User:Pecopteris/AFD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User:Pecopteris User_Talk:Pecopteris User:Pecopteris/To_Do User:Pecopteris/Info User:Pecopteris/AFD User:Pecopteris/ControlPanel
User page Talk Page To Do List INFO AFD Control Panel
Checkuser pages
Requests: UnlistedIP checkOn hold
Archives: MainOlderIP checksUnsorted
Clerk pages
Clerk OverviewNoticeboardProcedures
Shortcut
This page can be quickly accessed through:
WP:RFCU/C/P

Google books Wikipedia article traffic statistics Find sources: "AFD" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library WP:NWP:CLSWP:LISTWP:RS

Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Purge server cache

Contents

Socio-Economic Profiteering[edit]

Socio-Economic Profiteering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Socio-Economic Profiteering" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Poorly focused, unsourced essay. NeilN talk to me 20:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Novoslovnica[edit]

Novoslovnica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Novoslovnica" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Seemingly non-notable constructed language. Unable to find in-depth coverage. --Non-Dropframe talk 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a young language, but it has been marked rather highly by the people had aquainted with it. Most of them prefer Cyrillic, however. Though it has only one scientific publication now and references from the rest of interslavic community, its number will encrease. The project is very unique because of its accepted purposes. EASocialist (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Icon Collective[edit]

Icon Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Icon Collective" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I'm four pages deep into Google and cannot find any serious mention of Icon Collective other than "so-and-so graduated from Icon Collective" or "they hope to attend." It definitely exists, but seemingly only as a resume-builder for DJs. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Matt Barrelle[edit]

Matt Barrelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Matt Barrelle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

not notable. poor article, vanity piece, not a single reference or reason to be on wikipedia Rayman60 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

International Customer Loyalty Programmes[edit]

International Customer Loyalty Programmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "International Customer Loyalty Programmes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Not notable Surgenski (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Global Professional Basketball League[edit]

Global Professional Basketball League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Global Professional Basketball League" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Proposed basketball league that never played a game. The same issues exist today that existed when the article was last put to AfD. LionMans Account (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hanifa Deen[edit]

Hanifa Deen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hanifa Deen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. I could not find any indepth coverage of her, passing mentions only. Even her own website does not specify what actual awards she has won LibStar (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

James Cooper (director)[edit]

James Cooper (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "James Cooper (director)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:BASIC as the only secondary sources given are blogs and self-published websites. Most sources are WP:PRIMARY listings. Cooper does not appear to meet any of the shortcut criteria of WP:DIRECTOR. McGeddon (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as not notable at this time. Kierzek (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There seems to be high degree subjectivity in your assessments. The secondary sources are not all "blogs," - they are reputable online magazines (Indiewire, the dailygrowl, erasingclouds, various film festivals.) I personally think, and I know my opinion does not count equally because of the inane hierarchy on wikipedia, that this is a hasty and ill-advised proposal conjured up by an overly zealous wikipedian, who has a track history of just deleting articles just for the hell of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.148.26 (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • He meets these criteria.

"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.148.26 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

CAFOD[edit]

CAFOD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "CAFOD" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

No indication of notability. This Catholic charity has some coverage in the Independent Catholic News, but practically nothing in other publications. Even that coverage largely does not discuss CAFOD itself in any detail. Huon (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Blackbushe Airport crash[edit]

2015 Blackbushe Airport crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2015 Blackbushe Airport crash" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and General aviation crashes are very common and considered not notable in most cases. ...William 17:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose more than just a "General aviation" crash. Plane involved was a business jet and there are reports of at least four fatalities, making it the deadliest crash in the UK for a number of years - definitely notable. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment - has now been confirmed by police that four people have been killed. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - It is too early to be able to state definitively that this is a non-notable accident in Wikipedia terms. Knowing the provenance of the aircraft, there is a fair chance that Wikinotable people are involved. Should this be the case, then the case for a stand-alone article is proven. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GeorgeGriffiths (talk · contribs)'s argument -- Pingumeister(talk) 18:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Roxy Olin[edit]

Roxy Olin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Roxy Olin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Delete: as non-notable actress. Notability not derived from father Ken Olin. Quis separabit? 16:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Plainly passes the general notability guideline. A quick GNews search reveals well more than the minimum amount of significant coverage in reliable sources, stretching from (as far as I can see) 2009 to present day. There was actually an article about her published literally 13 hours ago here (although, granted, it's of the "whatever happened to..." variety :). Her failure to pass the subject-specific notability guideline for actresses is irrelevant if she passes GNG, and in any event that presumes her notability is entirely based on her career as an actress when she is also apparently a socialite. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 17:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom almost no independent RS to establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. Kierzek (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Channel Islands Tunnel[edit]

Channel Islands Tunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Channel Islands Tunnel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This is not a notable subject. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - Subject is covered independently in multiple reliable sources, so even though it wasn't built it would seem to satisfy the General Notability Guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Institute for Cultural Diplomacy[edit]

Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This article has been deleted three times previously, on notability grounds. The current version of the article is very similar to previous versions. A speedy deletion was recently declined, on the basis that this version is not identical to the previous ones; however, I believe the same notability issues apply. This article does not assert the significance of the organization, and I do not see sources here that would clearly meet the general notability guideline. -Pete (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 16:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 16:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Hopsin[edit]

List of songs recorded by Hopsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of songs recorded by Hopsin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

A trivial list, redundant to Hopsin discography. Koala15 (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 16:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 16:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sensibo[edit]

Sensibo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sensibo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Is having the "funniest pitch video of 2014" a claim of notability (god save us). Otherwise, seems to be a thoroughly unremarkable business, which has maybe attracted a bit of novelty attention, but nothing of real note. TheLongTone (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 16:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Zenawism[edit]

Zenawism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Zenawism" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Not a widely used expression: Google gives me a paltry three hits. TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The article is fine. I will add more info later. You won't find that much online about such concepts originating from third world countries anyway, especially ethiopia where internet penetration is the lowest in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack248 (talkcontribs) 17:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Singtel CIS (Corporate Individual Scheme)[edit]

Singtel CIS (Corporate Individual Scheme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Singtel CIS (Corporate Individual Scheme)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

promotional, non notable product.

has been speedy deleted and recreated, redirected and unredirected multiple times, mostly by a WP:SPA that likely has a WP:COI. Needs to get taken care of more permanently. delete and saltGaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Billy Sullivan (musician)[edit]

Billy Sullivan (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Billy Sullivan (musician)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Total non-notability. Speedy declined on the basis that there is a claim of notability: Imo playing for a geriatric Peter Noone is an admission of desparation to pay the rent rather than a claim to notability. And being a sideman for the Gary Lewis is little better. I coud PROD this as an unsouced BLP, incidentally. TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable at all. Kierzek (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Deb per A7. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 15:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WIKIX MEDIA[edit]

WIKIX MEDIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "WIKIX MEDIA" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This article appears like an advertisement. Ayub407 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Political mobilization[edit]

Political mobilization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Political mobilization" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This article seems to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Mass mobilization. It also looks like a dictionary article, so WP:NOTDIC is an issue. Ceosad (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Redirect seems justified. I forgot about that while nominating. Ceosad (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mass mobilization. That article is okay, at least about a recognized topic. "Political mobilization" seems to be a more general and vague term, so not exactly the same thing. But redirect is probably more useful to readers than simply delete. Borock (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Vexor[edit]

Vexor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vexor" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

It appears like an advertisement Ayub407 (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a translation from Russian article from article incubator. There are many reliable sources on just every statement. I'm not affialated with company and website. Egor-belikov (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

The result was both articles speedily deleted as either copyright violations or blatant hoax.

World Humanity Commission[edit]

World Humanity Commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "World Humanity Commission" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
United Nations Collaboration for the Economic and Social Development of Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: "United Nations Collaboration for the Economic and Social Development of Africa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR

These articles appear to be part of an elaborate hoax.

There is no indication that the World Humanity Commission is a legitimate worldwide human rights organization, and it has no verifiable connection to the United Nations.

The United Nations Collaboration for the Economic and Social Development of Africa appears to exist only as an entity on LinkedIn. A search for this entity within the United Nations website gives no results, and a general Google search gives no results other than the organization's own LinkedIn profiles. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Mango B2B[edit]

Mango B2B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mango B2B" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:CORP. Sources are primary. The Sun article doesn't appear to exist and the Forbes article doesn't mention this company. Prod removed. Vrac (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul Leo Klink[edit]

Paul Leo Klink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Paul Leo Klink" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable person. Klink is a business person of no particular note and an actor with a small number of unnamed (and often uncredited) roles. He has appeared in the news largely because of an event involving his wife at his son's football game. The rest of the coverage provided appears to be of the "local gossip" variety. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

GeWorko[edit]

GeWorko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "GeWorko" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Notability. Only sources are a pedia entry, 1 press release and a blog entry. SPA created article, connected with Personal Composite Instrument and IFC Markets, all promoting the same new invention. Even assuming this is a viable financial instrument, the article would need 3rd party sources for notability and verification. Content is mostly redundant with the PCI article. No significant coverage found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal Composite Instrument[edit]

Personal Composite Instrument (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Personal Composite Instrument" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Notability. Only sources are a pedia entry, 2 press releases and a blog entry. SPA created article, connected with GeWorko and IFC Markets, all promoting the same new invention. Even assuming this is a viable financial instrument, the article would need 3rd party sources for notability and verification. No significant coverage found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert Biggar[edit]

Robert Biggar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Robert Biggar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Almost all of source 1's references to the Biggars is to this man's father, Hamilton. Source 3 is also about his relatives. Assuming good faith that source 2 talks about him at length, that's one RS, which is insufficient for demonstrating notability. Furthermore, the claims to notability presented here are very weak - they essentially amount to the fact that he lived, did a job, switched job, had some kids and a piano, bought some land and unsuccessfully tried to get a town named after him. Dweller (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

IFC Markets[edit]

IFC Markets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "IFC Markets" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Notability. On a closer look most of the sources are press releases, announcements and Certificate listings. Sources like the "review" from investing.com are not neutral (bordering blatant advertising). The article is also connected to a set of other SPA articles (GeWorko and Personal Composite Instrument), which will need a closer look later. GermanJoe (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ranil Wijegunawardena[edit]

Ranil Wijegunawardena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ranil Wijegunawardena" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article hasn't established the subjects notability - doesn't comply with WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE. Dan arndt (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Had already put a notability tag on it myself. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Tako Natsvlishvili[edit]

Tako Natsvlishvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tako Natsvlishvili" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Low notability and no real importance with self-advertising and promotional purposes are seen, thus suggest we delete it. Jaqeli 21:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or at least redirect to NEXT Model Management. I really don't think it's overpromotional, and if so this can be fixed. Young (but stunnning!) model so this would be a case of WP:TOOSOON. She's walked in major shows, and been featured in a lot of Georgian news, particularly talk shows. Unfortunately I can't understand Georgian but it's pretty clear on the shows they are talking about her career. I wouldn't suggest deleting, at least redirect.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. No need to delete. МандичкаYO 😜 00:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep based on the sources and the nice break-down of her career listed by Мандичка. It all seems to point towards sufficient coverage with enough variety of sources and publications for her to pass general notability. Mabalu (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Education 3.0[edit]

Education 3.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Education 3.0" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Describes three unrelated coinages of "Education 3.0", a non-notable neologism. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Invoicera[edit]

Invoicera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Invoicera" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Poorly sourced article with promotional tone with no third party references!!

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Cleaned out all the promo text and added some possible references. Don't see the product passing notability, unless some more suitable refs are found. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 21:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete and draft/userfy instead - I say this because I acknowledge the sources but they are not even close for significant notability and further emphasized by my searches as the best thing there were the News links shown above and some press releases. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Weak Delete/Userfy: could be speedy deleted for unambiguous advertising: "Spend time making money, not chasing money!", and/or copyright violation, article is taken straight from here and a few other spots on their website. Vrac (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Coverage still pretty thin for WP:CORPDEPTH. Vrac (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Tudor IT Process Assessment[edit]

Tudor IT Process Assessment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tudor IT Process Assessment" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

fails WP:GNG. Sources are primary or do not mention TIPA. Spam. Widefox; talk 08:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete As an unimportant and obsolete-from-the-day-it-was-spawned process methodology. Yet another one with too much big government procurement involved in it and decades behind the curve of real IT management. It's make-work for dull people in cheap suits. Also delete because it's Luxembourg, and if it's not US or UK, en:WP sees it as inherently insignificant.
OTOH, I see no policy-based reason to delete this. There's plenty of sourcing out there, especially if you read French IT procurement policy documents. Martin Fowler protect us. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hangsen[edit]

Hangsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hangsen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

E-cig company. Unsourced since 2012. Standard searches were unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, indy sources. Many press releases and blogs/reviews of the company products, but nothing to pass the notability threshold yet. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Antares Astronomical Observatory[edit]

Antares Astronomical Observatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Antares Astronomical Observatory" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

The observatory exists, but I cannot find anything to denote its notability or significance. A small-time observatory by a small-time university. Primefac (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Tyseley Car Company[edit]

Tyseley Car Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tyseley Car Company" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I searched at News, Books, browser, Newspapers Archive, highbeam and thefreelibrary and was unable to find many good sources aside from this (one of the best results seems to be the "World's Carriers and Carrying Trades' Review" but it's not fully available). Given it was a short-lived company, that could explain the low amount of sources and not to mention (maybe some offline and archived sources) and I would think it's best to mention this elsewhere (maybe aside from List of car manufacturers of the United Kingdom), not there's not much anyway. It's interesting to note this article was started by an IP (when that could still happen) but has received very minor edits and, unless archived sources are found, I'm not seeing any possible improvment (that's probably why no one has edited it). SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Plus no indication of significance. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indication of significance. ~Euphoria42 05:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - To a point I hate !voting delete on articles like this but unfortunately there is no notability on this company at all so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010Talk 03:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. It's mentioned in The New encyclopedia of motorcars, 1885 to the present (1982 edition). Although World's Carriers and Carrying Trades' Review is in search results, that's probably only because Garner Motors, the subject of coverage there, was based in Tyseley. Peter James (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Peter James. That the company was covered in another encyclopedia strongly indicates that it is notable. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Qualitest Group[edit]

Qualitest Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Qualitest Group" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Contested PROD. I could not find any sources to support notability. The ones in the article are mostly primary or are not WP:RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Weak Delete. Some passing mentions, like this dutch article that says Qualitest is one of the largest test companies in the international ICT market. But unable to find any significant, indy references to show company notability. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I worked to update the page with more "reputable" references - I do believe that analyst firms like Gartner would be considered reputable, right? As a third party who has used qualitest in the past, i believe that qualitest has some unique contribution to provide to the market, and as such, i worked to display that. - contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewissall1 (talkcontribs) 18:44, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)
    • Keep. I believe that the Wikipedia guidelines for references should be reviewed. Even though QualiTest is not mentioned on "google news" or "books", that doesn't mean that QualiTest is not mentioned by reputable sources, such as Gartner, Forrester, Ovum, and other reputable market leaders of technology research firms. Just the fact of being worthy of mention by these sources implies that they are relevant to have a page on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewissall1 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Lewissall1: You made your statement here already. You can't add a second keep. Sorry.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - My searches found nothing to suggest better improvement and notability with the best results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Only source listed that would be viable for Notability is Gartner (although thats a stretch based on my experience of how as a tech company you can get in their reviews). There are no others I can find, they mostly seem to be PR generated. So fails WP:GNG Paul  Bradbury 14:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Avengers of eXtreme Illusions[edit]

Avengers of eXtreme Illusions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Avengers of eXtreme Illusions" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article about a web series whose only substantive claim of notability (as opposed to existence) is "has had X number of views on YouTube" — but that's not what gets web content covered on Wikipedia. Every single shred of "sourcing" here is to primary sources and blogs, with not a shred of the reliable sourcing that it takes to get web content covered on Wikipedia. Basically written like an advertisement, which is not the kind of article that any topic gets to have. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. 1st source is YouTube, 2nd source does not say the series is "popular", 3rd source is probably a primary source (AXI appears to have a web-channel on the site), 4th source is a blog, 7th source is a blog (wordpress site) and does not say that Diane Sawyer called AXI "legendary", 8th source does not say AXI episode "was well-received for being a timely gay-interest adaptation of a Bible story". I agree the article is written like an advert. The sad thing is source 5 is also written like an advert for AXI. Additionally, source 6 is about the director Shawn Welling rather than about the series, and because it's so short it doesn't prove anything more than the fact that the AXI series exist. As a result, the article doesn't have any good sources or significant coverage. 37.188.122.55 (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article may have some sloppy sources, but the Dance Spirit magazine (source 5) is a notable publication, as is World of Dance (source 3). The notability of the series is sufficiently proven for this kind of short series overview page. --Luckynumber78 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Jacqulyn Longacre[edit]

Jacqulyn Longacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jacqulyn Longacre" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the executive director of an individual local chapter of a national organization. That's not a claim that gets a person into an encyclopedia — the national executive director would almost certainly qualify, but not the director of every individual chapter in every individual city. The article isn't well-sourced, either — of the four sources here, three of them just glancingly namecheck her existence as a soundbite provider in the process of failing to be about her, while the fourth is to an interview with her in an "oral history project" (but being the subject of an interview does not confer notability either.) I'd be willing to let this go if it were sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but not even one of the sources here does that. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nominator. My news sweeps did not find sources to satisfy the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep While not a national figure, she was quite prominent in Oklahoma. Was nominated to Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame and this year a play was produced honoring her and other women who made significant contributions. I reworked the piece, adding several outside sources. Her field, reproduction and women's health, was not likely to have been even discussed in public through most of her career. That there are news articles and a book acknowledgement and a hall of fame nomination speaks to her notability. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Wonder if you might (1) cut all the non-references as per WP:RS -- I click on links and I don't find the search term 'longacre' (2) cut unreferenced verbiage (3) add more reliable references, and I'll consider changing my vote.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not remotely sure that I understand what you are asking. Are you asking me to rewrite the whole article? I didn't write the article, but per deleted articles, before one votes one is supposed to attempt to verify notability and find sourcing. I did that and reworked the entire career section. If you do not like what I wrote, or want to change it, feel free, that is what Wikipedia is about, anyone can edit. I do not understand what you mean by don't find the term "longacre" in the sources I added. I get if you cannot access them because I am not in the US, but you didn't say you cannot open them. However: Other women featured in the production ...Jacqulyn Longacre", Jacqulyn Longacre, a lifelong advocate for women's issues and rural health programs, gratitude to the staff of RHS especially Jackie Longacre, "Longacre, Jackie.. Born in Robeline, Louisiana, she grew up around Wewoka, Oklahoma.. She founded Rural Health Projects, Inc.", Jackie Longacre director of the Northeast Oklahoma Area Health Education Center", Jackie Longacre director of the agency, Jackie Longacre, director of the Northwest Oklahoma Area Health Education Center, Jacqulyn Longacre 1993 Inductee Every single source cited here has a direct reference to her. The other 2 links I added tell when RHP started and what Perinatal Coalition was. Based on my analysis I find she is notable.SusunW (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Virtually all of those links fail our sourcing rules in one of two ways. Every last one of them either (a) namechecks her existence, but fails to be about her (a person does not, for example, get a Wikipedia article just for being thanked in the acknowledgements section of a book), or (b) doesn't count as a reliable source at all (the "archive-edu-2012.com" link, for example, comes up as a dead link, so I can't even verify what it is.) Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bearcat: GNG states that articles about people "need not be the main topic of the source material ..." Each one of the articles from NewsOK talks with her in depth about the programs the organization she is directing. The book is about the RHP which Longacre founded. As for notability, it states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Multiple sources confirm not only that she was working in health services for women and rural families, but that she was considered a key figure long after her retirement. If I can find these sources from outside the country and on-line, then there are surely sources which exist to confirm it there. SusunW (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
No, she doesn't have to be the main subject of every single citation in an article — I didn't say otherwise. But she does have to be more than just glancingly namechecked in at least some of them. GNG does not confer notability based on the mere existence of text matches on a person's name; it confers notability based on the substantiveness of the coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bearcat: Exactly my point. She ran reproductive health programs in Oklahoma between 1969 and 1996. It is a very conservative state and she was not likely to have been front page news. In fact, one of the articles clearly shows that there was considerable conflict about the programs she ran for teenagers and gave her defense of those programs. That the state chose to honor someone who did the kind of work she did is notable. That there are "any" articles to prove that they honored her is even more remarkable. The articles in question do not just mention her name, they credit her and the programs she directed with improving health for women and rural communities. Multiple mentions (regardless of whether they are a single line or not) in multiple sources saying the same thing over time confirm her contributions and that her state thought her contributions were valuable. SusunW (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Weak keep based on references above. Still, article should be severely trimmed, such that only referenced sentences should stay. My two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Passmap[edit]

Passmap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Passmap" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Promotional article for non-notable technology from defunct startup. No references at all covering the core topic of the article, no evidence the technology ever was in any way notable. Article created by user:Adam.kornafeld (cf http://patents.justia.com/inventor/adam-kornafeld), whose only contibutions are to promote this company; no other editor has made substantive contributions to the article, and it is an orphan. The company fails WP:CORP, and I can't find any evidence of significant independent coverage that would come anywhere close to WP:GNG. Finlay McWalterTalk 10:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not finding sufficient sources to pass WP:PRODUCT, but as the sources provided by Sadads suggest, there is a notable topic of which this is an example. To that end I started Draft:Graphical password. It's pretty rough now, but there are tons of sources available and we only have a redirect to password currently. I don't have more time to work on it right now, but it's possible Passmap will merit a brief mention there, in which case a redirect would be justified. Until then, though, I'd have to go with delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and prune per the sources listed by Sadads (talk · contribs), which demonstrate that "passmap" as a topic is notable.

    The lead of the article says:

    Passmap /ˈpæsmæp/ is an image based method used for authentication, similar to passwords. The word passmap originates from the word password by substituting word with map. Passmap is a patented technology of Hydrabyte, Inc.

    I agree that Hydrabyte's technology is not notable, but I think the concept itself is notable, so perhaps this can be saved by deleting everything except the first sentence of the article, which can be sourced to http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2414513. Also, I would support a redirect of this topic to the article eventually created from Draft:Graphical password. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Football Stadia Improvement Fund[edit]

The Football Stadia Improvement Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Football Stadia Improvement Fund" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

PROD contested, no reason given. This fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG; the organisation itself has not been subject to significant coverage, passing mentions in news articles is not sufficient. GiantSnowman 12:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The article's creator put this on the talk page of this AfD rather than the AfD itself, for the sake of completeness I copy it here without implying support or otherwise: "The fund has helped a lot of lower level English clubs to develop their facilities and has been mentioned in other Wikipedia entries so surely there should be reference to this on Wikipedia so when it's read about in articles the basic information about the organization is available?" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:GNG relevant phrase seems to be "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." General coverage of the topic appears to be more than trivial from my understanding of the sources. Most indicate the topic briefly but not trivially in reference to the actions taken by FSIF in support of improvement projects for the football community. This general trend leads me to put more emphasis on the last part of the statement from WP:GNG with regard to need not be the main topic. A strong specific case of non-triviality occurred in 2011 when actions taken by FSIF played a notable role in a public controversy involving Supporters Direct. According to at least one source, the public "disciplinary" actions of the FSIF threatened the existence of Supporters Direct after they withdrew a sizable grant in response to tweets made by SD leadership. While not yet incorporated into the article content, this seems like more than a trivial mention of FSIF and its notability within the football community. --N8 19:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Retractable screen[edit]

Retractable screen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Retractable screen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. I could find sources to show it exists, but not that it is notable, and this is not a dictionary. Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to window screen; sounds like a topic that deserves a mention in that article, but not its own article due to a lack of significance or even content to write about. I'd propose a merge, but the article is unsourced. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool Bobby B[edit]

Cool Bobby B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cool Bobby B" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Fourthords. This has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unfortunately as my searches found no good sources to suggest improvement and notability with the best results including this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

List of ornithologists and their proper name contributions[edit]

List of ornithologists and their proper name contributions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of ornithologists and their proper name contributions" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

First, this is arguably of interest to some people (just as a list of things owned by Elvis is of interest to some people), but essentially trivia and difficult to ever complete, and fails WP:LISTN. All taxonomists name taxa, and this seems like simply trivial detail for the sake of listing: while individual biographies may list taxa named, I don't think "scientists and the taxa they've named" is commonly discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There are thousands of ornithologists in history and over 10,000 named bird species (not to mention countless subspecies, taxonomic synonyms, genus names, and other named ranks). --Animalparty! (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This info should be on the individuals' pages, and I don't see much point in reproducing it in lots of little tables here. If this page was converted into a list of ornithologists who have named taxa, with links to their articles, that might merit a keep (although is that information elsewhere?). I'm reluctant to argue delete if there's a reasonable possibility of transforming the page into something useful (WP:AfD says a page shouldn't even be nominated if that possibility exists). But as it stands, there's only the germ of an useful page here. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Lil Snupe[edit]

Lil Snupe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lil Snupe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Completely unsourced biography of a rapper, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC as his only releases were mixtapes. This is extremely poorly written, further — I can't, for example, make heads or tails of what the article is even trying to say about why Sean Combs is linked in it. As always, a Wikipedia article is not something that any musician — living or dead, rapper or rocker or country star or whatever — is automatically entitled to have just because he existed; it's something that a musician earns by being the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to verify that they pass one or more of the notability criteria in NMUSIC, but this article fails to provide any evidence that its subject does so. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. Fails WP:NMUSIC. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Liam Johnson[edit]

Liam Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Liam Johnson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Doesn't seem to have made his first grade debut yet, so fails WP:RLN Mattlore (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. Several independent and reliable sources describe his activities at Huddersfield Giants, adding up to quite a significant amount of cover. Here are some online examples: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] from the result pages of this search. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Speccy4Eyes: That's all routine coverage and so fails GNG. A subject needs significant coverage where they are actually the subject of the article (not mentioned in passing). I see he was called into a Super League squad, is there any news sources out there reporting that he has actually played for Huddersfield's first-grade team yet? Because if there is then he'll meet WP:RLN (although the article may still be deleted, because WP:RLN is about assumed notability, and GNG actually establishes it). -- Shudde talk 02:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Canchupati Venkatrao Venkaswami Rao[edit]

Canchupati Venkatrao Venkaswami Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Canchupati Venkatrao Venkaswami Rao" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
(Find sources: "Master CVV" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

No real claim of notability. Inadequately sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ramananda Prasad[edit]

Ramananda Prasad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ramananda Prasad" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

He was successful, but I don't see that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sending WP:APPNOTE to Tone and RightCowLeftCoast. Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Boleyn: Thanks for notifying me of this AfD and I am interested in seeing what the wider community's opinion is on the notability of the author. I am still on a wikibreak recovering from San Diego Comic-Con, but will take some time to respond. Also perhaps Tokyogirl79 would like to put in their two bits given the admin's recent attempt to improve NAUTHOR.
I contested a prod placed by the creator of this AfD in August 2014, due to notability based on WP:AUTHOR. I believe my point still stands. The books translated by the subject of this AfD, crediting the subject of this AfD as the translating author, have been widely cited by numerous reliable sources. Now I am not a subject matter expert on Indian culture or literature, so it'd be best to sort this deletion into the Hindu and Indian delsort sections to get their opinion on the notability of the subject of this AfD.
Overall, I would say a Weak Keep is my present opinion, as outside of the subject's translation of Hindu text, I can not outright say the subject is notable; that being said, meeting WP:AUTHOR should be sufficient (just like how a baseball player that has only been in a single MLB game is considered notable (yes I know that is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST train of thought argument).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look for sources, but offhand I'd say that the multiple reprintings of the Bhagavad Gita could (or at least should) count towards something since that's not really a small task, assuming that he directly translated it (as opposed to basing his work on an existing translation, akin to how some will create a new interpretation of the Bible). I'm not overly familiar with the publisher so I'm not sure if they'd hold as much weight as say, something published through an academic press. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Basically, it's somewhat easier for things to go through multiple reprintings with other publishers than it is with an academic press. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Planned Battle of Mosul (2015)[edit]

Planned Battle of Mosul (2015) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Planned Battle of Mosul (2015)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. title misleading, suggests event going to happen. Offensive threats could be part of Psychological operations or based on mere speculation and rumors. Numerous sources say such offensive not possible any time soon (Find sources: "retake Mosul" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR) LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Rfc @Bender235 and George Ho:
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per previous AfD (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mosul (2015)). I do see where the nominator is coming from, but there does seem to be enough coverage about this in reliable sources to merit an article of some sort. If consensus is not to keep this time around, I'd suggest a merge into a timeline article, to be split back out when/if the actual battle commences. ansh666 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • keep There is actual evidence that the thing has already started. Ericl (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has inspired other WP:CRYSTALBALLs such as Ericl (talk · contribs)'s Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer 2015 Invasion of Syria.G8j!qKb (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm lean a little more permissive than I probably should on crystalball grounds when its clear that we will, eventually, have a legitimate article. But I'm not willing to extend that permissiveness to discrete military actions. The difficulties in planning and executing an attack on ISIL positions in Mosul is certainly noteworthy, to the extent that it's discussed in cited sources. A (markedly trimmed) discussion of these logistical difficulties belongs (if its not already there; I'll admit that I didn't look closely) in Military intervention against ISIL. But battles are discrete events; this one hasn't happened yet, and I my reading of our "future events" guidelines just doesn't give me faith that the corresponding article should happen yet, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. An encyclopedia has articles about what happened, not what might happen. --bender235 (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Nom has added a huge amount of {{citation needed}} templates, possibly to make the article look bad. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case and I know we should assume good faith, but that kind of behavior at the same time as nominating it for deletion seems like a move to get more delete votes. Dustin (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but planned offensives widely discussed in the media and reliably sourced can surely be notable. North of Eden (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Substancial media attention. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Prime Ministers Global Fellowship documentary[edit]

Prime Ministers Global Fellowship documentary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Prime Ministers Global Fellowship documentary" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Part of a series of articles being created by this editor for the work of John Walsh (filmmaker), I can find no evidence that this 30-minute doc meets WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
(Find sources: "John Walsh, Prime Minister's Global Fellowship (film)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
(Find sources: "John Walsh, Prime Minister's Global Fellowship (documentary)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
  • After being deleted, we can redirect to the John Walsh article. Though this 2009 documentary film lacks the coverage or commentary to meet WP:NF and merit a separate article of its own, we can at least send readers to the one location where it might be mentioned. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Karen Filippelli[edit]

Karen Filippelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Karen Filippelli" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

WP:NOPAGE indicates that we shouldn't have individual character pages such as this since there are no really in-depth sources analyzing this character. jps (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually she was in 26 episodes. Beach drifter (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Additionally I see that there are 27 stand alone articles for characters from the US Office. Beach drifter (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

James J. Stanford[edit]

James J. Stanford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "James J. Stanford" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Nothing in his bio makes him particularly notable Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

James J. Stanford is notable under two sections of WP:SOLDIER.
He played an important role in a significant military event (the Laotian Civil War);
He made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to him (a functional forward air control system to manage Operation Barrel Roll and Operation Steel Tiger). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talkcontribs) 14:44, 17 July 2015
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom for failing WP:SOLDIER, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • To repeat the provisions of WP:SOLDIER that were ignored above:
    • "5. Played an important role in a significant military event;" (the Laotian Civil War)
    • "7. Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them;" (founded a forward air control system that was a major constituent of that war).
    • The end result of his action was the founding of the heaviest bombing campaign ever directed at a single nation, directed by Stanford's successors, the Raven Forward Air Controllers.
    • As for GNG—there are six reliable significant sources independent of the subject listed as textual references on Stanford.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No, he didn't play an "important role".
  • Nowhere does it say he "founded a forward air control system" or that, if he did, it was an advance on any other such system.
  • Nowhere does it say a "bombing campaign" resulted from his action.
  • None of the references are about him specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Suicide chicken[edit]

Suicide chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Suicide chicken" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Wikipedia is not news. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please let's read WP:NOTNEWS to see if it says we shouldn't include new referents:
"As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."
Therefore, we should include new referents.
"However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:"
We should check each of these to see if they apply.
"Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style."
This does not apply because it's not first-hand news or acting as a primary source.
"News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information."
The other articles in this category, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal-borne_bombs demonstrate the enduring notability of such referents. This is not "routine news reporting" or anything like an announcement, sports, or celebrities.
"Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."
Clearly does not apply.
"A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person."
Clearly does not apply.
Please understand the reasons behind the WP:NOTNEWS guideline and do not believe that it means that Wikipedia has to wait until something is old to include it in the encyclopedia. Chrisrus (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite showing impressive cut-and-paste skills, I don't believe Chrisrus's answer properly "considers the enduring notability of persons and events". Just because some animal-borne bombs are notable doesn't mean they all are. I read about some kids who strapped a firecracker to a cat; it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. At most this deserves a mention in one of the myriad other relevant articles on the specific conflict or the subject of animal bombs. But there's no indication it's beyond a simple "gee something strange has happened somewhere just now!" news report, published one day and forgotten the next - if it wasn't for the link to ISIS/ISIL/Daesh it would be a perfect example of the silly season. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • First, please explain what you meant by my "cut-and-paste" skills. How was I supposed to demonstrate that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this case without quoting directly from the guideline? I didn't just quote it, I also pointed out how each item does not apply so I did more than simply cut-and-paste. Your argument also contains a quotation seemingly cut and pasted. Quoting a relevant rule or guideline is what you are supposed to do in such contexts, so please strike-through that portion of your argument as irrelevant.
    • The analogy is not relevant. Animal-borne bomb refers to those with a military purpose, all of which have their own articles on Wikipedia even if they are never used in war, as long as they can be reliably sourced. The fact that you personally know of some kids who strapped a firecracker to a cat is not relevant.
    • Finally, yes, it does seem a silly thing at first, but ISIS is not silly, no bomb that works is silly, no sign that ISIS is insane, desperate, or out of ways to deliver their bombs is silly. This is not as silly or frivolous as it may seem so it's wrong to delete this article on the grounds that it's silly. Chrisrus (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Dolphin bombs don't have a separate article; they're a sentence in Animal-borne bomb attacks (Military dolphin is largely about their use in mine detection). This deserves similar treatment. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
And I don't consider quoting a large chunk of guideline and then appending "Clearly does not apply" really contributes to anything. Clearly the original deletion proposal was rather terse, but the relevant section of the guidelines should be obvious. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Reliability of sources is also a factor. The Daily Mail is included in Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, and I've no idea about the bona fides of the other sources: one Jordanian, one Afghan, neither with first-hand evidence. None of the source articles seem to be very certain that the suicide chickens even exist. While you insist this is serious business, they're more interested in making puns than establishing the facts. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Colapninsula, military dolphins which plant mines are in this category, but some clear them and do other things. That's not the situation with chickens.
It was showing that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. This objection is not relevant.
I found many sources for this, but thought these three would be enough. I will add more from different countries. Let me know when you're been convinced so I can stop. Chrisrus (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Chrisrus (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you see the qualifier even the DM put on the story: "although their authenticity could not be verified" - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per E.M.Gregory. Note that the title is misleading – there's no suggestion that such chickens are intentionally killing themselves for the cause. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The DM has an even more unreliable source for its article, The Daily Star. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per E.M. Gregory, seems a potentially valid search term but not worthy of an article itself per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. What information about the subject that is available in WP:RS could be included elsewhere (such as Animal-borne bomb attacks as suggested above). Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • LOL, you gotta love the idea of a suicide chicken. But, seriously, folks, it may be absurd to strap ammo to a bucket of KFC, but you gotta admit that as a bunch of geniuses are strapping bombs to chickens and mules and whatnot you have to keep that page.SummerSchool55 (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete It has to actually be a thing before it gets even a redirect. The Daily Mail doesn't care if this is real or not. It's great copy. The other two sources in the article are derivative of the Daily Mail piece (of ...). I would be shocked if there was an independent RS that corroborates this story. It clearly doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, which even redirects need to adhere to. Not that I don't appreciate the humor: "Once the chickens are successfully within striking distance without having aroused suspicion" Come on! A couple of big white things and a remote control strapped to a chicken wouldn't arouse suspicion? And I love the qualifier at the end of the first sentence, the passive "it has been claimed." Solid sourcing there! Chrisrus, I hope you are just objecting for giggles. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ranjeet Baral[edit]

Ranjeet Baral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ranjeet Baral" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:BIO. Very promotional in tone, edited by single editor from new. Having a range of jobs (itself not uncommon for many medical professionals) or using new techniques is not sufficient for a doctor to be on Wikipedia IMHO. kashmiri TALK 23:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"using new techniques is not sufficient for a doctor to be on Wikipedia" the article never mentions the use of any "new" technique but being the first doctor to introduce a special "diagnosis device" in Nepal for diagnosing an impending heart attack. [1] Dr. Baral is known for representing the 2012 London Olympics as team doctor, representing the doctors for the medical commission of Nepal Olympic Committee. [2][3][4][5] DblamaTALK

Sources in books/journals [6] [7] [8], 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - the subject is an active medical professional, but not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete promo advert, no claim of notability in the article, just another medical practitioner, some sources have trivial mentions of the subject, some are written by him, no in-depth coverage anywhere Kraxler (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sober Nation[edit]

Sober Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sober Nation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Only independent source is about the organization's founder, so it doesn't meet the notability standard for companies. Conifer (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, the articles may use the organization's founder as a jumping off point, but they are still substantially about Sober Nation as well, meriting at least a short stub article such as this one. Macrowriter (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

New independent source added from Baltimore City Paper that is about the organization. There are now two independent, serious references to the company. It does meet the notability standard for companies. • Ridleyjr (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Cape Cod Times article is entirely about the founder, with only a passing mention of the website itself. The Baltimore City Paper article has a mention of a top-10 list the organization put out. Neither of these are in-depth articles required to attain notability. Conifer (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

New independent source added from another addiction recovery group that details what Sober Nation does. That now makes 3 independent sources discussing the company, its founder, and its mission. Those three sources include two serious, credible newspapers and another prominent addiction recovery group. It does meet the notability standard for companies. If it doesn't, please outline what additional citations you would need to see to reach a consensus. • Ridleyjr (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The only source that actually explores the company in-depth is the page from the other addiction group, which is of questionable reliability (it's not a newspaper nor a subject-specific publication). Even if that was considered a substantive reference, there must be significant coverage to pass WP:ORG, not just one source. Conifer (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - none of the references provided qualify as reliable sources. I find a few bloggish sites (which only reference Stoddert as the founder and which suggest it is also a clothing company?) but that don't seem to be authoritative or sufficient in number to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - this company is regularly listed on university sites as a resource for alcohol and drug treatment. I edited the page to reflect the three examples I could find, though I'm sure there are others I'm missing as well. (alternate account for Ridleyjr) • FlagSkiier (talk) 6:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete promo advert of the website/organization, no in-depth coverage anywhere, the sources are trivial mentions at best, and one is about the alleged founder, but just mentions the name of the org. fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Kraxler (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bodhisattvas of the Earth[edit]

Bodhisattvas of the Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bodhisattvas of the Earth" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Not notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, this article started out as pure COPYVIO and now is "rewritten" copyvio as far as I can tell. It's also been tagged as an orphan, not neutral, OR and unbalanced since January. Ogress smash! 01:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article is still one sided thereby promoting a religious organisation. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • KeepJust received notice about this nomination for deletion. I disagree entirely. I do not have the time to thoroughly refute the contention now but will write more in the next few days. In the next few days I will document that this is an important component of several Nichiren schools and warrants a separate article, not just inclusion in the Lotus Sutra article.BrandenburgG (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Keep." The Bodhisattvas of the Earth is an important concept in almost all of the Nichiren schools as well as in various Lotus Sutra-based religions. Lmkei22 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Lmkei22 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Keep." Secular rationalists are unlikely to be confused.--Davidcpearce (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you clarify what you mean by "Secular rationalists are unlikely to be confused"? I don't understand. Ogress smash! 21:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Apologies for the clack of clarity. User Catflap08 was worried that the entry didn't critically examine the claims made - and could thereby be viewed as promoting a religious organization. On balance this seems unlikely, IMO. --Davidcpearce (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment En contraire. The concept is stated within named Sutra and not a concept as most sources given is likely to promote a certain religious group. Hence the issue should be explained within the article on Lotus Sutra.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Onliner.by[edit]

Onliner.by (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Onliner.by" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

An allegedly popular Belarusian web site but scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 00:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 00:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, allegedly. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Added some info. Please review. Cheers, --Jarash (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

MV Nimpkish[edit]

MV Nimpkish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "MV Nimpkish" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

No indication that this vessel is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - The article does demonstrate at least some notability. Referencing could be much better, but that's no reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I see zero evidence of notability. Rjensen (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a book by Gary and Patricia Bannerman (bibliography in BC Ferries article) which provides sufficient information to establish notability for the ship. I own a copy, but will not have access to it until at least August. Arsenikk (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep As a general rule named ships that are designed to carry passengers are almost always going to be notable. Editors would be well advised to take a deep breath and look carefully BEFORE sending these kinds of articles to AfD. In this case a quick search yielded no shortage of reliable secondary sources dealing with the ship. See (001) (002 (003) (004) (005). Those are just a random sampling from the first page of hits. Conceding that the article needs some work, there is absolutely no doubt that the subject passes GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to N-class ferry. Same for MV Nicola. The ships are notable: as Ad Orientem notes, ships are big things and they do tend to be. However there is very little to say about these three that I think couldn't be said most clearly in one overall article on the class. It's also 40 years since they were built and so I don't expect the class to gain new members. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Agree notable, but single article covering all three of the the class is better considering the amount of material available - and more convenient for readers. Davidships (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Shantanu Bagchi[edit]

Shantanu Bagchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Shantanu Bagchi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I would've PRODded this as it appears non-notable aside from the fact it says he won several awards in India so I'm not sure if these can be supported; all my searches found absolutely nothing and there's not much in the article as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Aengnam Station[edit]

Aengnam Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Aengnam Station" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable railway stations. Unsourced since 2009. Sawol (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are defunct stations on Gyeongjeon Line:

Dasolsa Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deoksan Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dorim Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gaeyang Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Galchon Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Goryak Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gumasan Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guryong Station (Suncheon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gyowon Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ipgyo Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jinjusumogwon Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jinseong Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mansu Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Naedong Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nakdonggang Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nammunsan Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pyeongchon Station (Jinju) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanin Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seokjeong-ri Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sudeok Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wonbuk Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yonggang Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yusu Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep. All railway stations are generally considered to be notable. Always have been. Being defunct is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about unsourced? Sawol (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The trick is to find sources, not delete! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Who dose find sources? They have been doing that over recent six years and I suspect they will keep on without reliable sources. Sawol (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Long standing and wise convention is that all rail stations are considered notable. If this project were flesh out the notability of the tens of thousands of stations throughout the world than there would be a gross amount of time and resources spent that would be better used at creating new articles and editing and improving existing ones, not to mention reducing animosity between editors. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all: While all railway stations may be presumed to have notability (as stipulated by WP:NTS and WP:STATION), since none of these articles have no sources whatsoever there is no proof of notability. This nomination explicitly challenges the notability of these articles and it's for those who dissent to come up with sources: "[O]nce an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." (WP:NPOSSIBLE) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Many of these stations, with no surprise sources are proven to exist. Most, if not all the sources are in Korean. For example for Wonbuk Station - written as "원북역" - the Korean Wikipedia article lists many sources (mostly from the 1950s and 1960s). It's impossible for stations to be built and used without various government reports, either budgetary or environmental. --Oakshade (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oakshade's reasoning. Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If there really are sources as Oakshade points out, please add them (as further reading, as I have done at Wonbuk Station, or better yet, as actual sources). So long as they don't appear in any of these articles there is little proof of sources. I hope this is time better spent as Oakshade put it. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Contrary to what some !voters affirm here above, there is no "long-standing and wise convention" that all train stations are notable. The guideline WP:NTS and the essay WP:STATION require expressly that multiple sources are shown. STATION goes even further, it says: "If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all." Let alone an article. Kraxler (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, de facto there is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It there is, it runs crash-head-on against both the guideline and the project's own notability essay. I suggest the members of Project Railways either amend their own criteria (and spell out what they're doing) or they drop the convention and abide by their own rules. Kraxler (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep All the ones I checked (I didn't go through them all) have sourced articles in Ko. I followed Finnusertop's advice to copy the sources from Ko as "further reading", tagging them with the language template. One-sentence stubs that are notable but sources available sources are non-English shouldn't be a problem to be kept simply because English sources are not available.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 23:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative[edit]

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

primary website down, and project almost unreferenced in literature. no usable information exists and article is vague. Ysangkok (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the program was later absorbed into another one called GNEP, it didn't take me long to find sources about the AFCI version of the program. I've added one to the page. PianoDan (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@PianoDan: according to IFNEC, that program was previously the GNEP. So why not just merge AFCI into IFNEC? --Ysangkok (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Notability is not temporary. That said, in this case, I wouldn't object to a merge and redirect. PianoDan (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@PianoDan:. I do not think there are any signs that IFNEC did anything else when using the previous names. We do not have an article for the National Cash Register Corporation, we just have the article on the current company, called NCR Corporation. I also advocate for the redirect. --Ysangkok (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as per PianoDan. Merge/redirect can be discussed on relevant talk pages. ~Kvng (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Aquarian Family Festival[edit]

Aquarian Family Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Aquarian Family Festival" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I attempted to search for sources but found nothing good at News, Books, browser, Newspapers Archive, highbeam and thefeelibrary with the best being browser and this particularly but that wouldn't support the article much, considering there's still other info unsourced. In May, I also nominated Every Picture Tells A Story (event), a music festival, but even that one was suddenly improved and I'm not seeing as much hope for this Aquarian though. I'm not sure if this should be merged at best somewhere else. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Steve Cotter[edit]

Steve Cotter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Steve Cotter" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This may've been an autobio or a subject close to Steve Cotter (author also started Steve Maxwell which is a little better) but what concerns me more is that there's no obvious improvement with my searches here (this link said Men's Magazine called him one of the world's fittest men") and here (one Men's Health, passing mention), browser found mostly fitness websites and highbeam found this (which Manila Bulleting says he is world renowned). There's also no good target for moving elsewhere as the only other article is Lei tai where he's quoted; I'm sure he's well known in his field but there's nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Churchill Homes[edit]

Churchill Homes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Churchill Homes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable with the best my searches found this, this (one of the best results is this, "one of the Paper City’s largest and most successful housing developments") and this. There's not much to suggest local or universal notability and there's no good target for moving elsewhere and I would not consider merging to Holyoke, MA a good option unless this is still considered locally significant. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Antonio Astuti[edit]

Antonio Astuti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Antonio Astuti" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

WP:BLP of a youth sportsman with no strongly encyclopedic notability — he seems to be associated primarily with a local junior kartracing circuit, with the closest he's gotten to a major national sports event which could actually confer notability being one where he participated in the singing of the national anthem at the opening ceremony, rather than as a competitor. In addition, the article is based entirely on primary sources like his own racing team's website, with not a shred of reliable source coverage in the entire article. He might potentially qualify for an article in the future if he keeps it up, but nothing that's been written or sourced here gets him over WP:ATHLETE today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A teenage go-karter just doesn't get it done. Fails WP:GNG with a big thud. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WMBP-LP[edit]

WMBP-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "WMBP-LP" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Standard searches did not reveal enough significant coverage in independent and reliable sources to meet threshold for notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Broadcast_media. Nothing to show a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • As near as I can tell from its website, this is not an originating station in its own right — the core condition that a radio station has to meet to satisfy either "established broadcast history" or "unique programming". Rather, it appears to be a pure rebroadcaster of WVVW-LP, with no evidence of any unique programming separate from whatever's beamed in from Parkersburg. A station of that type doesn't get its own independent article; it gets a redirect to its programming source. Redirect to WVVW-LP. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: First, this station was signed on a little under 7 days ago. It is not clear what the format will be. Some stations sign on, simulcast, while working out the kinks. Second, the page has 4 sources, pretty good for a brand new station (most have none). I think we are jumping the gun here. - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I went BOLD: I am in too much pain to fight with deletionists this morning, so I redirected WMBP-LP and WVVP-LP to WVVW-LP and merged the information and sources. Thus begins the slippery slope. - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
"The slippery slope"? Dude, take a chill pill. What we have here is four -LP stations with a common website, all 15 to 20 miles apart from each other at most, and one of your four sources was a Facebook post. The likelihood that they're ever going to be anything other than a common simulcast of a single station is pretty low, frankly — but if and when there is actually some RS evidence that they have started to air distinct programming from each other, we can always spin them back out into separate articles again when that time comes. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
When we start merging station pages together (even if they are rebroadcasters), ones with highly reliable sources, one of them being the official Facebook page of the station (just as good as their own website), that is the beginning of the slippery slope in my opinion. For the record, I had a chill pill prior to my last post. - NeutralhomerTalk • 07:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
A radio station's own website is not an independent source that can confer notability, but a primary source. So you may have a point that their own Facebook is "just as good as their own website" — but what you're missing is that when it comes to demonstrating a radio station's notability, the "goodness" of their own website is a big fat zero. It can verify some facts (e.g. looking at the "artists played" scroll in the event of a dispute about their format), but it cannot count toward demonstrating the station's notability. And the consensus of WP:WPRS has always been that pure rebroadcasters get redirected to their programming source, not independent articles about each individual transmitter. This isn't a new consensus that's just emerged recently, or an unconsensual deviation from WP:NMEDIA — it's exactly the way things have always been, and you've previously participated in ensuring that said consensus was followed. So I'm really just not grokking your reaction here — you seem to be taking this way more personally than necessary. Bearcat (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Crusty Demons[edit]

Crusty Demons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Crusty Demons" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

My searches found no good sources or signs of improvement here, here, here and here, there are articles saying they're "highly sucessful" and such but no good and in-depth coverage. I'm also not seeing a good target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

International Dadaism Month[edit]

International Dadaism Month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "International Dadaism Month" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Unsourced for more than four years. I cannot find any RSes that discuss it. Now an editor has decided that it needs to be linked to individual days. If the content must be kept, merge it to Dada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ardmore GAC[edit]

Ardmore GAC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ardmore GAC" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This seems to be a very minor local club with little significance outside its city. It's certainly not professional. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Uri Geva[edit]

Uri Geva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Uri Geva" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Person appears to run a collegiate baseball league and a web design company, neither of which would meet WP:N guidelines. Only one paragraph under Biography section is actually about him, and it consists of routine information. Almost all the information in the article came from one account which has only edited this article and two related articles, suggesting this is an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY (not that there's anything wrong with that). LionMans Account (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of :Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Person is a pillar of the Bryan - College Station community. He speaks often at Texas A&M University, helps students, employs many people, and at one point was running the Texas Collegiate League. He has won several awards and has been published.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎66.215.95.4 (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2015)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Alma L. Lee[edit]

Alma L. Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alma L. Lee" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I'm not sure this person is notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alma lee is the presedent of a union councel that represents over 200,000 employees. I think she is very relevant and notable[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublindietrite12 (talkcontribs) 01:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  • Delete Heads of sub-councils of larger unions are rarely notable. The head of the UAW or such a union is probably going to be notable, the head of the sub-unit for General Motors would not be, same with the sub-unit for VA employees.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Indium Corporation[edit]

Indium Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Indium Corporation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I find lots of press releases, but effectively nothing in the way of secondary source coverage. There is the Time Magazine article, but from what I can see, it's about a scientist who later worked at this company, and not about the company itself. If someone with access to the whole article knows differently, then it could be a keep. agtx 01:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative stub Ugh, why did I spend time cleaning up all that junk. Spammy articles filled with promotion and primary sources should just be deleted, but now that I've cleaned it up, there are a couple sources worth keeping and a half-decent stub. Still very open to deletion however if those are the only sources available. CorporateM (Talk) 07:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

PNGOUT[edit]

PNGOUT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "PNGOUT" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This is a freeware software utility. This article was tagged with notability concerns in 2011, and in 2014, I redirected it to the author's page after I couldn't establish notability. Today, my redirection was reverted, but I still don't see any coverage in reliable sources for this software. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should merge this into Portable Network Graphics#Optimizing tools; that's what happened to OptiPNG. —SamB (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

GamerGhazi[edit]

GamerGhazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "GamerGhazi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Does not even come close meet WP:GNG. Strongjam (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Little to no RS coverage, even if this counts as a RS, but even if it does almost every other search result I found was a forum or blog (not reliable). Everymorning talk 02:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Medium is a blogging platform, most everything found there is a self-published source. — Strongjam (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Where is that sourse used on the article? AmericanEnki (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not. Everymorning searched for sources and that was what they found. — Strongjam (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 Yes, that's correct, Strongjam. Everymorning talk 02:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Mergeanything of significance, if anything, to the main GamerGate article and redirect there. Artw (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
GamerGhazi is a completely seperate movement from GamerGate and therefore reserves its own pageAmericanEnki (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
On further examination its a dumb stunt page so a straight up delete would be appropriate. Artw (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Anything you consider to be a 'stunt?' Please identify.AmericanEnki (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
GamerGhazi is currently at half the relevency as Brianna Wu and she recieves her own page. https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Brianna%20Wu%2C%20GamerGhazi&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4 AmericanEnki (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
We do not analyze Google search trends in order to determine whether or not a topic is notable, AmericanEnki. This is an encyclopedia (not Twitter or Reddit) that covers topics which have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Since you are a very new editor, it is understandable that you are not aware of that. The coverage of this topic in such sources is negligible at best. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok I seeAmericanEnki (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's halfway to being an attack page, and I can't find any reliable sources to indicate that this is a notable movement/web forum. It gets trivial mentions scattered through questionable sources on Google News, but that's not enough. Like Cullen328 says, I don't think there's any content here that's worth salvaging. I guess it could be redirected, but I probably wouldn't bother. See WP:42 for a quick run-down on our inclusion criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What specifically do you find to be an attack? I will revise? what specific sources do you take issue with? I can revise.AmericanEnki (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The wording of the entire article is selected to paint the topic in a negative light, and completely lacks neutrality. The sources are mostly blogs including Reddit. That site is not a reliable source for anything whatsoever, except perhaps its date of founding, headquarters city, and current CEO, for the moment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like Ryk cleaned up the worst of it. However, there are some problems you can't fix through editing, and notability is one of them. We need professional journalists to write articles about the topic; forum posts are not sufficient. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Reddit URLS are only supplied to talk about the Reddit Squat (info about reddit site state EX. CEOS, Current mods) or to qoute a controversy that occured within a Reddit thread (Reddit users giving money to Wikipedia contibutor.) Even a broken source is useful twice a day AmericanEnki (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and maybe Redirect to Gamergate controversy if any reliable sources can be found which would justify talking about it there. I'm not able to find anything more than brief mentions in reliable sources and the current article is pretty clearly POV/OR, citing no reliable sources at all. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete While it is tied to Gamergate, there are no non-attacking RSes here to cover it objectively, and so should be avoided for the time being. That said, if the term does some up in a RSes in a manner to be described fairly, I think a redirect to summarize in the GG situation is appropriate. But not now. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The RSes given are mostly direct, primary sources not hit or attack pieces.AmericanEnki (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Understandable, wait for more coverage?AmericanEnki (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Not sure what the larger travesty is: unsourced GamerGhazi page or the fact that the GamerGate page opens with GamerGhazi POV manifesto. --DHeyward (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Annette Freyberg-Inan[edit]

Annette Freyberg-Inan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Annette Freyberg-Inan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I'm not really seeing the independent sources on this one. I'm seeing two of the subject's homepages ([15], [16]), two pages that don't mention her at all ([17], [18]), three passing mentions by fora with which she is affiliated ([19], [20], [21]), four pages from vendors hawking her books ([22], [23], [24], [25]) and three of her articles ([26], [27], [28]). So, as far as WP:PROF is concerned, criterion 1 isn't met, and neither are any of the other criteria, as far as I can tell. - Biruitorul Talk 20:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Both pages you say don't mention her at at all, do in fact mention Annette Freyberg-Inan. Please, check more carefully before proposing a deletion. Check the editors list for the Journal of International Relations and Development http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jird/about.html#Editors and also the staff, research affiliate for the Political Economy and Transnational Governance (PETGOV) http://aissr.uva.nl/research/programme-groups/content/political-economy-and-transnational-governance/staff/research-affiliate/research-affiliate.html Also the subject's homepage are hosted by institutions: University of Amsterdam and University of Edinburgh. The fora to which she is affiliated are highly regarded in the field of IR/ International Relations. Three 'vendors of her books" happen to be some of the most distinguished university press institutions: Cambridge University Press, the John Hopkins University Press, State University of New York/SUNY Press. Articles are published in peer-refereed journals, once again, a guarantee of their quality by the wider academic community.

So, I do believe the reasons for "deletion" are unfounded.--Doinacaj (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doinacaj. The sources you mention are everything that any normal academic or author would have. A CV on her employers website, articles she has written. Unfortunately normal academics don't get a page on wikipedia - only notable academics. None of these are articles about her by reliable sources which are independent of her. Have a look at WP:PROF. This gives a pretty clear idea of the Wikipedia requirements for us to keep an article. Please address these requirements and explain why this academic meets those requirements or else this article will be deleted. My understanding of those requirements is that homepages don't satisfy those requirements nor do contributions to notable fora nor do peer referenced articles so I'm afraid that your paragraph above will not help convince us to keep this article (Though, if you do find enough independent coverage to satisfy WP:PROF, then those links will all be useful for making the article better).
Sorry if this is not what you want to here but those are the requirements we apply to other academics and we will apply them to this article too. filceolaire (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sesan Thaddeus Fabamise[edit]

Sesan Thaddeus Fabamise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sesan Thaddeus Fabamise" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Subject of the article fails WP:ACADEMIC. He is just doing his job as a lecturer at Afe Babalola University. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 22:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I found one paper with five cites in GScholar on a search for Fabamise. That gives him a h-index of 1, which is below the average even for a (full) professor of law (which 2.8 according to LSE). So that closes that particular route to notability. On the other hand, I do know that GScholar does not give complete coverage of all academics and all academic publications. James500 (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note to closing admin --- the page creator Gabnite (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabnite. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 09:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Marin Aničić[edit]

Marin Aničić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Marin Aničić" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Previous concern is unknown as the deletion log simply says: WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection. In any case, Aničić has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The claim that Kazakhstan Premier League is fully pro is not supported by reliable sources. (See WP:FPL). Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
See the reglamet of the League: 2015 Reglament of the Championship of Kazakhstan among clubs of a Premier League
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Wikimandia and ChelseaFunNumberOne's comments are erroneous, there is no consensus that any league in Kazakhastan is fully professional. The "pro" element of a UEFA coaching license has no bearing on the level of professionalism of the players in a league, it is merely a grade of coaching badge. Being a member of UEFA has no bearing on the level of professionalism in a country, Andorra and Gibraltar are members of UEFA, but no one is suggesting this makes them fully professional. If there are specific elements of the document that indicate full professionalism for any level of football in Kazakhstan, can you please present them explicitly with translation? Fenix down (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Fenix down and Sir Sputnik: Can you please define "fully pro"? I am not an expert in this area and I'm confused. What exactly makes the Kazakhstan Premier League not meet "fully pro" criteria? I would understand if it was a B league but it's the top tier league in KAZ. The essay WP:FPL has an incomplete list of leagues and has no criteria whatsoever. Thank you. МандичкаYO 😜 11:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't have any criteria because each league requires specific sourcing to indicate a fully pro status. Essentially, you have to show sources that support the league as having more than just professional elements. All the clubs have to be professional to the point that they are their players sole employer. It doesn't have to be from the FA or league itself. This source, for example, is a news report that shows the English football league to be fully pro. Fenix down (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
So I need to find an article that states that the players in the Kaz Premier League don't have other jobs? Or that the one guy with another job is indeed, the one guy who has another job? LOL. МандичкаYO 😜 11:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Well not exactly, but you see that it isn't the sort of things that can have rigid criteria. If you think you have sources that indicate full professionalism, then please do present them here. Each league is judged on the strength of the sources presented and consensus needs to be achieved in order for a league to be considered fully pro. It's not a perfect way of doing things, but at least it means there is a level of agreement. Fenix down (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a really weak situation - if you are going to decide notability based on this one criteria (playing in fully professional league) this should be something that has a clear definition. I don't understand how whether something as specific as "professional" or not "isn't the sort of things that can have rigid criteria." Why isn't there a definite list of full professional leagues in the world's most popular sport? The Kazakhstan Premier League obviously has tons of sources, its current season (2015 Kazakhstan Premier League) was well sourced. I'm not trying to be difficult but I'm very surprised at this situation. МандичкаYO 😜 13:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether articles on the league are well sourced in general, what matters is can you find a reliable source that indicates a fully professional status for a given competition. The reason there isn't a clearly defined list of criteria is that it's not necessary. As I showed with the link above, sources indicating a fully professional state can be found anywhere and do not necessarily conform to a given type.
Now this isn't perfect, but I think it is a very good way of judging things. Rather than having any individual set of criteria, each league is judged on it's merits and clear consensus among the community must be reached before addition on the FPL list. The notion of consensus is fundamental to enWiki. I'm sorry if it seems vague to you but not everything is clear cut when it comes to consensus and the FPL rule has been in place for about seven years now and has worked pretty well, at least well enough to the point that no one has come up with an alternative that has been deemed preferable.
To be honest though, the notion of FPL is fundamentally moot. GNG is what really counts. If a player is really that notable, then they should be able to satisfy GNG regardless of what league they play in. Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)