionable for the sources. It may be fitting to say this is not as serious for deletion as compared to other articles. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're at the three week mark and in the absence of evidence otherwise, we have insufficient policy-backed rationale to keep this article. It's not just that the sourcing is questionable—even if it wasn't, there is not nearly enough sourcing to write an article (the point of the general notability guideline) and there is no claim to pass the corp guidelines. @SwisterTwister czar 14:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Torchiest and SwisterTwister, did you find anything else? czar 13:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found enough reliable sources to create an article for another group on the label, Drumcorps. Still looking for more. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scorn is another group that's independently notable, so that's at least three. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Sinier is also notable on his own. I'm pretty confident there must be others at this point, so I'm feeling more comfortable with my keep. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in light of the work put forth by Torchiest. Now appears to pass the notability requirements for labels.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969, what notability requirement for labels are you referencing? My understanding is that there is none and that all the keep votes above are despite having no sources on the label itself (and notability is not inherited...) czar 18:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one source in the article looks good. One of the external links is a second interview with the label's founder. Here's a third interview with the founder. Here's a brief profile of the label. Here's a fourth interview with the founder. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But those aren't reliable sources—the two interviews are coming from sites of no reputation, and I'm unable to find any proof that Pietro Da Sacco's Igloo mag has any sort of standing as more than a hobbyist site. And the major point of this thread is that there is no "record label notability guideline", only CORP and the GNG. czar 00:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am willing to restore or userfy the article if someone can find some reliable sources. MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norma del Rosario

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

Subject of this article is not notable enough. VRtrooper (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a hard one. Given how she was a silent film actress, coverage would probably be almost impossible to find. I would normally !vote "Delete" right now, but given the circumstances, perhaps it would be more appropriate if sources are first sought from offline sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps of Philippine news did not find anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had the lead in 6 feature films,and second or third billing in 4 others, therefore passes notability guidelinesAtlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom -- insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 03:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- It is impossible to find any relible sources to strenghten her article's notability. Supergabbyshoe (talk2me) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Bhatt

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

References given are not standard. Rotten tomato webpage has no support for the person but it is listed as a reference. Prof TPMS (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page says that Rajesh Bhatt got doctorate from "Halifax University, USA". But there is no Halifax University in USA. --Prof TPMS (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editor,

Plz consider those all below mentioned facts. 1-I have submitted enough credible source. The person is shortlisted for prestigious cannans film festival. Isn't it an achievement to be considered. 2- In India, around the year of 2005-06, there were not enough online newspaper. We have enough news coverage in vernacular languages about this subject which we can't submit. This number can be over 500 but we can't extract the link. Also he has directed 5 movies, assisted more than 50 movies, produce 5, directed many TV serials and video albums. His movie is KAUN HAI JO SAPNO MEIN AAYA already has a wikipedia page. So can you plz tell me what sort of credible reference are you looking for or you are being unnecessarily biased and arbitrarily using your wikipedia editor privileges. 3-All movie directors are not on rotten tomato. Also we have removed the rotten tomato link although this link belong to the particular subject. 4-Also, if you have any suggestion, plz leave us before considering it for deletion. Also let us know do you accept vernacular coverage in Indian language. 5-Halifax College doctorate certificate-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdnt (talk • contribs) 08:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC) 6-A couple of vernacular coverages are included below, including leading vernacular magazines which have given the cover story for him on front page. please have a look before passing the judgment.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources. Most of the sources cited in the article are spam-ish blogs. Among the rest, a couple make a passing mention of the subject. [1] does't even mention him. utcursch | talk 01:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only one of the sources was usable, this review from IndiaGlitz. The others are all blogs, primary, or otherwise unsuitable as RS on Wikipedia. I also have to agree - to my knowledge there's no Halifax University in the United States that awards doctorates. The only college with Halifax in its name that I can find (in the United States) is Halifax Community College, which most assuredly does not award doctorates. I also have to note that the film article for Kaun Hai Jo Sapno Mein Aaya needs some cleanup since it was trying to cite user reviews as the RT meter. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily blocked the article creator for repeatedly removing the AfD tags and I've redirected the film article to the director's page. I can't find anything to establish notability per NFILM, not even while using the India WP's search engine. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned out all of the sources except for the IG source - I have no problem with the material being re-added if they can be backed with reliable sources. However I need to stress that none of the removed sources are reliable and one of the sources seems to claim something that's (so far) provably false - that Bhatt received a doctorate from a college that doesn't exist in the United States. In the article it's being used to claim that he received a doctorate from Halifax University in the UK, however the source does claim an entirely different continent, so it cannot be used to back that claim. Pretty much anything from Bhatt himself needs to be viewed with some suspicion given the claims about the university, unfortunately. 05:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete - nothing in search engines to show they pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soledad Aquino

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

This article's subject is not notable enough VRtrooper (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Impossible to find any sources, especially since the name is shared by so many. All of the movies are articless as well, which never bodes well. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had lead in 4 films, 2nd or 3rd billing in 3 others. There are less Phillipine film articles than many other countries.Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- It is impossible to find any relible sources to strenghten her article's notability. Supergabbyshoe (talk2me) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and simply doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR due to lack of participation. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 00:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aftershock Festival

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

SPA who is an employee of the promotion company has offered WP:ROUTINE coverage of the festival. Half appear to be rehashing of press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Big enough festival to be included. Plenty of coverage from local news sources and enough from further afield to establish notability. Current sourcing and possible COI have no bearing on notability. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cardelle

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

WP:BLP of an actor noted only for supporting and guest roles, and sourced only to a single unreliable "celebrity bio" database with no reliable source coverage shown. But even a claim that he satisfied the demands of WP:NACTOR, debatable but not entirely impossible here, would still have to be supported by reliable source coverage in media, and does not give any actor a no-sourcing-required notability freebie just because he exists. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if this can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, information has been added in the meanwhile on a prize and it is reliably (though weakly) sourced. I am not sure how significant the festival is, but may be we should take the person a bit more seriously.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches shows that he passes WP:GNG, and his resume doesn't show how he passes WP:NACTOR or WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as G11 as I tagged it as such (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RICHES Mosaic Interface

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

Advertorially-toned article about an online media platform, written by an editor with a direct conflict of interest, and sourced entirely to primary sources with not a whit of reliable source coverage shown. Something like this is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists, but must be the subject of media coverage in independent sources to become eligible for one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jagat Singh (Actor)

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

No coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the notability criterion for people. Also doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER because their acting roles have not been significant. Opencooper (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt perhaps as note this was speedy deleted before this version was started and I encountered it both times at NPP. SwisterTwister talk 18:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. COI has nothing to do with the notability of an article. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Delight

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

Advertisement for non-notable apple cultivar, created by an account of the same name. Orange Mike | Talk 01:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly change my user name to something else. I guarantee some fan of lets say Beyonce created an account with Beyonce in the user name just to edit the Beyonce article. I don't see this as a big deal. I created a new account and that is the name I used. I also don't see anywhere where there is advertisement. The article is about the apple, the tree and the name. This is a new variety of apple. There are other articles on Wikipedia about new apples that aren't being deleted, like Lady Alice, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Alice_%28apple%29. That article has less references and that variety of apple is owned by one company and only planted by that company. The Crimson Delight apple was available to all apple growers in Washington State and multiple growers grow that variety.CD (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If this is not independently notable to qualify for a standalone article, it could be merged to List of apple cultivars. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a variety independently notable for a standalone article? How did Lady Alice, Envy, Ambrosia, Cameo, Jazz, Opal and Pacific Rose get their own articles? I've added additional citations, added additional information and plan on adding more as the variety grows. CD (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Weak due to current quality of article. If it can be improved then definite keep. See jonathan (apple) for example. Aoziwe (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think we have any clearly defined notability guidelines for apple (or other fruit and vegetable cultivars). This is no less notable then other apple cultivars with articles. It seems that the user name issue is what triggered this getting sent to AfD. The article certainly should be improved the. Additional reliable sources may be using the formal cultivar name 'WA 2' rather than the trade name "Crimson Delight" (e.g. this article). Plantdrew (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compact little article nice read. Funny thing, the more you search about a topic, the more Google turns up. Can take a few weeks. The editor should declare his/her WP:COI on the talk page so we can remove the maintenance tags. 009o9 (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The COI came up due to my original user name as it was the same as the article. When i originally signed up I tried multiple user names with no luck and since I was going to write about the crimson delight apple I used that as my user name. I have since changed it (after having to try multiple other names) but it is done. No COI. CD (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of 206 listed in the category Category:Apple cultivars. This one is likely middle of the pack for those that are listed there. It appears to be a commercially sold variety, which meets a certain level of notability. Without a wholesale pruning of the cultivar orchard with clear guidelines for deleting/keeping, this should stay. Regarding COI, how can there be conflict of interest just because someone uses an apple name for their username? It's an interesting username. I wish User:Crimson Delight would have kept it rather than being persuaded or bullied into something different. First Light (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanaryan

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

Delete per WP:NFF as a film that has not yet commenced principal photography—or, alternately, per WP:GNG as the only coverage I can find is its own social media presence. — Rebbing talk 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 01:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 01:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Filming hasn't begun and no coverage in reliable sources found. Search hits lead to social networking and Wikipedia mirror sites. Fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Student films are almost never notable, and there's nothing to indicate that this is one of the very few exceptions. Delete. —Cryptic 08:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeba Bhatia

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

I am not convinced that the subject satisfies either WP:NSINGER or WP:NACTOR. Their main claim to notability seems to be winning what appears to be a minor singing contest. At present, they have no releases and are not attached to any major label. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 00:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. No third-party sources found, and only citations in article are iTunes (never a good sign) and some minor publication. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 01:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 01:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 01:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without notability really being established, it looks like this is a kind of 'too soon' situation since this vocalist's career hasn't seriously begun yet. I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Million Fishes

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

Organization was never notable (very few third-party sources I can find) and no longer exists, so not likely to become notable. —Luis (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't Yelp edtiorEهեইдအ😎 09:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this satisfies the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Million Fishes "offical" website is a Japanese blog about veneral diseases Mduvekot (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This shows that the article is clearly a joke. In fact, maybe we should SPEEDY DELETE this as this must be a hoax. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 21:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 15:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Harjanne

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

Non-notable actor for English Wikipedia. Works point mostly to dub adaptations of other films with but a single reference to non-reliable source (voicechasers.com). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per this search of coverage in Finnish sources. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 09:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as seems notable as a theatre director as shown in the RS identified above, I think he passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references provided aren't enough to establish notability. A quick search did little to alleviate this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - voice actor, but more importantly, a voice director for the Finnish dubs of major films and television shows. Scanlan (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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