Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 July	17 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Native 1080p or 60fps Xbox One Games[edit]

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

I fail to see how this list is important or necessary here, with the unnecessary emphasis on 1080p and 60fps. We have a more comprehensive and complete list like List of Xbox One games, and this is very redundant. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Better covered as a category, or its own column at some sort of "List of Xbox One games" article, its just not necessary to have every single combination of factors for its own list like this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any salvageable content to List of Xbox One games, or, if there isn't any salvageable content, Delete. Can fall under WP:IINFO. --TL22 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No salvageable content, list of indiscriminate information. The topic of which games are what frames per second is not covered in reliable sourced coverage. – czar 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I guess it could be done as a cat but either way as it stands now there's nothing worth keeping here. –Davey2010^Talk 16:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 20:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems.club[edit]

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

I considered speedying this, but I wasn't sure. This doesn't appear to have any claim of importance. There's also a fair amount of advertising in the about section, which has been copied and pasted from its website, which doesn't appear to have an appropriate licence for its use here. Adam9007 (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's good to be cautious as a new pages patroller, but since you've brought this here, my opinion is that the article does qualify for A7: it doesn't make an assertion of notability. Additionally, no significant coverage of this website appears to exist online, which is hardly surprising, seeing as it was launched in "Jule 2015" (July 2015?), so it is highly unlikely to be notable. Altamel (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unleash the Archers (band)[edit]

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

Long standing article about a band that appears to have had no chart success. Many refs but none that are mainstream, reliable and robust. Fails WP:BAND Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Criteria 1, Unleash The Archers has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works", inasmuch as reviews, interviews, and articles regarding the Time Stands Still album and "Tonight We Ride" video are rolling in from media outlets across the globe. Revolver Magazine, Metal Hammer, and Terrorizer Magazine -- which are as close to mainstream as metal journalism usually comes -- are just a few of the print and online media outlets that have featured Unleash The Archers in the past two months. A quick Google search of "Unleash The Archers + Time Stands Still + review" will pull up page after page of reviews from independent sources.

Wikipedia's notability guidelines state: "Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject. It does not require that any editor has already named these sources ..." The album's worldwide release date was less than a week ago (only July 10th); therefore, despite generated substantial media attention, the wiki page's references are not representative of either the number or the caliber of publications that have recently featured the band.

Per Criteria 4, the band "[h]as received non-trivial coverage" regarding its eight-week North American tour (September 8, 2015 through October 31, 2015). Although not one of the criteria, it is worth noting that the "Tonight We Ride" video has received more than 350,000 views on YouTube since its release on May 26th. Moreover, the album was released through Napalm Records, which is one of the largest metal labels out there.

Because Unleash The Archers appears to satisfy at least two criteria, the page should not be deleted. --Taggart10 (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Metal bands tend to get a lot of coverage from webzines that would not be regarded as reliable sources here, and the sources cited in the article mostly fall into this category. The reviews from Exclaim!, however, plus the write up in The Straight and this from PopMatters and coverage in Rock Hard ([1]) between them are close to satisfying notability guidelines. Articles from the major metal magazines are generally not found online and it seems likely this band will have received print coverage in those publications. --Michig (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as well simply because the article is sourced and a little more acceptable although I expected some more sourcing by my searches here (the best results I found). Oftentimes, metal bands get minimal coverage and it's understandable and because they are often obscure. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources identified are sufficient for me. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep (non-admin closure). This concern should be addressed through a merging discussion on the relevant talk pages, or by creating articles for Tangent (function) and Cosine, not with an AfD. FourViolas (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sine[edit]

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

The other trigonometric functions are redirects, so this one should be a redirect too. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commment so that would be a redirect to Trigonometric_functions#Sine.2C_cosine_and_tangent presumably. Siuenti (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's lots here that's not in Trigonometric_functions#Sine.2C_cosine_and_tangent, and there's a lot more that can be said about sines than just the definition. Some is in other articles (e.g. List of trigonometric identities), but this is still a useful and encyclopedic topic. It's a bad argument to say "there's no article on cosines so we should delete the article on sines": this is a wiki, and articles aren't created according to a careful plan. Maybe we need an article on cosines. Plus, if you're going to propose a redirect (a) do it on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion not here, and (b) say what you think it should actually redirect to. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as invalid. AfD is not for redirection, which is does not require any special process. You could just do it and see if you get reverted, or less provocatively, you could use the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers procedure. Note that I have no strong opinion on whether sine should be a separate article. --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason not to have a more specific and detailed article on sine than could be incorporated in a more general article on trigonometric functions. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is definitely scope for a separate article, but I don't think the current arrangement of content is ideal. There is some good content at sine, but probably contains too much overlap with the existing article trigonometric functions. An article on the sine could include things like the tables that appear later on, series and product developments, continued fraction expansions, etc. Similar articles could be spun off for the other trigonometric functions as well. In fact, if anything it's strange that we don't have articles about each of these. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It does seem odd to have a separate article for sine but not cosine or tangent. Cotangent and cosecant seem less notable but where do you draw the line? The trigonometric functions article is probably too long and there should be less trying to include everything in one page and more putting the details into linked articles. Not sure that we need a separate article for all six functions though. Maybe rename 'sine' to 'sine and cosine', or leave the name and just include cosine in the sine article since they're really the same with a domain shift. You could do something similar with the remaining functions. Note, we do have a separate articles for versine and exsecant which cover the "forgotten" functions. I agree with some of the other comments that this should have been a proposed merge, not an AfD. --RDBury (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep per Trovatore's reasoning. This is a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion, and nobody can argue that the topic cannot support a separate article. Asking why cos and tan lack their own articles is silly: they could support stand-alone articles too. Not all the contents are duplicated at trigonometric functions, and the question of whether there's too much overlap in coverage belongs on article talk pages, not at AfD. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ekkirala Krishnamacharya[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable individual. Quis separabit? 21:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus to delete due to being none notable software. Chillum 14:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AltDrive[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:N. Article is simply a description of it's service components. Its references are mostly to its own website. Tmsevre1 (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft/userfy because this was basically the best results I found. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources per SwisterTwister. May attain notability someday, but not now. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software/service article of unclear notability. The two independent refs provided are incidental mentions, not significant coverage, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abderite Theatre Company[edit]

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

Probably non-notable theatre company for schools and local productions. Couldn't find any in-depth coverage, and no evidence for regional or national notability. Article contains no independent significant sources and focusses more on the 2 directors instead of the company's concept and productions (no awards or other details). Note - the domain owner of their homepage has changed, so you'll have to use the archive for any information from their former homepage. GermanJoe (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as my searches found nothing particularly good and considering it's existed since November 2006, I would've expected a little better improvement (not that the current state is blatantly concerning though, I suppose) but my searches found nothing adds concern therefore I'm not seeing much. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe this company was formally dissolved a few years ago, which is not necessarily a reason to delete per WP:NTEMP but probably explains why their website has lapsed and not much information is to be found online. --Deskford (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Seerg[edit]

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

No more notable a musician than first time article was deleted by consensus. Junky, unsourced, trivial waste of cyberspace. What else?Quis separabit? 21:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, created by a user who's also made a string of Stevie Nicks related articles that failed various guidelines. Azealia911 _talk 22:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sourced with blog and itunes, found nothing in WP:RS. Vrac (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find anything resembling reliable sources out there whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 08:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backgammon match strategy[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY. ...William 11:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is a work in progress, and the material in it can be supported by reliable sources, e.g. articles by acknowledged backgammon expert Kit Woolsey. I'm not some newbie creating a random article, I'm an experienced wikipedia editor who happens to know a bit about backgammon and spotted a gap in wikipedia's coverage. Let the article develop instead of jumping on it just because it needs some work. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears that Backgammon#Strategy and tactics is an already existing section. Please do provide RS to support that this is a separately notable subset of that, which the article has cited none so far and no hits in GBooks for an intuitively uninitiated search key I tried. No !vote. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about holding off on this discussion while I work on the article? The topic is in fact quite complex, and is not adequately dealt with in the Backgammon#Strategy and tactics section. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then make it a draftspace or userspace draft. Articles will receive much more rigorous critique in mainspace, but draft/userspace drafts are mostly kept as long as it is not blatantly inappropriate and not abandoned for a long time. In fact let me mak that !vote per your comments: Draftify 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced essay. If the editor can reference it, why didn't he do so before uploading it? Sandbox is the place until then.--Smerus (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I have linked to contain similar information to what I am writing here. However I have no wish to copyvio so I'm writing the article in my own words rather than paraphrasing anyone. Don't expect a number at the end of every sentence but the information is verifiable. WP:NOTESSAY does not apply because the article is not "original research" or my personal opinions; it reflects the consensus of experts on the subject like Tom Keith, Kit Woolsey. So many good articles have started out as stubs, why can't this article be allowed to develop as well? MaxBrowne (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've played this game a few times and concluded that a better player wins, dispite of the dices. Hence there must be a strategy just like in chess. I can't see why to remove this article. Even IF there is something poor with the article, fast improvements are the most likly outcome if article is kept. Anyone who wants to see a splendid Backgammon stategy article must draw this conclution. To hide the article away and hope it will be better is very unlikely to happen. It will atleast take ages if the article is removed. Put a warning of somekind instead. Boeing720 (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - move to Backgammon strategy. It is sourced, and we have an entire Category:Chess strategy related to chess strategy... —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's clearly a work in progress and has an experienced editor working on it. There are a couple of sources and I'm sure there are many more that can be added. Give User:MaxBrowne and other editors a chance to complete the job. Jkmaskell (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge-n-redirect into Backgammon strategy#match strategy. Academic sources also exist, in machine learning subsection of computer science, such as [2] which has 224 cites in scholar.google.com -- another that turned up immediately was this.[3] There is at least one 1992 paper cited in one of those PDFs, and the latter PDF is from 2009. See also existing article backgammon_opening_theory which cites Woolsey et al; maybe should merge the content with Backgammon match strategy, and call the result Backgammon strategy#opening theory and Backgammon strategy#match strategy. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Colors[edit]

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

This is an unsourced list of shows broadcast on Colors (TV channel), past and present. Recommending deletion as this is a directory listing in violation of WP:NOTDIR, with the list being tagged as unsourced since September 2013 as secondary rationale. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment it seems to be a pretty standard category (List of programs broadcast by NBC, List of programmes broadcast by Comedy Central (UK and Ireland), List of programs broadcast by CTV and CTV Two )etc, (that are pretty standardly insufficiently sourced). In concept I think that the subject is very likely that if one were looking in the right place one would find sourcing of analysts discussing the programming and evolution of programming as the channels establish their "brand" and the "brand" evolves over time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as noted by TRPoD, it is standard to index notable television series by their network of original broadcast. These are not "directory listings" but are rather of historical value, being a significant fact about both the series and the networks that satisfies WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN (as a complement to Category:Colors (TV channel) series), not to mention fully compliant with WP:NOTDIR as per its intro ("Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content.") and item 4 ("historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable"). This misconception unfortunately recurs periodically. Nominators really need to read the whole text (not to mention look at general practice) before concluding something is "in violation" of it, and not just latch on to key words or catchphrases. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
postdlf, as you have motioned to keep, do you have access to reliable sources to support the existence of this particular list? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How would it be possible that the notable network of origin for notable series would be unverifiable? The very first entry even has an official page on the Colors website,[4] which is linked in its article. Did you even look? Walk us through what you did per WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lousy deletion rationale for a list with so many blue links. Now sourced for the sake of sourcing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Sources have been provided and I do agree that there is some value in a historical list of programs. If there are no other concerns I believe this may now be closed. Thank you to everyone who provided their input. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Burning mouth syndrome. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stomatopyrosis[edit]

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

This is a lesser used synonym of burning mouth syndrome.

No content needs to be merged as it is already covered on BMS. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The term appears to be used in many contexts, so a redirect is most appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an uncommon term relative to BMS. Redirect is fine with me. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The arguments in favour of deletion are both stronger and greater in number. Michig (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Lutheran Diocese[edit]

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

This small denomination in Oregan was deleted via a full debate in 2009, and it's been back at CSD again. I had a look for news hits, but could only find things like this press release. However, I'm not convinced it's completely unsalvagable, so I'm bringing discussion here to see if anyone else can do it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd looked for sources and honestly, I couldn't find anything. Basically this is an organization that someone started up on their own in 2005. Lutherans don't have one specific central government that they answer to akin to how Catholics generally answer to an archdiocese or the Pope, but they do have larger organizations like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The ILD is not a part of any of these other denominations of Lutheranism from what I can see. (In other words while it can be similar to various orthodox Lutheran denominations it is not a part of those denominations and should be seen as a separate group entirely.) It looks like this is also something that just about anyone can join, so it's not like it covers a set portion of territory like the Missouri Synod does. In any case, despite being around for 10 years I cannot find anything out there other than routine notifications of events and various primary sources like press releases- and I've looked under ILD and its original name, Old Lutheran Church in America. This seems to be your run of the mill small faction where someone decided to start up their own organization. Christianity (especially Lutheranism) has quite a few of these, where people decide to start up their own organization where they say they're going back to the "true" path. Per the article, this organization oversees less than 30 churches. Given that there's pretty much zero coverage other than (if the article is to be believed) a mention in a Northwestern Publishing book (a religious publisher that publishes things like devotionals and Bibles, so it's not an academic press per Wikipedia's criteria), I honestly don't think that this would merit an entry on Wikipedia. It also doesn't help that it's incredibly promotional in tone and has been used as a COI WP:SOAPBOX for years. In other words, it's not like the more well-known and established Lutheran Synods so it shouldn't be considered on par with those. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's not part of the International Lutheran Council or any of the denominations listed here, to the best of my knowledge. By all accounts it looks to be a new and independent (hence its name) organization that operates separately from the more established Lutheran bodies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As I read it this is a small denomination. We normally allow articles on denominations, though not necessarily those on local churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Denominations are generally notable precisely because they are usually covered in directories, as this one is. I can't access WELS and other Lutherans, but that doesn't matter. St Anselm (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind an inherent notability criteria for religions (anyone got a link to policy?) but the content still needs to be verifiable, which at the moment it largely isn't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is - look up WELS. St Anselm (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept then this will need to be re-written from scratch since this is pretty unambiguously promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to ask though - what is the criteria for even being in this directory? Is it the type of thing where anyone can join if they have a certain number of churches under their belt? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, what if it's basically the type of thing where it's a directory where anyone can be listed? What concerns me here is that we don't do this for other organizations that contain multiple groups, so I'm not exactly sure why this would be different for religious organizations. (As I see it, this looks to be more of an organization/association than a denomination per se, really - it even describes itself as an association in the article.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least if this is kept, I'd like to request that the original editor not make edits on the page since he's the one that has been adding the various promotional prose and has been using it as an extension of the organization's website. I don't really think that he's able to edit without making it promotional or non-NPOV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~deletes~~ Flag me if independent sources can be produced. I have looked and can find no reliable news reports or secondary sources. The problem as I see it is that any group can declare itself a denomination, but to merit a Wikipedia article a denomination needs to be written up in reliable secondary sources. I don't know this directory, since it is the only source yet produced, we would need to know that it sets some standards for inclusion. I don't doubt that this denomination is real and significant to its members, I simply have tried and failed to locate reliable secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to a lack of coverage from any independent, reliable sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting because St. Anselm and Peterkingiron usually understand these things. I did find a page for a Church that belongs to the ILD [5], another church website [www.missionarylutheran.org/our-history.html] and a page for a seminary [6] True, the only secondary source is a very small paper that ran what appears to be a Seminary press release [7]. Denominations are inherently notable. But the lack of no secondary sources.... I'm rethinking.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Quis separabit? 21:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 20:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dunnet (video game)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a Google Books or video game reliable sources custom Google search. Best is that some technical books mention in a single sentence that it's a game built into another piece of software. It is not covered in any more depth by reliable sources. I'd entertain a redirect to GNU Emacs#Extensibility, where it is mentioned by name. I'd also entertain removing it from that article (where I do not think it adds to the topic) and deleting it altogether. Please ping me you find non-English and offline sources. – czar 13:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep game is a significant early exposition of the Arpanet — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMPIRE (talk • contribs) 13:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have any reliable, secondary sources to back that up? – czar 16:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep^{(note for closer: COI exists but the editor is striving to maintain their objectivity)} - (I am the author of the game - originally in 1983, so weigh that however you want). It is not only part of Emacs(and was not originally written as part of EMACS, but later adapted). Here is a web version: coolwanglu.github.io/dunnet.js/ .

folded away to tidy up the AfD and attract more eyes

Some references (which may or may not be reliable under your definition - I am not an expert at such things), include several issues of Mac Addict Magazine, several issues of Mac World magazine, and dozens of other hard-print magazine articles. I can cite references if they are worthwhile, but I will wait to see your response as to whether or not they are reliable. Its integration into Emacs was an event of note, but does not define the game. I originally posted its source code in the '80s to USENET. It was originally written in MACLisp. Not that it means anything, but I have been getting fan mail and e-mail asking questions about the game every day since the early '90s. I am too humble to state it as OMPIRE did, but I've been told by many others that it is a piece of history. As a side effect of its (non-exclusive) integration into Emacs, it's been claimed that it is the game installed on more computer than any game in the world other than Solitaire. This is due to the fact that most web servers and all Mac computers install it by default. My signature (with the tildes) doesn't seem to work right (maybe you can tell me how to fix it?) I'm known on here as both "Ron Schnell" and "aviators99". I will now type the tildes: Ron Schnell 00:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, doing a Google Books search with the term "dunnet text adventure" (without quotes) yields quite a few references; not all of which are meaningless (although some are indeed very minor). In particular, the ones that reference how to run it from the command line (as opposed to from Emacs) I would consider to have standalone importance. Ron Schnell 00:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A few things: (1) If indeed you are the creator, our conflict of interest guidelines strongly encourage you to not edit the article directly, but through suggested edits. (2) Yes, Mac World and Mac Addict articles should be helpful and would count as coverage in mainstream, reliable publications. That said, the Google Books search you mention brings up all passing mentions—single sentences that use the word "dunnet" (not enough to constitute significant coverage). Article topics must have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) If the Mac magazine sources cover the game, review it, talk about any of its historical impact as you conceive it, then we have actual material to write an article. Otherwise, we're left with an unsourced article, or worse, one that relies on unreliable blogs and hearsay. We delete those. (3) Lots of cult classics don't have articles on Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia of the verifiability and not of fan mail volume. We leave it to reliable, secondary sources to determine whether something is indeed "a piece of history" rather than leaving it to your or my opinion. In other words, we don't just trust OMPIRE's statement on the game's significance to ARPANET—we require sources of repute. (Type four tildes in a row and they will magically turn into your signature when you click "save".) – czar 02:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I try not to edit the article directly. Her's a full Macworld article: http://www.macworld.com/article/1047210/oldschooladventure.html, Here is a Mac Addict article: http://www.maclife.com/article/columns/terminal_101_4_emacs_easter_eggs. They cover it around once per year, and always act as though it's a Mac-specific thing, causing misinformation. This has previously been helped by Wikipedia, as it sets them straight that 1) It is not an easter egg, and 2) It is not a Mac game; it is a UNIX game (and now not only a UNIX game since there is a web version, as demonstrated above). I'll also remind you that it has "outlasted" Zork and Adventure as text adventures that are currently shipping on new computers from the factory today. You can download rewrites of Zork and Adventure from various pages, but Dunnet comes automatically on 20+ million Apple computers per year plus an unknown number of new web servers per year (probably more than Apple's 20+ million), written in its native language. I do put the 4 tildes, but "sinebot" usually replaces it for some reason. Ron Schnell 14:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

((collapsetop | (( sinebot troubleshooting advice -- not related to the AfD. )) ))

Ron, methinks the problem with SineBot is that your 'Ron Schnell' sig is non-hyperlinked to any user-talkpage , see the helpdocs at User_talk:SineBot#FAQ. Or if you haven't reconfigured your sig-config, maybe you are pasting something, rather than literally clicking edit then typing your content then literally typing tildeTildeTildeTilde at the end of your comment then clicking save? If you have two usernames, and are logged into Aviator99, you cannot sign as RonSchnellUid1234 ... similarly, if you aren't logged into any wikipedia UID, then putting the quadTilde into your posting will 'sign' the posting you just saved with your IP addr, rather than your wikipedia-username. Hope this info helps you get it worked out, if not, there are a few places you can seek technical advice -- see WP:Q for the list, you probably want either "Live chat help" via IRC or the "Teahouse" for fastest response, if those don't get you fixed up then try some of the other places mentioned at WP:Q. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

((collapsebottom))

Should clarify even further that not only is it still written in its native language, it is the same code. I even made some changes last year that are now in the code base. If there is any reason you would like to confirm that I am the author, run the game. My e-mail address is in the "help" command, and I would be happy to respond to you. Ron Schnell 14:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

Right, so OMPIRE added those sources to the article already. The issue is that, as you noted, they aren't enough to confirm basic aspects of the game, such that we'd have to rely on original research rather than reliable secondary sources. The first source has some info but the second is simply a blurb—there isn't enough to write an encyclopedia article on this game. I would suggest hosting this content on a Wikia or another wiki if you want it preserved. – czar 15:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually believe there are enough secondary sources to keep the article. Ron Schnell 20:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ron, thanks for your help with wikipedia, and thanks for writing Dunnet; I agree that yes, probably there are enough secondary sources with in-depth coverage to keep the article... but only barely, from what sources we have seen in this discussion. Here's a good one,[8] and here's another good one.[9][10] (See WP:NSOFT-essay for why the second pair only count as 'one' source in the wiki-verse... but note that is an essay rather than a guideline or a policy or a legal mandate.) For the purposes of this AfD discussion, only cites with in-depth-coverage -- aka several paragraphs and preferably the article-title about Dunnet specifically -- count towards satisfying wiki-notability.

The other stuff (longevity / fanmailVolume / briefMentions / shipmentCounts / etc) are no help here at AfD, even though some of those things may be helpful later on. The single-sentence mentions are WP:NOTEWORTHY and thus the material they mention can belong *somewhere* in wikipedia, but for justifying the dedicated article Dunnet (video game), most AfD folks like to see at least three multi-paragraph in-depth wiki-reliable sources. Fan-reviews like these ones[11][12] are NOT helpful towards proving wiki-notability, because they are not editorially-controlled wiki-reliable-sources, although like WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions the fan-reviews are sometimes helpful later (see my longer reply below). For the moment, though, the best way to get out of AfD with a keep-result is to help us find additional multi-paragraph wiki-reliable-sources. "...dozens of other hard-print magazine articles. I can cite references if they are worthwhile..." Yes, those are what will help -- but note that, it needs to be more than a name-drop ("emacs also includes the game Dunnet") and more than just a repetitive blurb ("to play Dunnet type M-x dunnet and hit return then type help"). There needs to be some *meat* to the citation, some in-depth discussion of the gameplay, or of the codebase, or of the history of Dunnet, or something like that. We have two of those already, which is technically enough albeit barely; so, finding more will help cement the keep-vote, if that makes sense.

The in-depth sources don't have to be online at the moment,[13] or even in English, as long as they specifically talk about Dunnet with a reasonable amount of depth. Hardcopy-only refs are fine, as long as the publication is 'wiki-reliable' aka either magazine/newspaper/academicJournal/governmentAgency/similar publisher with some sort of editor. MIT A.I. Lab memos are probably also acceptable as 'academia' sources, an IETF RFC would also suffice as 'governmental' agency, and many blogs/ezines are also wiki-reliable for specific fields. FLOSS apps like Dunnet sometimes get a bit of a break, I will submit; wikipedia is FLOSS, and although WP:NOTPROMOTION is a pretty firm policy, the strict application of WP:RS standards to FLOSS apps is often a bit looser -- so for instance, if you have an email-chain from RMS that covers the history of Dunnet, that might be considered 'WP:RS' in some loose sense (especially since we already have a couple good WP:RS citations from MacWorld and CultOfMac/LifeHacker/MacAddict). In any case, please don't be insulted by this AfD, which is supposed to be a discussion of wiki-notability, as diametrically opposed to notability-in-real-life; plenty of reasonably-famous apps get their articles marked for deletion, at least once, for instance MantisBT was almost deleted in 2010, when it was probably in the top three bug-trackers on earth. The keep-vote was mainly because of the comment Pcap made as of 20:10, 2 March 2010, which linked to four in-depth cites (or three if you want to be strict and count the two from linux.com as 'one' source for AfD purposes). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (preference#1) dedicated article plus briefly summarize contents within text_adventure#Notable_works, or alternatively merge-then-redirect (preference#2) to a new article-subsection text_adventure#Dunnet. Outright deletion of content from mainspace is incorrect since we have multiple WP:RS and many WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions; merging into Emacs is also incorrect since the videogame is a standalone component.

folded away to tidy up the AfD and attract more eyes, 2

Dunnet'83 was originally in MacLisp, Dunnet'92 was a port to eLisp which is still actively[14][15] maintained by multiple programmers, and as of Dunnet'15 has been ported to Javascript [16] as well by a third party. Besides GNU Emacs, the videogame is also found in XEmacs [17] and apparently (from the article-text) in the Scheme variant called Guile. So, although the most widespread port of Dunnet is included within Emacs, the game is NOT subsidiary to Emacs, and does not belong (except as a WP:NOTEWORTHY mention) solely within the article on Emacs. Dunnet began as a standalone-videogame before Emacs existed... not counting the TECO precursor... and as of 2015, Dunnet is still being ported (as a standalone-videogame) to places outside of Emacs and eLisp (e.g. to Javascript and Guile). If we want to justify a dedicated article, we need multiple in-depth sources:

WP:RS#1 -- blurbed in 2005, as part of a group[18] and then a few months later given more depth in a dedicated review[19].

WP:RS#2 -- reviewed in 2013, as part of a group[20] then as two dedicated articles on two different tech-sites[21][22] both of which qualify as 'online magazines' per wikipedia tradition, if memory serves.

There are also various WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions, in 2009[23][24] and 2014[25] that I ran across.

Not-quite-WP:RS methinks, but worth noting as evidence of continued interest amongst retro-gamers, two fullsize reviews[26][27] by bloggers in 2008, one a graphics designer who works at some kind of interactive applications firm, the other by a university reference-librarian. See also my final paragraph below, suggesting that these not-quite-WP:RS can still be useful.

If we want to get WP:RS#3, the usual rule-of-thumb for justifying a dedicated article, we have to switch gears, and stop thinking of Dunnet as a computer game which is reviewed in consumer-electronics magazines -- instead we must see Dunnet as a teaching-tool-slash-GPL'd-text-adventure-reference-implementation for the edification of budding programmers, and thus as something used in computer science academia, and the computer programming industry.

((collapsetop| Dunnet as a computer-science-tool rather than as a videogame ... analysis of 3 scholar.google.com mentions, 3 university-coursework mentions, and 5 programming-industry-press mentions ))

There are three scholar.google.com published books/papers that make WP:NOTEWORTHY mention of Dunnet. The first is 283 cites for GNU Emacs Manual by Stallman et al, ISBN 1-882114-05-1, which has mentioned Dunnet at least since 1994[28] and August 1996[29] as well as continues to mention it in the 2015 edition of the book[30] on epage#429 aka printedPage#407. True, it is just a one-sentence blurb... but this is the printed documentation, and the Emacs distribution-blob also contains not just the Emacs manual, but also the entire source-code of the game, and the online-helpdocs-for-the-game, which the game itself includes. The people in charge of the Emacs application are the FSF, which is independent from Schnell; they are including his codebase, and his helpdocs, in the primary Emacs app-distro itself -- and documenting this inclusion via a short pointer in their official helpdocs, since the game (as a game) is self-documenting. Emacs is a programmable programmer's text-editor; the inclusion of several videogames is thus a sort of easter egg, to show off the power of the embedded scripting language eLisp, and prove that Emacs is more than just a mere text-editor.

The other two scholarly sources which specifically mention Dunnet are the 1998 paper[31] Developing software with GNU: An introduction to the GNU development tools which has 3 cites on scholar.google.com, as well as in the 2001 book[32] pdfPage#29 of Advanced Linux Programming ISBN 0-7357-1043-0 which has 137 cites on scholar.google.com.

Beyond the inclusion of Dunnet as a stock component in the Emacs application-distro, there are a bunch of Linux-distros and Unix-distros which have included Emacs (and by incorporation Dunnet) inside their operating-system-distribution-blobs; as the OSX-specific articles above indicate, pretty much every Apple desktop operating system since 2001 has included Dunnet. Also, since every^{[citation needed]} Linux distro offers Emacs in their package-repo, Dunnet is also available in all those operating system variants. Of course, the history of Dunnet goes back further: it was available, as a stock component of Emacs, on most flavors of commercial UNIX and most variants of BSD before the dominance of Linux[33] and OSX[34] eclipsed those older platforms. Since Dunnet was written back-in-the-day in 1983 for PDP-10 mainframes, Dunnet in actuality precedes the desktop and the microcomputer; it is a big-iron videogame, like Spacewar, albeit less venerable and thus correspondingly less famous.

Delving into WP:OR for a brief moment... much like SpaceWar, the players of Dunnet are mostly computer hackers, hence the sci-fi cyberpunk theme (e.g. you have to be comfy with the CLI of both DOS and UNIX-like systems to successfully play Dunnet). This is by stark contrast with 'interactive fiction' games like Zork, which are text-adventure-precursors to the RPG. The mechanics of Dunnet are similar to Zork, but the type of player is quite distinct: most anybody can play and enjoy Zork, in the same way that most anybody can read and enjoy LOTR books ... but to play and enjoy^{[citation needed]} Dunnet, you need to be a computer programmer, or at least, a sysadmin. Hence, Zork became a commercial product, and converted from loosely-open-source over to a proprietary source code model, selling hundreds of thousands of copies to consumers that owned 8-bit microcomputers in the early 1980s, whereas "open source" Dunnet was for the PDP-10 (the environment where the *developers* of Zork did their programming... as opposed to the microcomputers where *consumers* of Zork played the game). Later, Dunnet began to be distributed with Emacs, the programmer's programmable editor, whereas Zork was not -- both Dunnet and Zork were written in in LISP variants, but Dunnet was not encumbered by a proprietary codebase. I suspect, given the copyright-1992-by-FSF message of dunnet.el nowadays, that Dunnet'92 might be the first GPL'd text adventure. A pointer to the earliest release of the source-code on USENET might help; I was only able to find this[35] from 1992, which suggests the initial Dunnet'92 codebase was *not* GPL at first (noncommercial-only semi-copyleft license). End WP:OR.

The point of this history-lesson is that Dunnet was available on a bunch of operating systems over a bunch of decades, and in particular, was included as a stock easter-egg hidden inside the programmer's programmable editor Emacs: it is no coincidence that Dunnet is mentioned not just in the manual for that programmer's editor, but also in a book like Advanced Linux Programming, which presumes you will be using Emacs for your programming work, and mentions the easter-egg in passing, as something programmers would find cool. By contrast, Zork was interactive fiction, something meant for gamers to enjoy; from a non-scientific 2002 ranking,[36] over a dozen retro-gamers -- since 2002 was over a decade after text adventures had become 'obsolete' in some sense -- had played and voted on the games Anchorhead (game), Trinity_(video_game), Spider and Web, A Mind Forever Voyaging, Unnkulian, Christminster (interactive fiction), Jigsaw_(video_game), Excalibur_(video_game), Curses (video game), I-0_-_Jailbait_on_Interstate_Zero, Wishbringer, Photopia, The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_(video_game), Planetfall, Lurking Horror, Infidel_(video_game), and Moonmist... as well as the variants of Adventure_(disambiguation)#Games and the Zork series. Dunnet wasn't even on the list... because although it is a text-adventure, it isn't really interactive-fiction in the normal 8-bit-microcomputer commercial-software sense. That it was *excluded* from the list of the usual interactive fiction games enjoyed by retrogamers circa 2002, is actually evidence that Dunnet is wiki-notable: it ain't your everyday run-of-the-mill text adventure, which might not deserve a dedicated article, being like almost every other text-adventure and thus failing the WP:ROTM essay-criteria... instead, it seems clear that Dunnet is Something Completely Different from run-of-the-mill. Being atypical doesn't guarantee that Dunnet is wiki-notable, but having multiple WP:RS and a couple dozen WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions across two decades, *plus* being atypical, convinces me Dunnet should be a keep.

As evidence for the hypothesis that Dunnet is a computer-science-related open source text-adventure reference implementation of sorts, not just another videogame (though it is also a videogame), we see that the game itself was specifically utilized in several college programming-courses: VLSI in 1999/2003,[37][38] Java in 2003/2004,[39] Haskell in 2007[40] (looks like lecture-slides but I don't speak german), and presumably others. Dunnet is still considered cool in computer-science academia as of 2010,[41] and *also* cool amongst retro-gamers as of 2005ish-thru-2014 per sources above. Background info: during the 1990s and early 2000s, a large percentage^{[citation needed]} of university-level intro-to-programming courses used Emacs, and furthermore, included some variation of a homework-lab which required you to program your own videogame, often a text-adventure like Dunnet (and sometimes using Dunnet specifically during class as the links above prove). This is pretty typical of LISP programming textbooks, even in 2010,[42] although I cannot tell if chapter#5 building-a-text-game-engine of this recent intro-to-LISP-programming-book specifically mentions Dunnet or not -- there is no online version of the book.

Outside of computer-science-related academia, Dunnet has a couple mentions in the computer software industry press. 2005 at a publisher of books about programming,[43] 2009 article on the use of easter-eggs as a way to improve user-engagement within software-applications,[44] , and a pre-2004 mention[45] by videogame designer Eri Izawa (who worked[46] on Asheron's Call, Gods and Heroes, and Hellgate:_London among other videogames). There are also at least three computer-industry-non-academia books with passing mention of Dunnet, specifically in Xemacs on page 445 of Teach Yourself Suse Linux In 24 Hours,[47] and specifically for OSX on page 147 of Mac Hacks: Tips & Tools for Unlocking the Power of OS X Mountain Lion,[48] as well as Rule the Web: How to Do Anything and Everything on the Internet Better.[49] The latter book is a bit more than passing mention, since it has some reasonably-in-depth content about text adventures, which includes mention of Dunnet -- most of the other books are programming and sysadmin related tomes, which mention dunnet as a cool easter-egg, whereas the RuleTheWeb book is specifically talking about Dunnet-the-videogame. Not all the OSX books are like that; Mac OS X Power Hound Panther Edition is definitely treating Dunnet like an easter-egg; it gives four sentences or so to the topic, which is slightly more than passing mention, but not quite in-depth coverage methinks.[50] There is something about Dunnet on page#588 of The UNIX Companion from 1995 by Harley Hahn, but google's search-OCR is buggy so I was unable to see if it was a brief mention or more substantial. There is also a passing mention in Learning GNU Emacs by ESR et al on page 466, which specifies that dunnet implements a major mode.[51]

As an aside, although it must not be allowed to impact our deliberations here, I will note that there is a fanatical religious sect[52] which may wreck havoc upon wikipedia should Dunnet (video game) be deleted from mainspace; however, we must not allow zealots to strike fear in our hearts! If the evidence of WP:RS given above is found insufficient to satisfy WP:N for a dedicated article Dunnet (video game), then I suggest we move the material on Dunnet to a subsection on text_adventure#Dunnet, or failing that, to a subsection of Ron Schnell#Dunnet (which would require writing that BLP).

((collapsebottom))

So where is WP:RS#3, then? At the end of the day, there is no singular and obvious WP:RS#3 that I can point to, showing how Dunnet played a decent-sized role in computer-programming-academia-and-industry from the mid-1990s through circa 2010 or thereabouts, but in aggregate, methinks that all the links given in the green box are pretty strong evidence. It is also plausible that WP:RS#3 may already exist, perhaps in offline-form as a chapter from some CS textbook of the mid-1990s before the web really took off.

If in fact WP:RS#3 doesn't yet exist, it seems plausible to predict that it most likely *will* be written in the future: Dunnet was written in 1983, gained WP:NOTEWORTHY status in 1994 as a computer-science-easter-egg-slash-teaching-tool, and by 2005 had fullsize WP:RS#1 as a videogame-proper (for retrogamers on newly-more-popular UNIX-like OSes), followed in 2013 by another burst of coverage (again for retrogamers) in the form of fullsize WP:RS#2, with several fullsize not-quite-WP:RS gamer reviews in 2008. The timespans involved suggest that coverage of Dunnet in wiki-reliable sources has not ceased, and although wikipedia articles ought not predict the future, wikipedians can use common sense when determining whether WP:N is satisfied. In my judgement, the article on Dunnet does already satisfy wiki-notability criteria ("significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" even though we only know about two rock-solid sources at present rather than the traditional-by-convention minimum of three) and thus Dunnet (video game) should remain as a dedicated article in mainspace; merging it into text_adventure#Dunnet could also be done (and is a good idea regardless of whether or not the dedicated article is retained).

There was a specific objection expressed by user:czar, that we don't have enough depth-of-coverage to write the wikipedia article. However, I think that worry is misplaced. Once we have determined WP:N is satisified, by showing multiple-wiki-reliable-sources-with-reasonably-deep-coverage, we can then go ahead and use the non-WP:SPIP-independent albeit-non-editorially-controlled blog-reviews[53][54] to fill in the plot-subsection of the wikipedia article (and other such non-contentious facts), so long as we are careful to only pull material from them which is 'unlikely to be challenged'. Along the same lines, we can also use Schnell himself as a source -- preferably via his published writings on his 'official' blog rather than via his wikipedia username of course -- see WP:ABOUTSELF, although of course once again (as with the 2008 blog-reviews) we have to be careful to stick just to uncontroversial facts. For an example of this, see Colossal_Cave_Adventure#References which uses a mixture of judiciously-selected WP:ABOUTSELF as well as traditional WP:RS citations... although unlike the intermixing found at the Colossal_Cave_Adventure article, I strongly suggest it is much better to put all the WP:ABOUTSELF stuff (and by the same token info from the not-really-quite-WP:RS blogger reviews as well) underneath Dunnet (video game)#Notes rather than under Dunnet (video game)#References, per the wiki-helpdocs at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_groups. (( Later update, I have just updated Jigsaw (video game) in this fashion, for example. ))

Disclosure: I played Dunnet, sometime in the previous millenium; at some point prior to that, I took one of the programming-classes where writing an adventure-videogame in Scheme was one of the lab-homeworks, and Emacs was the required text-editor for the course (Dunnet wasn't mentioned in the course-materials that I remember however -- I just ran across dunnet.el later, on my own). That said, I have no WP:COI in the wikipedia sense of that phrase; I've never heard of Schnell until today, and didn't even remember the game was called Dunnet -- but after I read the wikipedia-article today, I recalled the gameplay experience quite distinctly. It's a fun game,^{[citation needed]} if you are into that sort of thing. My keep-vote is based on having 2 very solid WP:RS videogame reviews, plus a fairly large number of WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions in academic-and-commercial settings, over a timespan from 1994 through 2014 at minimum; that says wiki-notable, to my ears. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...which goes to show just how much original research from primary sources is needed to state anything of substance about this software/game (esp. its supposed impact). If it is important, let reliable, secondary sources say so. As it remains, all we have is what we already discussed: a blurb, a short review, and a slew of passing mentions in non-notable media and blogs. To then hedge that someone might write about it in the future is exactly what we do not. All the gathered information is better off hosted on another wiki until more journalists take up the mantle. – czar 05:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi czar, you are setting up a false choice. The discussion here is not about whether to delete all mentions of Dunnet from wikipedia, purging it en masse, to be banished to wikia or some other non-wikimedia location until it has 'more' journalists giving videogame reviews. See WP:NOTEWORTHY, and also please remember that deletion ought to be the last resort. What we are discussing, is whether Dunnet (video game) should be a dedicated article, or rather, merged-and-then-redirected to become a subsection of the text_adventure article. I lean towards the former, since the latter article is currently a redirect to interactive_fiction, and although Dunnet is known to the interactive-fiction gamers, per these non-WP:RS blogs by such gamers in 2008,[55][56] it is really more-than-slash-different-than the usual 'interactive fiction' videogame covered in that article. The evidence that Dunnet had an impact on computer science education, is at present all WP:NOTEWORTHY ... which is not, of course, grounds for outright deletion of that WP:NOTEWORTHY info, as I keep taking pains to point out. Dunnet also is WP:NOTEWORTHY as an easter_egg, and as a stock component of Emacs the programmer's editor.

I expect those aspects of Dunnet won't take up much real estate: a sentence about it being mentioned in the computer industry press with cites to where, a couple sentences about the integration into Emacs and the port to eLisp, and a couple of sentences explaining how Dunnet is often perceived as an easter egg, but unlike typical easter eggs is also a standalone program. The bulk of the article (or the article-section iff merge-n-redirect is the decision of the AfD closer) will concentrate on our major secondary sources which have some reasonable depth: 800 words in 2005 by MacWorld,[57][58] and then a series of reviews in 2013 by MacLife [59] / LifeHacker [60] / CultOfMac [61] with another 600 words. It won't take long to summarize those, especially since portions of them are redundant ("Dunnet is a text-based game ... type emacs -batch -l dunnet to play..."), but even after eliding the repetitions, the end result will be a good wikipedia article per WP:SIZERULE.

As to your point about WP:CRYSTAL and predicting the future, I can only repeat what I already said, emphasis added: The timespans involved [1994-2014] suggest that coverage of Dunnet in wiki-reliable sources has not ceased, and although wikipedia articles ought not predict the future, wikipedians can use common sense when determining whether WP:N is satisfied. My point was that, even if the 'final' cleaned-up properly-sourced version of the Dunnet-article is relatively short as of 2015, it is unlikely to be a WP:PERMASTUB, since it is still generating press thirty years after it was first written for ITS; hence, my lean towards keeping the dedicated article Dunnet (video game), rather than merging into a subsection of text_adventure#Dunnet. By contrast, look at the original version[62] of the article on Jigsaw (video game) compared to our version now ... there is only one in-depth source for that, most of the other info is WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLOG, so it makes sense that Jigsaw (video game) could be reasonably merged-and-redirected to a new subsection Graham Nelson#Jigsaw... but it also doesn't really hurt anything to have Jigsaw (video game) as a dedicated article, so long as we stick to what the sources say. The article on Dunnet can be written quite well, no WP:OR needed, with the sources we already know about; if Schnell finds additional hardcopy sources with some depth that will only improve the situation, though I still don't think additional sources are necessary for a keep-result here at AfD. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jigsaw (video game) ... there is only one in-depth source for that, most of the other info is WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLOG, ... Jigsaw (video game) could be reasonably merged-and-redirected to a new subsection Graham Nelson#Jigsaw... but it also doesn't really hurt anything to have Jigsaw (video game) as a dedicated article, so long as we stick to what the sources say

Much of what you said is spot on, so I'm not sure how you ended up with this conclusion. By your logic, anything that has ever had a secondary source can be bolstered into its own article with enough self-published and primary sources, but that's exactly what we don't do at AfD. An article is notable only if it has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) If you freely admit that only one or two reliable sources cover a topic, then there is patently no significant coverage! It doesn't matter that we can cobble together a WP page with a ton of primary sources—WP draws the line when games, people, ideas do not receive any formal reviews, do not receive any coverage more than a single (or two) blurbs describing its basic function, as there's no way we can write authoritatively as an encyclopedia with such a dearth of coverage. "Non-WP:RS" fan sites are still, by definition, unreliable, and unsuitable sources for an encyclopedia. Hence, I suggest copying the material to Wikia. I'd entertain a redirect but I think the links to the related topics are weak. Alternatively, it could go into a List of interactive fiction games but I think that would be its own (mostly unwarranted) mess. – czar 01:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi czar, I've replied to your points in the green box below, but since I feel we're close enough, I've gone ahead and collapsed it. Here is my 'final' listing of sources, ordered roughly by importance to AfD.

* 1400 words of coverage (or thereabouts) in MacWorld, MacLife, LifeHacker, and CultOfMac.

* WP:N: 2 or 3 dedicated news articles.[63][64][65][66]

* Kinda-WP:N: 2 subsections of news articles.[67][68]

* WP:NOTEWORTHY 2 books by RMS and ESR on Emacs and eLisp, which application-and-programming-language-distribution includes the both full source & in-game helpdocs for Dunnet, to show off the power of Emacs/eLisp (plus to provide a fun game -- tetris and a dozen lesser games are also stock).[69][70][71]

* WP:NOTEWORTHY 2+ computer science academia-books (plus book above by RMS also qualifies here) with scholar.google.com cites.[72][73]

* Likely-WP:NOTEWORTHY use as an 'example-app' in homework given by 2+ college profs (besides Schnell himself).[74][75][76]

* WP:NOTEWORTHY 4 or 5 computer-user-press as useful for retrogaming.[77][78][79][80][81]

* WP:NOTEWORTHY 4 or 5 computer-programming-industry-press as an easter egg.[82][83][84][85][86]

* WP:ABOUTSELF: 3+ with depth (the author is a wikipedian so more may be forthcoming).[87][88][89]

* WP:BLOGS: 3 with depth, using their real names and independent of the author&game, can be used iff necessary for gap-filling with non-contentious unlikely-to-be-challenged factoids.[90][91][92]

* WP:EL: short introductory walkthru, plus explains distinction between a TUI videogame like Nethack&Rogue-likes versus an interactive-fiction-text-adventure videogame like Dunnet&ADVENT, the latter pair relying on pure text with no ascii art.[93]

* Also worth pointing out: FLOSS codebase since 1983 for ITS mainframes, at the peak of the commercialization of text-adventures on early home computers; codebase still active in 2015 with multiple contributors.[94][95]

* Maybe worth pointing out: ships with Emacs for the past two decades, and thus comes stock on OSX and most Linux distros today,[96][97][98] aka millions of new machines per year.

My calculations (below) indicate that using these sources (above), Dunnet (video game) will have roughly 300 words of body-text, which is compatible with WP:SIZERULE. Thanks for your time and efforts, folks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

((collapsetop| point out List of IF, more on Jigsaw as the UBER borderline, wordcounts of uber-borderline Jigsaw vs cleaned-up-Dunnet vs quasi-borderline GooglePhotos ))

((On your last point, there is no List of interactive fiction games, but the equivalent exists at text adventure#Notable works, and Dunnet belongs on that list in my judgement although it is not yet there because the article is officially called 'interactive fiction' whereas Dunnet is more of a 'text adventure' in the traditional nerdy sense... the fit is not perfect, since Dunnet differs from interactive fiction like Jigsaw (for all intelletual gamers of all genders), specifically in terms of who Dunnet appeals to (for all command-line-savvy computer nerds and cyberpunk-sci-fi fans). Still, the only place that it makes sense to put Dunnet is with text adventures, either as a subsection thereof with no dedicated article, or as a notable-works-pointer therein which links to the dedicated article. Until and unless we generalize the article on interactive fiction into the more generic text adventure, rather than vice versa squeezing the more generic text adventure topic into the somewhat stricter confines of the interactive fiction genre, this problem will remain for Dunnet and all other text adventures that are only quasi-IF-like. ))

Yes, I freely admit Jigsaw only has one single in-depth source, the 2011 videogame-review in village-voice. That said, Jigsaw is furthermore WP:NOTEWORTHY in that the NYT called it "acclaimed", and that some PhD english prof called it "epic...notable". Does that satisfy the strict reading of WP:42, or even a pretty loose reading? Obviously not. Does it improve the encyclopedia, to contain the paragraph about Jigsaw, fully sourced? Yup. It doesn't really matter if we put the Jigsaw paragraph under Graham Nelson#Jigsaw, or leave it as Jigsaw (video game), but it would be foolish to move it to wikia. The logic here is simple: see WP:IAR and WP:Don't_cite_WP42_at_AfD, which tell us that if what we are doing improves the encyclopedia qua encyclopedia, ignore all rules to achieve the primary goal, and in particular, suggests to us that strict application of WP:42 is the wrong way to go about arguing at AfD. Jigsaw has only one source, and yet, the article is just fine. Specifically, you had a problem with this perceived extrapolation from my Jigsaw example: "[by that logic] anything that has ever had a secondary source can be bolstered into its own article with enough self-published and primary sources" This isn't what I'm saying, because I'm not making a rule I'm making an exception to the rules, for a specific article (aka not "anything" only some relatively-rare things qualify). Your assertion is that, since Jigsaw violates the rule about multiple-sources, it therefore MUST be completely deleted and moved to wikia. You are wrong on two counts: first, the multiple-source violation is obviously correctly identified, but wikipedia has no firm rules, and if other evidence of significance exists (NYT article on the game-author and PhD english prof reviewing games of that author), then we might very well be quite justified in overriding the WP:42 rule, yellow highlighting and all. My *actual* logic is straightforward: look at material on a case-by-case basis, and if it improves the encyclopedia, then deleting it (aka move-to-wikia) is always wrong, whereas rearranging it (aka move-n-redirect) can sometimes be an improvement. This is the pretty much the same logic that WP:FAILN says to apply; it's not just me. Furthermore, though it is true that the Jigsaw article is 'cobbled' together and 'bolstered' with WP:ABOUTSELF and such in a few places, there is exactly zero 'original research' therein, and no WP:SYNTH either; doing legwork to dig up published sources is the opposite of WP:OR, not the twin of it. Since this is an AfD about Dunnet, however, I suggest we continue discussion about jigsaw on usertalkpages, if necessary.

What about Dunnet then? By the strictest of counting, it has two sources: 800 words in Macworld of 2005, 600 words in MacLife/LifeHacker/CultOfMac of 2013. Is that 'multiple' sources? Yes. Is that 'several' sources? Maybe, depending on how you count them; 2 sources glomming bursts together, 3 sources if we only count articles entirely dedicated to Dunnet, 4 sources if we only count publishers with dedicated wikipedia pages, and 5 sources if we count them all individually. But as always, AfD is about qualitative significance, not about counting sources (though of course it pretty much always boils down to countage). Thus, whether we keep the article Dunnet (video game) as a dedicated article, or merge-and-redirect to text_adventure#Dunnet, is a judgement call. In your judgement, 'two' sources is patently not enough. In my judgement, looking deeply at the specifics of the other WP:NOTEWORTHY coverage of Dunnet (several WP:NOTEWORTHY hits in books by RMS and ESR plus computer-press coverage of the easter-egg aspects ... neither of which any run-of-the-mill videogames have), the two-to-five in-depth sources we already have, plus the couple-dozen noteworthy-mentions in completely distinct fields, are plenty to show significance. To prove my point, I fixed up the Jigsaw article, which has one in-depth WP:RS, a few WP:NOTEWORTHY sentences, and generates about a paragraph of wikipedia-article-text.

The body-text of the cleaned-up article on Dunnet will also be rather brief, probably two or three paragraphs and thus slightly longer than Jigsaw but not by much. But as with the Jigsaw article, there will be plenty of meat in the refs section (four times as much meat as Jigsaw roughly speaking), and where there are missing tidbits of info that most wikipedia articles contain (given the specific tidbits are uncontentious), we can pull them from secondary independent blog-reviews that happen to be non-WP:RS, or even from primary sources using WP:ABOUTSELF, which is perfectly within wiki-policy. Dunnet has roughly the same number of in-depth refs as are currently being used in Google Photos,[99] which currently has a positive-coverage-burst from May/June with 4500 words,[100][101][102][103] and a negative-coverage-burst from June/July with 1750 words,[104][105][106] leading to the wikipedia-article containing 642 poz-words aka compression-ratio 7:1 and 177 neg-words aka compression ratio 10:1 which is pretty decent (72% in sources and 78% in wikipedia). Dunnet only has poz-coverage, so assuming the same 7:1 ratio holds, I expect the 'finished' article will have something in the neighborhood of 200 words summarizing the videogame-reviews, plus a few sentences covering the non-videogame aspects, total roughly 300 words. Jigsaw currently has fewer sources, and is currently 163 words, so the relative sizes of Google Photos versus to-be-cleaned-up-Dunnet (video game) versus already-cleaned-up-Jigsaw (video game) makes sense to me. Google Photos is an obvious keep, despite having only two bursts of coverage; there will be more we can confidently predict (in talkspace as opposed to mainspace), and even if not, the article is fine like it is. Jigsaw would usually be moved-n-redirected to an equivalent 163-word-paragraph inside Graham Nelson#Jigsaw, or under text adventure#Jigsaw, and such may very well occur, despite brief NYT and PhD quotations to the contrary. Dunnet is the borderline case, but it is certainly closer to Google Photos than to Jigsaw on the spectrum... not only does Dunnet have two bursts of coverage containing a handful of in-depth sources like Google Photo does (albeit with lesser word-counts), Dunnet has similarly-diverse WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions to Jigsaw (albeit without the newspaper).

Anyways, I've enjoyed our discussion here, but I went ahead and collapsed this reply, since I feel we are coming close to the end of what I can productively contribute to this AfD. If you'd like to switch to usertalk, I am happy to explain my interpretation of 'significant coverage' further, or talk about WP:SIZERULE, or predict the future of wikipedia, or whatever. I have placed a backup-copy of Dunnet (and Jigsaw pending the AfD that I foresee may be happening there soon) into draftspace, and will try to add a few sentences I've worked up for Draft:Dunnet there and/or at Talk:Dunnet. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

((collapsebottom))

Folded away. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see why the CultOfMac, MacWorld, and LifeHacker articles (all of which are dedicated to the game entirely), plus all the other mentions and history, don't make this notable. II | (t - c) 02:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that ImperfectlyInformed (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

There is only one article, the MacWorld listicle, which is a small, insignificant blurb that the other two retread. The rest is unreliable, original research. That is your depth of coverage. – czar 20:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The 2005 MacWorld listicle,[107] expanded to the 2005 also-MacWorld dedicated article.[108][109] Years later, 2013 MacLife listicle,[110] expanded into two independent 2013 LifeHacker&CultOfMac dedicated articles.[111][112] Also, a dozen WP:NOTEWORTHY refs does not equate to 'WP:OR'. (Agree about the likelihood of canvassing, but you forgot to ping User:ImperfectlyInformed so they can respond.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not canvassed, but I did notice the AfD on reddit. Canvassing assumes that there is an agenda ("campaigning"), and we certainly aren't seeing much activity here from reddit. In any case, the last thing we need in Wikipedia is even less participation and fewer community members, and having been active since 2007, I have plenty of experience and understanding of Wikipedia's policies and I'm certainly not going to opt myself out of a thin discussion (which seems pretty clear to me) because I happened to see it on reddit.. II | (t - c) 05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i.i., thanks for your response. It is true that you need not self-disqualify, but there is pretty strong tension between the need to attract new editors to wikipedia, and the need to keep AfD from turning into a popularity contest, as opposed to a policy-based discussion of the merits of the sources. I would submit to you that AfD is *not* the place where new editors ought be encouraged to 'get involved' for their first foray into talkspace -- as you prolly know, AfD has a bit of a learning curve. However, the more significant question (for this particular AfD discussion) is whether you were in fact canvassed, by the person behind the reddit account that originally posted the thread there (reddit uid screaming_memes if memory serves). I believe you that YOU were not responding-to-canvassing, in the with-an-agenda sense, but canvassing is a two-way street. The author of Dunnet has been a participant here, Ron Schnell, and although they have been around wikipedia since 2006 or so, they definitely don't quite have all the wiki-policy-nuances down, and thus may have been publicly complaining in meatspace or on the interwebz, which could in turn be the cause of the reddit thread. Of course, it is also possible, momentarily ignoring WP:AGF for the sake of realism, that Ron himself is actually screaming_memes. Those are things we want to avoid, partly as a way to keep this relatively-thinly-attended AfD from devolving into a heavily-attended-but-zero-value AfD, and partly as a way to show Ron the 'correct' way to go about handling himself as a long-term-editor, who is valued and we wish to retain. There is also the possibility that I, or one of the other anons at this AfD, is behind screaming_memes; I am not the culprit. It looks like screaming_for_memes (actual reddit uid) was created 3 months ago, and is mostly about some alt-bitcoin clone, plus occasional wikipedia-related-rants; makes it unlikely they are specific to *this* AfD, albeit not impossible. Ping User:Aviators99, do you know how the reddit thread at [113] originated? See WP:MEATPUPPET for why it matters. Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not. I learned about the thread from Twitter. Ron Schnell 19:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a long running and frankly historically significant piece of software with perpetual coverage during it's lifetime. 104.200.151.38 (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — 104.200.151.38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete This particular game fails to meet notability, unless the article could be sourced with better citations that are reliable, secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.88.20 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Offsite canvassing: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3djec4/the_creator_of_dunnet_the_emacs_text_game/ – czar 20:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

folded away to tidy up the AfD and attract more eyes, 3

comment, additional international sources, with some mild depth. User:Aviators99 found two more cites in the 2013 burst, picked up by the German-language computer press (looks WP:RS to me -- [114][115]), which wrote a German-language listicle,[116][117] noting the game was English-only (not yet internationalized) in approximately 97 words of Dunnet-specific text, plus a Dunnet-specific screenshot. The other was in the Australian-English computer press, Dunnet-dedicated article of ~150 words,[118] looks WP:RS,[119][120] brief but interesting as the screenshot shows part of the plot, midway through the game. Plus of course, these indicate press-interest on three continents. Four continents, if you count the localization into Japanese by a FLOSS activist on their blog,[121] though of course that doesn't qualify as "press" interest. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment, additional source, User:Aviators99 ran across this 2007 listicle, ~78 words but quote "extremely addictive", looks WP:RS,[122][123][124][125] publisher is redlink AppleMatters but has been used as WP:RS before per Special:Search/AppleMatters. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing as of now, in total we have three bursts of English-language WP:N coverage with some depth in 2005 (listicle+dedicated), 2007 (listicle), and 2013 (listicle+dedicated), plus international press with some depth in Australia/Germany/etc, as well as WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions in scholarly & programming-industry WP:RS from 1994 through 2014+ (unusual for a videogame to appear outside videogame-specific-media-channels). I believe these recently-added sources push us over the unclear-notability-borderline and well into wiki-notable territory. User:czar, you asked to be pinged if non-English sources were discovered, please see these.[126][127][128][129] (mostly mentioned above already). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

75.108, the verbosity on this page is an impediment to anyone actually trying to participate in the AfD. This is absurdity. There is no reason to post links from unreliable or what you call "noteworthy" sources. We're here to discuss the topic's notability—whether or not we can write an article on the subject based on its coverage in reliable sources. The other stuff that would fill out the remaining details (the self-published sources, the "noteworthy" but not "notable" stuff you mention) are all not useful right now. Furthermore, all of your recent links are passing mentions! The fundamental issue is that those single sentence mentions together do not constitute significant coverage and then do not pass the general notability guideline. This should be obvious from the basic idea that we can't write an article without reliable source coverage (doesn't matter how many unreliable blogs mention the item or however many self-published sources may be available) and that we would have unreliable articles written for everything ever mentioned if that were the case. We can't write an article based on links from low-level blogs that only mention that the game exists. Our standards for notability require depth of coverage. In all of the articles you've linked, has there been one review? Has there been one discussion of its broader impact? Or are all of them listicles—not actual write-ups, but clickbait side-articles—that only mention the game in passing as an Easter egg? This AfD has descended into absurdity. – czar 19:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And all of this belies the original point—the same point to which we return after boatloads of links: that the coverage only discusses Dunnet as a minor feature within Emacs. It should only be mentioned in context at the Emacs article and if anything, this Dunnet page should redirect there. – czar 19:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this, this, and this a listicle? Or the several hundred word discussion here? These are not at all passing mentions. Calling articles "clickbait" isn't really helpful; it's just a pejorative opinion. These are websites (or books) which generate revenue and have significant traffic and readership. II | (t - c) 01:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has come to this, here is a full analysis of the links that purport to together constitute significant coverage:

Macworld 2005: explains basic gameplay, fine, but you probably didn't notice that your fourth link, Total Snow Leopard is a paraphrased copy, which shows how useful the original was: it explains that it's a text-based adventure and here are some commands.
MacLife 2014: says nothing about Dunnet other than mentioning its existence (and incorrectly, at that, as a MUD!) So then Lifehacker, Cult of Mac (your other two links), and Kotaku post exact copies of the same material with catchy headlines and but fluff it up with insubstantial information that doesn't say anything other than that this Easter egg exists. We can't add anything to an article based on these sources. They count as the "same link" for our intents, but they are still, together, worthless. The standard definition of "clickbait" fully encompasses the usefulness of these articles as reliable sources in an encyclopedia.

Any article written on this topic—without any reviews, without any development information, based on small blurbs in extremely low-quality articles—will not be encyclopedic. The coverage about this game is enough to warrant a mention on a relevant page or list—that's all. What's disappointing is that all of the text above scares away any of the AfD regulars (who aren't coming with an outside interest) who would be able to tell you the same thing I've repeated since the original nom. – czar 01:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment After discussion with User:Czar on usertalk, have aggressively collapsed most of the back-n-forth above. Please see, known sources here, and fact-extraction here. My basic position is that two-and-a-half bursts of coverage including several international-press sources in 2005/2007/2013, and minor mentions in WP:RS since 1994, adds up to WP:N. Czar's major concern, as I understand it, is that we have too little depth to really meet WP:N, especially WP:SIGCOV, and Czar thus believes we'll have to engage in WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR, which I believe is a misplaced worry. Can some other editors check over the sources, and help us out of our logjam, please? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage in reliable sources provided by 75.108.94.227 (talk · contribs) here to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Here is detailed coverage in The Cult of Mac (link^WebCite):
The game is called Dunnet written by Ron Schnell, and it’s not exclusive to OS X: it ships on all every modern version of UNIX, upon which OS X is based. I haven’t gotten very far, but apparently, the game becomes quite surreal, and the major twist is that players are actually walking around inside a UNIX system, not a simulacrum of a real-life game world! Real-life people wandering around inside a UNIX system? Sounds pretty cyberpunk to me.
To access the built-in text adventure, just open Terminal under your Applications > Utilities directory and enter:
emacs -batch -l dunnet
The game will load, and you’ll find yourself “at a dead end of a dirt road. The road goes to the east. In the distance you can see that it will eventually fork off. The trees here are very tall royal palms, and they are spaced equidistant from each other. There is a shovel here.”
If you’ve never played a text adventure, a la Zork or Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, it’s pretty easy. Everything is done with text! You can, for example, type “get shovel” to pick up that shovel, or “east” to head east. “Help” will give you any other commands.
Here is coverage in Macworld (link^WebCite):
To play dunnet, all you need is a Terminal window and an open mind—you’d be amazed at what kinds of images your mind can draw, given the basic descriptions provided by the game itself. Launch Terminal (in /Applications: Utilities) and type (or copy and paste!) this, followed by the Return key:
emacs -batch -l dunnet
That’s right; dunnet is sort of hiding inside of the emacs text editor. When the game starts up, you’ll see the output above (excluding the get shovel bit—consider that your first clue). From this point on, you’re really on your own, but here are a few basic commands to help get you started:
[list of commands]
Here is coverage in de:Falkemedia's tech.de (link^WebCite):
Etwas anspruchsvoller ist das textbasierte Abenteuerspiel Dunnet, das stark an die Anfangszeiten der PC-Spiele aus den 80ern erinnert. Um es zu starten, öffnet man ein Terminal-Fenster, und gibt "emacs·-batch-l·dunnet" ein. Die Kommunikation muss in Englisch geführt werden. Tipp: Mit dem Befehl "inventory" sieht man alle Gegenstände, die man mit sich herumträgt. Um den Spielstand zu sichern, gibt man "save" ein. Mit "restore" setzt man ein unterbrochenes Spiel fort. Eine gute Idee ist auch, "help" einzutippen, falls man nicht mehr weiter weiß.
Google Translate translation (link):
Something more challenging is the text-based adventure game Dunnet that the early days of PC games from the 80s is very similar. To start it, you open a terminal window, and are "emacs · -batch-length Dunnet" a. The communication must be conducted in English. Tip: Use the "Inventory" command you can see all items that you carries around with him. In order to secure the game, you are "save" a. With "Restore" If you continue a paused game. A good idea is also "help" to type, if you do not know how to continue.
There is enough material to verify that:
1. the game was created by Ron Schnell in the 1980s
2. that it's shipped on every modern version of UNIX
3. that the game involves players walking around inside a UNIX system
4. that it's hidden inside the Emacs text editor
5. that it can be run through the terminal using the command "emacs -batch -l dunnet"
6. instructions about how to play the game
Cunard (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard, aren't these three paragraphs virtually identical? And are these six points enough to constitute significant coverage? – czar 01:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The three articles are not virtually identical. The first article provides detailed commentary of the game, while the other two sources do not. The German-language source verifies that the game was created by Ron Schnell in the 1980s, while the second source does not mention Schnell or when the game was created. From WP:SIGCOV:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Based on the six points I listed above, I think these three sources "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". There is enough material for a stub or start-class article about this topic. Cunard (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popgoth[edit]

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

Non-notable "movement" by non-notable artist. Does not meet WP:GNG. Tried to ProD, but author reverted without making changes. ubiquity (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced; something someone made up one day. A google search reveals nothing but deviantart and flickr pages. Interestingly, a book called PopGoth: The Gothic in Contemporary Popular Culture appears to exist from 2012 but it's impossible at this time to verify if it has anything to do with this so-called movement. A search only reveals a different book citing this one. I'm assuming the title is a coincidence, as the title indicated that it is about popular culture, not an art movement. freshacconci talk to me 18:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Ramesh[edit]

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

This is a hard one to assess as I don't read other languages, but I couldn't verify that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. He has been in a large number of films, but mainly playing characters without full names. Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing at all to suggest improvement and notability and there's not even much at his IMDb; the closest results I found was this. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ideas inspired by food in STEM fields[edit]

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

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

Declined PROD without comment. My concerns are: arbitrary, non-notable inclusion criteria. No evidence that entries comprise a recognized group or set per WP:LISTN. In short, Listcruft, a list for list's sake. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concept for the list was created outside of Wikipedia and is sufficiently documented. The article concept is of general interest and enhances the encyclopedia. --Alterego (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability must be demonstrated. We need evidence that STEM concepts with food in their names is a topic that has received collective coverage in reliable sources. Note this forum discussing the Potato paradox is a user-generated, unreliable source. Also, please do not move or create copies of this page while the discussion is in progress. I've now added List of STEM concepts with food in their names to this AFD. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are over a dozen people at that source that agree that it is a real concept, whereas you are just one person disagreeing because you are bored. Furthermore, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Lastly, the obviousness of the concept intrinsically proves its notability via Face validity. --Alterego (talk)

I suggest you read WP:Notability. Something isn't notable in Wikipedia terms just because your mates say it is. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear Listcruft - throwing random stuff together with no reliable sourcing whatsoever. And it's not enough to have reliable sourcing for the list items, there must be reliable sourcing that discusses these concepts with food in their names substantially. Otherwise, it's got to go. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amusing trivia but not encyclopedic. Concept doesn't appear to be covered in reliable sources. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider conversion into categories so as to retain the linkages (categories and subcategories are not subject in the same way to WP:42 after all), then delete list-article since it seems very arbitrary (wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information). I'm not picky about the categorization-structure-details, but it seems like a Category:Food-based_analogy would be the starting point, with (iff needed) a category-subset for STEM fields. There are a lot more items in this category that I can think of, just off the top of my head. Not sure that the article improves the encyclopedia, but I found the list interesting, and if it were completed it would potentially be edifying, by contrast to say, this one.[130] A lot of the value would rest on picking a correct categorization-scheme, however, and I'm not sure that my suggestion of Category:Food-based_analogy is sufficiently narrow. User:Alterego, do you have thoughts on my proposal for categories-not-listArticle? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories generally follow defining traits- not simply any trait that some people find amusing. Thus I don't think categories are any better. Of course, anyone is free to re-create this list on any number of off-Wikipedia sites, and should multiple reliable sources begin discussing what is essentially "tangentially food-related math and science things" (STEM covers much more than the mathematical concepts in this list) as a somewhat cohesive set, then perhaps one day a list on Wikipedia would be warranted. But until then, leave stuff like this to BuzzFeed. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you say makes sense; the reason that these stick out as 'potentially interesting' to me, is because the scientists and theorists and such, had to specifically *decide* to name their theory/algorithm/whatever, in the fashion that they did. If these were pet names, or humorous nicknames made up by other people that would be one thing; some of them are slang, e.g. "spaghetti code" is just programmer-jargon, but many are the literal names of mathematical theories. Agree it would be hard to specify a defining-trait here (if I could pinpoint it I'd suggest the correct category-name), so I guess wikipedia will have to wait on this one. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG as already outlined. PianoDan (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret. This is the kind of fun, quirky stuff you used to find after falling down the Wikipedia rabbit hole. Unfortunately it does not meet modern standards of WP:EVERYTHINGISVERYSERIOUSHERE or WP:WEAREALLTERRIFICALLYIMPORTANT and should be deleted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2010 United Kingdom student protests. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Solomon[edit]

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

Pretty much all coverage about her centers on her role in the 2011 student fees protests. There are some later news articles in which she's provided opinions but in those cases the coverage is not actually about her. The article also seems to be acting as a dirt magnet, with a significant proportion being dedicated to a facebook comment she once made, and comments about her "returning to obscurity." Bosstopher (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being president of a university student union is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — so, indeed, her notability is hinged entirely on the student protests. However, that just makes her a WP:BLP1E. She can be covered briefly in the main article about the protests themselves — but nothing here suggests the need for a standalone BLP about her as a topic in her own right, especially one that's a perennial magnet for POV commentary. Redirect to 2010 United Kingdom student protests. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Bearcat. Sources, notability claims, insufficient to support stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wolverton[edit]

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by IP User based on the fact that Wolverton made his debut in an International Champions Cup match. However, that's just a preseason friendly tournament, so NFOOTY is still failed. He also hasn't received significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Fenix down (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chronix Radio[edit]

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

Article about an internet radio station, making no claim of notability (as opposed to mere existence) that would satisfy WP:NMEDIA, and resting entirely on a single primary source for referencing. Topics are, as always, not entitled to keep Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must make and source an actual claim of notability to earn inclusion here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete (draft/userfy if wished) as all my searches found absolutely nothing (aside from their own links) and there's no good move target. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable defunct internet radio station, fails WP:NMEDIA, no coverage, only refs are the subjects own website Kraxler (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 19:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department[edit]

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

There is no inherent notability for such organizations that I know of, and nothing here suggests that this directory-style article passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge up to Charlotte and Mecklenburg County articles. It's a big department but sources don't seem to be there to support it meeting GNG. Lots of routine coverage but not enough indepth coverage that I can see. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any public service organisation with well over 2,000 employees (including nearly 1,900 sworn police officers) is obviously notable. It's called common sense. Ludicrous nomination which doesn't benefit the project in the slightest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, pal, and no. See WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read it hundreds of times. See WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:BURO. I always find applying those instead of "all rules must be obeyed no matter how stupid it sounds" works wonders for improving Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems to me that following the GNG is common sense. Otherwise just about everything is notable, and the article content little different from (in this case) the police department's press releases and website. I mean, why draw the line at 2000 employees? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

refer to WP:BIGNUMBER. The number of employees in itself is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No organization is "automatically notable." See the guidelines about notability: WP:ORG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the lead of N says that ORG and other SNG can create a presumption that a topic is notable, but cannot work in reverse. ORG has been under discussion on its talk page for some time, and my feeling is that it doesn't reflect consensus in its present form. IIRC, BIGNUMBER is an essay. James500 (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing wrong with quoting an essay, especially when you cite unilaterally created draft proposals to back your arguments in AfDs. As usual you will have a long winded response to this. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, clearly notable and meets GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 20:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:VAGUEWAVE. GregJackP Boomer! 05:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how ironic, you've used vaguewave yourself, merely pointing to GNG with zero explanation of how it meets it or indeed why it is strong. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you asked this time, instead of merely pointing to a policy...

Ryan L. Sumner, Charlotte and Mecklenburg County Police (2010).
1 The Encyclopedia of Police Science 156-58 (Jack R. Greene ed. 2007).
Trent E. Ikerd, Examining the Institutionalization of Problem-oriented Policing: The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department as a Case Study, ProQuest (2007).
Carl B. Klockars, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovich, & M.R. Haberfeld, Enhancing Police Integrity (2007).
Judith D. Feins, Joel C. Epstein, & Rebecca Widom, Solving crime problems in residential neighborhoods: comprehensive changes in design, management, and use (1997).

I just listed the first five books I found that discuss CMPD in detail. CMPD is widely known in the criminal justice field for its innovative approaches to problem solving and crime, and has been the subject of numerous case studies, like the one by Dr. Ikerd, above. GregJackP Boomer! 17:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:GregJackP, I can't really judge whether these do what you claim they do, since for some publication information is missing and I can't even judge whether they are reliable sources or not (esp. the Sumner title). The last two or three look interesting, but I can't see what they say, whether they actually add something or not (and for the third one there is no journal title). If those references were in the article, but more importantly, if the article would reflect what those sources say, it would be an entirely different matter. As it stands now, the article (with the exception of the demographics section) is really nothing but a directory with organizational structure and some pictures of colorful thingies--there is nothing to indicate that it is notable as an organization. I do not believe, pace Necrothesp, that these outfits are automatically notable and thus I see no function for it; having this article does not make the project any better. You, it seems to me, have all the tools in hand to prove the opposite, but with a few titles here that don't mention our topic (I mean the last two ones) you cannot take for granted that others will go, oh, yeah, notable after all. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies - If you have access to Proquest, Ikerd's 300 page report is online there, I believe. I'll see if I can find the ISBN's of the others, but it may take a bit. Will that work for you? GregJackP Boomer! 20:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah, I just saw it on Google Books--it's a doctoral dissertation, so it can't carry the weight of a properly published monograph. But you know, the easiest way to convince me (and probably others) is to write some of that content. I will be happy to wait, and I'm sure the closing admin won't have a problem with that either--or, and this would be a new one for me, I don't mind if this whole AfD is put on hold to give you and Necrothesp more time. (Because Necrothesp, you can call me a deletionist all you want, but that's a personal attack and also quite silly, given that I've written over a thousand articles.) Thanks, and I commend your zeal, Drmies (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try Trent Eric Ikerd, Beyond "Flavor of the Month": Institutionalizing problem-oriented policing (POP) in the CMPD, 33 Policing Int'l J. Police Strat. & Mgmt. 179 (2010). (HeinOnline). I see if I can find the others again. GregJackP Boomer! 03:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp and GregJackP. Although this does satisfy GNG, I think it is worth pointing out that GNG is only part of N, the lead of which says that a topic is notable if it is "worthy of notice" in the ordinary meaning of those words. It is sometimes difficult to reconcile GNG with common sense. It is itself a subjective and arbitrary looking test. James500 (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. A simple search of gnews would show coverage is run of the mill for a police department, like they apprehended a criminal. Much of the coverage is very local from Charlotte too. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the GNG. Local news sources are still reliable sources, and there are some in-depth stories. The Steve 03:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources presented by GregJackP above and the many other sources even a cursory search on Google Scholar turns up. Article needs a rewrite though. Jbh ^Talk 03:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would just like to ask the deletionists here whether they really think deleting an article on a large, well-known police department is actually benefiting Wikipedia or whether they simply believe that applying the letter (instead of the spirit) of the guidelines is more important than any common sense? I really, genuinely am at a lost to understand their attitude. Always have been. I find it bizarre. Just my opinion, of course, but I believe the guidelines are there to stop rubbish or cruft on completely non-notable subjects clogging up Wikipedia (and I'd be the first to support this), not to keep articles on organisations like this one out of the project. To me that really is incredibly obvious and just because the i's haven't been fully dotted and t's not fully crossed doesn't mean it's not clearly the spirit of this project that we all devote so much time to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What even is this AfD? Not to wax, but literally every major police department in the U.S. (not to mention others) has a Wikipedia article. Clearly notable, and I'm sure there are thousands of sources that reference this subject. Jd027 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And I am normally something of a deletionist. Jd027 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thousands of sources? The sources I found are just routine news of what a police department does, arrest criminals, ask the public for more info on a crime. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you are not looking either in the right places or with the right terms. There are plenty of sources. GregJackP Boomer! 05:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ngee Ann Poly Student Division[edit]

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

No reliable sources nor reference, lack of notability. Redundant since article on parent organisation already exists--Catflap08 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's likely the language and country barriers but my searches found nothing particularly good with the best being this. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Mega Man characters. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mega Man Battle Network characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't verify that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. This has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, and there was no consensus at AfD last year; it didn't attract many comments. Hopefully, we can finally resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would this make more sense to be discussed as a merge discussion on the series talk page. While mirages can be brought up in an AFD they are suppose to be used only for pages that the nominwtor wanted deleted, a the only way I could see this being s valid AFD would be if you were also planning to dlelete the serie page meaning that there would be nowhere to merge this too.--67.68.29.1 (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response I brought this here because I want this deleted. Where are you suggesting it be merged to? Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The series page would be the logical choice. A merge does not need to include everything thought and I think the characteds should be mentioned somewhere.--67.68.29.1 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and trim to List of Mega Man characters. Add a section called "Battle Network characters" and list the starring characters that are new to the franchise. The regular characters can have additional descriptions on their roles in the Battle Network series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator AngusWOOF's suggestion seems preferable to deletion - my mind's been changed. Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that the sections marked Other recurring, non-recurring and anime-exclusive are full of mostly minor characters and should not be merged. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn, are you withdrawing the nom? – czar 17:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' no czar, I'm suggesting it may be a good idea to close as merge. No point re-starting a merge proposal - might as well get it resolved here. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn, right, or we could close the AfD, boldly merge, and have it resolved that way. Otherwise it just waits until the seven-day close tomorrow. – czar 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment czar, if you're prepared to merge them, then I'm happy for discussion to be closed. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Prowler 2[edit]

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

I see nothing notable about this specific commercial product. bd2412 T 17:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a promotional page for a commercial product.Sulabhvarshney (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of the Soil (2002 film)[edit]

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

Another in a recent series of articles by User:Talentforfilm about short videos on Pakistan army operations directed by Kamran Qureshi that fails WP:NFILM, from what I can see. All these articles state that they are episodes in a "Hardam Tayyar documentaries series" and so a merge and direct is possible to an article on such a series, I suppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has also created an article on the series Har Dam Tayyar and that is where all these articles on the short episodes should be redirected. They are not independently notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shawn in Montreal for your time and advice. My articles about Pakistan Army, Navy and Air Force, (Sons of the Soil, Power of the Sea, and Flying Tigers), these are entirely different in nature, departments and operations and what I understand is, this is the reason why Avtek Media Group made separate documentaries and I have created separate articles as there is a need to justify with the subjects.

The Making show was made and named Har Dam Tayyar for TV promotions to explain audience the topics and importance of these documentaries. This is what article Har Dam Tayyar is saying. I recommend these articles should remain separate and all will have their separate notability. Trust me. Kind regards Talentforfilm (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many (or all?) of those "diversity in subjects" are simply topics addressed in largely non-notable Kamran Qureshi shows that you've created articles for. User:Flowers4mums is a single purpose account that had popped up at Afd to support you, using the same terrible English grammar as you, and I think you and the whole affair is fishy, though I'm not sure what will be done about it. Maybe nothing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Please note that Talentforfilm has been blocked as a promotion-only account abusing multiple accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talentforfilm. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of a lack of coverage in independent sources. Incidentally, should Beyond the Silence of the Sea be included in this nomination? It looks like a similar case. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, all 20-min videos were nominated separately, and now the parent article. Sorry about the piecemeal approach, but it wasn't initially clear to me what these short films were, and I hadn't decided to nominate the parent till much later (today). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Har Dam Tayyar. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion - I actually thought that Beyond the Silence of the Sea hadn't been nominated for some reason, but it has. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Existence is verified by IATA and ICAO signs, sources with coverage have been added. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shamshernagar STOLport[edit]

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

Airport was never used in history and there are no plans for it to be put to use any time in the future.Thus, it is not significant enough to deserve an article.

Furthermore, the article is very small with barely any information at all and that too from a single dubious source. Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global)} 17:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: though I am having some trouble tracking down sources, it appears that there have been scheduled flights to Shamshernagar in the past (based on this accident description). The existence of IATA and ICAO codes are a plus; I wouldn't mind renaming to "Shamshernagar Airport" though. "Pepper" @ 21:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The airport is also mentioned as one of Bangladesh's 12 domestic airports here. "Pepper" @ 21:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. There's a shortage of sources to verify its notability. Recommend a merge to chapter/section Shamshernagar/Transportation. AadaamS (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of 31 March 1945, the US 61st Air Service Group was based at Shamshernagar according to: U.S. Air Force Historical Division (1953). Craven, Wesley Frank; Care, James Lea (eds.). The Army Air Forces In World War II. The University of Chicago Press. p. 181. Here's a photo of them with the C-47 Regina the Queen at the "never used in history" airbase in August 1945.

I'm not in a position to verify the following because the first source is in Bengali, the second is in Urdu, and the third is not in a library readily accessible to me, but according to East Pakistan Air Operations, 1971, during the Bangladesh Liberation War Shamshernagar was the base of the first fighting formation of what would become the Bangladesh Air Force: a DC-3 Dakota, a DHC-3 Otter, and a Alouette III helicopter together known as Kilo Force. Worldbruce (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no prejudice to Merge and Redirect per Pepper and WorldBruce. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lalmonirhat Airport. This is a duplicated version of the redirect target. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lalmonirhat STOLport[edit]

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

Airport was never used in history and there are no plans for it to be put to use any time in the future. Thus, it is not significant enough to deserve an article.

Furthermore, the article is very small with barely any information at all and that too from a single dubious source. Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global)} 17:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Lalmonirhat Airport article also exists as a more historical (but less complete) article covering this airport. "Pepper" @ 21:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any encyclopedic information about Lalmonirhat STOLport can be encompassed by article Lalmonirhat Airport, which covers the same physical ground and was notable for it's role in the China-Burma-India theater of World War II. Worldbruce (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bogra Airport[edit]

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

Airport was never used in history and there are no plans for it to be put to use any time in the future. Moreover, airport lacks recognition from IATA. Thus, it is not significant enough to deserve an article.

Furthermore, the article is very small with barely any information at all and that too from a single dubious source. Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global)} 17:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is a newspaper photo of the airport being used by the Bangladesh Air Force. There is no scheduled passenger service, but while the existence of scheduled service confers notability, the absence of it is not a reason for deletion. Like white elephant public infrastructure projects everywhere, news coverage suggests Bangladesh's STOL airfields may be notable precisely because the government paid to build them, and pays to staff them, but they don't serve the average citizen as intended. I've added some content and sources. I believe it meets WP:GNG and WP:NAIRPORT. If more is desired, one could do a Bangla-language search. Construction of the STOL airfields began around 1992, so a search of offline sources also might be profitable. Worldbruce (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Military use seems highly limited, it can't be classified as a proper air base. Moreover, I would like to repeat the airport doesn't even have an IATA code which is considered very important according to WP:NAIRPORT. Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global)} 09:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with props to Worldbruce for the expansion. The airport does have an ICAO code, which is more than enough to verify the airport's existence. "Pepper" @ 21:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Worldbruce and Pepper. The nom is talking about no scheduled passenger service, which is not a reason for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With no support for deletion, I suppose this discussion should end? Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global)} 12:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Bogra. The references listed so far fail WP:SIGCOV and therefore the airport doesn't meet the GNG. Merge & redirect to Bogra/Transportation. AadaamS (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FiREapps[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Refs provided show that it exists, where it is located (?!) and that the business it trades in is BIG business - but nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No depth of coverage, all the sources say they exist but nothing else. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: If kept, this page should be moved to Fireapps, as Wikipedia does not stylise article titles) Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Unfortunately delete for now and draft/userfy as although the article is neat and sourced, my further searches found nothing good aside from this, this and this. There's also no good move target. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete; blanked by article creator. —Cryptic 18:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cordeiro[edit]

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

Bypassed AfC submission which was declined repeatedly. Subject is non-notable, and the draft editor might be the subject himself. See comments in talk page by another reviewer. Let's bring some closure and delete this. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional/autobiographical article. Author or his book does not meet WP:N currently. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feni Airport[edit]

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

Airport was never used in history and there are no plans for it to be put to use any time in the future. Moreover, airport lacks recognition from IATA and ICAO. Thus, it is not significant enough to deserve an article.

Furthermore, the article is very small with barely any information at all and that too from a single dubious source. Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global)} 16:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a notable Feni airfield, the World War II one the R.A.F. built, the Japanese bombed, and the U.S.A.A.F. used duing the Burma Campaign. Wikipedia already has a brief article on it under the less common spelling Fenny Airfield. In modern times a school was built on top of it. All that remains are two helipads, one building, and some ruins. Feni/Fenny was an all-weather airfield. It had a fair weather satellite, and that might be the grass strip vaguely discernible in the satellite photos linked to from this article. I don't believe that this grass field is notable independent of the other article about the historical base. Worldbruce (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no IATA/ICAO signs, no coverage, doesn't seem to be the same place as Fenny Airfield Kraxler (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article creator marked the article with {{db-g7}}. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes Ives[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Prolific, but no independent sources can be found that talk about him. Note from the edit summar on the article's creation: this is an autobiography. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on this comment left at my talk page, perhaps WP:CSD#G7 applies? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulette Phillips[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist. While there's enough substance here that she likely would be eligible to keep a properly sourced article, the problem in this instance is that it's resting almost entirely on primary (own website, websites of galleries with which she's directly affiliated) and bloggy/YouTubey unreliable sources. Only one reference here, Canadian Art (#4), counts for anything toward the meeting of WP:GNG — and even that source isn't substantively about her, but merely contains a two-sentence namecheck of her within a list of capsule reviews of several art shows. Being able to primary-source her existence isn't what gets an artist into Wikipedia — real media coverage is, but there isn't any of that here. Delete unless the sourcing can be utterly overhauled. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is grounds for deletion per WP:AfD. If sources exist, and the article isn't unduly promotional or otherwise terrible, and WP:BLP is met, then I see no reason to delete. (On the other hand, I've not yet seen the sources myself.) Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that an article can be kept at AFD if improved sources can be shown to exist, without regard to whether they've already been added to the article or not — but what you're missing is that somebody has to actually demonstrate hard evidence that the improved sources do exist. We don't keep unsourced or primary sourced BLPs at AFD just because somebody suggests that improved sources might exist, if nobody actually shows any hard evidence that improved sources do exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quick google, google books and google scholar searches show plenty of third-party articles, essays and books about Phillips, enough to satisfy WP:GNG and her exhibition record, easily verified, satisfies WP:ARTIST. The Canadian Art reference already there is enough for WP:BLP, the rest can be tagged for further sources. freshacconci talk to me 18:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per freshacconci --Theredproject (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE: plenty of easily-accessible sources exists online. I'd like to see somebody work on it to improve it in any case. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Mazdoor Mahz[edit]

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

I've speedied this three times and protected the page, and the identical text has been posted under a slightly different title. the editor is blocked for posting the same text for everyone connected with the operation.

It's unsourced spam multiply recreated, but an editor in good standing has suggested I bring it here since it may be notable if anyone is prepared to find sources and clean it up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced spam. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The warnings at the author's page shows they may not be entirely familiar with the guidelines especially the basic ones that say sources are needed so unless this group is very unknown, there's nothing particularly good to confirm existence much less notability as my searches showed. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Considering that after sources were unearthed by Phil, all the !votes were to keep (and one "delete" changed to "keep", albeit weak), it is not implausible to think the other commenters who opined to "delete" might similarly reconsider, which sways this closure towards keep instead of what would clearly be a "no consensus". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

37Games[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Outside of press releases this company lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search are press releases. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 15:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm unable to check the quality of the Chinese-language sources, but I defer to Phil's assessment of them with his experience in the area. This said, I still have no idea what kind of coverage these sources contain (press releases? original reporting? blurbs? full articles?), apart from that I now have links from major outlets. – czar 16:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable company. I also recall that the page had been created several times before as 37 Entertainment Inc but was also deleted due to the same reason. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Not a lot of coverage outside of company press releases. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per WP:NCOMPANY. The article does not show the the significance of the subject. --Anar chyte 22:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete an article about a company that does not show it notability/significance. (CSD A7). Article tagged with {{db-company}}. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly asserts notability in the second paragraph ("38th amongst top 100 internet companies in China", "second biggest browser game platform"), though as long as the references fail to load, it's unsubstantiated and nevertheless lacking reliable, secondary coverage. Still good enough for defeating the speedy. – czar 14:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete just change two reference source Czar mentioned that are failed to load.I changing them to article of portals of Tencent and Sina, which rank no.2 and no.4 traffic among Chinese websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamefant (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the company is significant for those rankings, where is the reliable, secondary source coverage? Can you help us find Chinese-language sources? – czar 19:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you check those two newly added article i mentioned above, which are mainly talking about the ranking and market share. Are they reliable, secondary source coverage? Besides, just find one coverage from Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/russellflannery/2015/05/07/new-online-game-billionaire-clan-emerges-in-china/. Sanqi Interactive Entertainment is official name of the whole group. This name could be found at the bottom of 37.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodmanishere (talk • contribs) 04:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being included on that list of top Internet companies doesn't count for much on its own. We're finding mostly press releases or passing mentions (such as inclusion in a list) for this company (at least as "37Games" or "37.com"—we might find more if we use the "Sanqi" name), such that we don't have complete evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) We need to have actual non-press release content in order to write a balanced article, otherwise it's better off redirected or deleted. Forbes would be a start, but it's more usable for an article about Sanqi than about 37Games, no? And I'm having trouble establishing whether the short QQ and People.cn short articles are (1) reputable and (2) discuss the company in more than a passing fashion. – czar 13:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sanqi" actually is the Chinese pronunciation of 37. – [user talk:goodmanishere] 11:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodmanishere (talk • contribs)

Keep I was intending to close this as delete but after some digging there are a raft of reliable sources out there in Chinese. Pace avoidance of systematic bias, it is notable and should be kept. Note that the Chinese article (now linked) has been tagged for the equivalent to WP:PROMO since December 2014, which means that it too needs better sourcing. I've added Chinese searches for sources so others can get an idea of the coverage out there—also pinging Czar per his request above. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88, thanks for this. I'm not familiar with Chinese-language reliable sources. Which of those hits are reputable, and not just rehashes of press releases? (Or is there a list of such domains somewhere in project space, perhaps something on par with WP:VG/RS?) Could you help with my QQ/People.cn question above? – czar 13:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: News stories with in depth coverage here from 163.com, and here from Sina Corp. I don't know about RS for video games but there is certainly sufficient coverage in "mainstream" sources. Don't forget, the reliable sources don't need to be cited in the article - they only need to exist. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 15:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 06:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage in reliable sources to make this article pass WP:ORG. I found and added a news source in just 5 seconds. I also found coverage in Chinese language, as already pointed by Phil. The subject passes our notability threshold. Jim Carter 13:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter, you added what is unabashedly a press release... Certainly not reliable, independent, or a "news source". Others may exist, but that's exactly why we're searching. – czar 13:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 15:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Rawes[edit]

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

May not meet notability requirements Nquinn91 (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has been here for 5 years with no sources. Rawes has 2 books with very average holdings, GS h-index of 5, etc. All-in-all, seems very much to be "the average professor". Agricola44 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - websearches turn up nothing, has published two books, themselves of unclear notability, my Google search says that the first was cited 17 times, the second 10 times, whatever that should mean, but I doubt that the subject could pass WP:SCHOLAR. Kraxler (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found a mention here, but my search of British media, plus architectural magazines, did not turn up much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hearts Fund[edit]

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

This outfit does not seem to have much going for it in terms of notability: this is really the only thing I found that discusses the organization, though--let's be honest--it reads like a press release and is hardly an example of real journalism. The rest of the coverage, as you will see in the article and in any Google search, is about a little snafu involving the Clinton Foundation, and while all that is really exciting (for some, for a while), those articles barely discuss the organization. As such, it's the equivalent of WP:BLP1E. There is probably a note on the organization in the founder's article, and that's all we need, with a redirect. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. All it has going for it is celebrity interactions and as an organization will no way pass CORP. The Dissident Aggressor 16:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft/userfy - I couldn't even find much for the Bill Clinton controversy and my searches here, here, here and here found nothing notable. Excellent mission no doubt but not much for a more detailed article now. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dogecoindark[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only coverage are some price analysis. Just because it has "Dogecoin" in the name doesn't mean it bears even one-hundredth of Dogecoin's notability. I recently had to remove original research amplifying this "coin" prominence - it tried to promote itself as having higher intraday volume than Dogecoin on some cherrypicked date. Esquivalience ^t 14:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete, as all information in article is accurate, non-speculative, and factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunerok (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is no reason to delete this. all information is factual, and there is no price analysis, as Esquivalience cried about in broken english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunerok (talk • contribs) 17:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take your promotion somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a replacement for your nearest newswire. Esquivalience ^t 18:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dogecoin is notable. This isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software (electronic currency) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. The one ref listing blocks is not RS, nor significant coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination, doesn't meet WP:GNG or any other Wikipedia criteria for article. Textbook case of WP:COI user who doesn't bother with minor details like Wikipedia guidelines. If Sunerok (talk · contribs) had the slightest understanding of WP:COI or WP:CHERRY at all, this article would have never been created. (Of course, if Sunerok had any shame about conflict-of-interest or cherry picking, he wouldn't be be pointing out someone's one-letter typo after making elementary English mistakes in the first 4 of his 6 edits, including the same word he criticized someone else for, and doesn't believe in "minor" things like signatures or edit summaries. Would you trust the integrity of a cryptocurrency system written by someone who misses stuff like that while blaming someone else?) Anyway, no to Dogecoindark on Wikipedia: WP:NOTDIR and all the other basic guidelines Sunerok didn't read before he put this on the Internet. --Closeapple (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. "Accurate, non-speculative, and factual" =/= notable. PianoDan (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rolair[edit]

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

Standard searches did not reveal enough significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 14:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, I have to agree and I've probably come across this name but my searches found no good results, here, here and here (nothing to suggest better chances of improvement and notability). SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foregone (Film)[edit]

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

An unremarkable film that hasn't even begun pre-production. Not covered by enough reliable sources; in fact, the article, stating that it is a "micro budget feature film", already suggests that the film is not notable. CSD was declined by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per being far too soon to even consider an article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should really have been speedy deleted as it's literally only one line. CDRL102 (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as the best links I found were these. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kissi Jr[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as my searches and even the simplest searches found nothing good aside from self-generated social media (for example this). Frankly, there's not much for the slightest good article (at this time) because they're all social media links.SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nazrul Islam Hall buet[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG guideline. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The dorm doesn't serve an important or unusual function of the sort described at WP:MAPOUTCOMES. There's no evidence that it is architecturally significant or historic (i.e. not on a national register). Unable to find more than passing mentions, not the significant coverage by reliable sources that would be required to satisfy WP:GEOFEAT or WP:GNG. Stub appears to be entirely WP:OR. If any fact in it can be sourced and is deemed worth saving, smerge to Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology. Worldbruce (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Waddell[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the mayor of a town with a population of just 3K, which is far too small to confer notability on a mayor under WP:NPOL, and as an unsuccessful candidate for higher office. While the article does contain sources, none of them are actually substantive coverage of him as a topic in his own right — they just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being about other people or events he was tangentially connected to, so they don't adequately support a claim under WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seeing no real notability here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - smalltown mayor and unelected to higher office, fails WP:NPOL, coverage is routine for failed candidates which doesn't establish notability, expressly per this guideline Kraxler (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Continente Americano 2010[edit]

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

Variant on article deleted by AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss United Continent - using Spanish name variant to disguise non-notable pageants Flat Out (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, no independent sources, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural closure. This is a duplicate nomination, article was deleted by User:Jackmcbarn. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Continente Americano 2008[edit]

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

Variant on article discussed at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss United Continent - using Spanish name variant to disguise non-notable pageants Flat Out (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Continente Americano 2012[edit]

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

Variant on article discussed at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss United Continent - using Spanish name variant to disguise non-notable pageants Flat Out (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Continente Americano 2009[edit]

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

Variant on article discussed at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss United Continent - using Spanish name variant to disguise non-notable pageants Flat Out (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Continente Americano 2007[edit]

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

Variant on article discussed at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss United Continent - using Spanish name variant to disguise non-notable pageants Flat Out (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Continente Americano 2011[edit]

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

Variant on article discussed at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss United Continent - using Spanish name variant to disguise non-notable pageants Flat Out (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Market Research Society[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. A pile of "sources" is given but the bulk are WP:PRIMARY, one is a trivial mention (just the name), another doesn't mention the subject at all and the one remaining was a story at research-live about their "sister" publication winning an award from these people. I was led here from the Kogan Page article, where we've been dealing with what appears to have been paid placement of articles about the authors they publish, discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rachel Josephson/Archive. This looks similarly suspect to me. Msnicki (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the article

User:andydalg

I posted this article not on behalf of Kogan Page (with whom I have no relationship), but because I felt it would be helpful to fill an important gap.

I think the issue here is not notability, but evidence for that (which I accept could do with some bulking up - any suggestions are very welcome). I've worked in the market research profession for over a decade and there is no doubt that the MRS is a highly reputable and important institution. For example, the market research industry in the UK is worth £3 billion annually and the MRS is the representative body for that industry. Or a look at the list of leading individuals (e.g. Sir Martin Sorrel) who support the MRS's work as Patrons shows how well respected it is. It also publishes one of the key academic journals in this area - the International Journal of Market Research.

So I feel removing the article would be inappropriate and would leave a whole in Wikipedia's coverage of the market research industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andydalg (talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability references added

User:andydalg

To start the ball rolling on proving notability I've added references to the MRS from the BBC (UK's public broadcaster) and The Herald (Scottish newspaper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andydalg (talk • contribs) 15:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your new references are basically trivial mentions. One quote the MRS on their position and the other only mentions their name. Neither offers useful material actually about the subject. Msnicki (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about those I've now added as references in the first sentence of the article. Two specifically describe the MRS as the world's largest professional body in this area, and the other lists it under world research associations. All three sources are highly credible - the UK government, WARC (a best practice organisation) and MRWEB (a key online trade publication for the industry).(talk • contribs) 08:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is still heavily sourced from primary sources. The WARC and the MRWEB are both member directory listings, and therefore are not neutral sources. Neither of those therefore support notability. The reference (#7 at the moment) to a WP page should be removed -- WP pages cannot be used as references. Of the few third-party references, none are significantly about MRS. Given this, it may be sufficient that MRS is listed on the WP Market research page, as sources do not support a separate article. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. article is almost all based on primary sources with no evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Continente Americano 2008[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Variant on article discussed at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss United Continent - using Spanish name variant to disguise non-notable pageants Flat Out (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Shqipëria[edit]

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

Non-notable pageant - fails WP:NEVENT Flat Out (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen at Sea Fillets Association[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable; my searches found no significant coverage here, here, here and here being the best results. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. as demonstrated with twisters's searches. LibStar (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G20 Young Entrepreneurs' Alliance[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete especially if the article can't be improved despite finding several sources here, here (before archive) and here (after archive), here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JO Steenkamp[edit]

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

Google hits are all non-independent sources. I dream of horses (T) @ 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No decent independent WP:RS, 2 archival publications on his SHIP theory in WoS, neither of which has ever been cited, and no other credible claim to notability. This is an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are independent secondary sources which support his notability (I've added them to the article). The article does need editing to address the WP:COI problem. Wayne Jayes (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've added a book that references Steenkamp/SHIP and, from what I can tell, 2 references from obscure journals and 1 unpublished master's thesis, that might do likewise. These are 4 (somewhat weak) citations to Steenkamp's work, not secondary sources that discuss Steenkamp (the person) at length. The fact remains that SHIP is an obscure modality that has not been accepted in mainstream practice, nor has Steenkamp's work in this area been widely noted or cited. Agricola44 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed, but my preference generally is to err on the side of 'keep' rather thane delete; it's very easy to press the delete button, but creating something (like a reasonably good WP article) takes time and effort. I don't know Steenkamp, nor am I a psychologist, I have no vested interest in this article, but I feel it does warrant retention. Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that your "keep" is based not on whether Steenkamp is notable (indeed that he seems not to be), but rather on the fact that someone put some work into creating this article. I think this is the first time I've ever seen "keep" blatantly argued from the standpoint of the labor theory of value in an AfD. And, for the record, I am a completely disinterested commentator on this article, as well. Agricola44 (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

delete per Agricola. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
;Delete Neither he nor his method are notable. The references added do not show notability--rather, that these are the only mentions they show lack of notability DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Sparks[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Little coverage in reliable sources. No significant awards or honours. Does not appear to have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her field. Also appears to fail WP:NEQUESTRIAN. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet threshold for notability as an equestrian. Quis separabit? 22:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GNG per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. comment added by The.sparrowhawk (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:REFBOMB of trivial mentions doesn't get her past WP:BIO. Vrac (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Weinstein Company. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radius-TWC[edit]

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

Lacks notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Weinstein Company. This film studio is brand new, so it should be left as a section. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Icore[edit]

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

Unable to find any independent reliable sources to show company notability -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this company.Dialectric (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stanley Tong. (non-admin closure) Antigng (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Yoga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kung Fu Yoga

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

Fails WP:NFF as principle photography hasn't begun. Timmyshin (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Create when photography is finished, at least. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 03:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stanley Tong or Jackie Chan. Seems like photography is starting this summer and by just redirecting the article won't need to be completely recreated. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now, to Jackie_Chan#New_experiments_and_change_in_style:_2008.E2.80.93present, which can contain a WP:NOTEWORTHY sentence about 1) the international treaty[131] and 2) the named co-stars & director and such.[132][133][134] Per User:Wikimandia, the redirect will also be easier to fix up once the film is released. Specifically should be redirect to Chan (not Tong/Kaif/etc) because his name is the one used in source-titles. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shiba Ali Khan[edit]

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

Clearly not a notable person. Acted only in a drama and a non notable film that is not yet released. References are not reliable. NO source for the awards. - Arr4 (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources included are about the movie, not the actor in question. - Arr4 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep following translation of sources and qualified input below Unless someone who can read the Bangladeshi lamguage sources can confirm these constitute reliable sources (which I doubt from a quick look), there is no convincing evidence of notability in the article. Mabalu (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft/userfy for now I suppose as my searches found nothing good aside from the current links and nothing to suggest improvement from its current state. Obviously sources are only in Bangladesh but I'm not a speaker of its language. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references must be wholly reliable, with doubt on only a single small reference #4, as almost all of them have been from independent major news agencies. I've cleaned up the referecences and given them translations. All the references currently in the article refer to The Story of Samara, that's what I can tell you. But I can tell you this, that the Prothom Alo is the biggest newspaper in Bangladesh, and that since there has been sole coverage on her and the movie from large agencies such as Bangladesh Pratidin, Manab Zamin, Shokaler Khobor and bdnews24.com, it cannot be ignored that she has been acknowledged. In the awards aspect, I'm not sure of the awards and whether the references in the article list them (I haven't read through them all), but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Anyhow, she has also been working longer and has more experience as a model so that should be remembered when talking about her acting career. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 18:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced with leading newspapers, and online portals, such as Prothom Alo, Bangladesh Pratidin, bdnews24.com. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bagri clan[edit]

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

nothing to impart meaning, substance or notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found in reliable sources to establish notability. Sources cited are passing mentions. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JJ Goodman[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 22:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning a competition show of the level he won is not enough to make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Combinatorial Distribution[edit]

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

Original research directly from a paper with zero citation counts. Mys_721tx (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given by the nominator; this doesn't pass WP:GNG. And (even restricted to using it as the name for a probability distribution) there are too many other papers with incompatible definitions for the same phrase; e.g. doi:10.1016/0012-365X(85)90110-4, arXiv:1308.3279, jstor:1402946, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judit Kutasi[edit]

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

No in-depth, independent sources demonstrate notability. Sure, the singer exists, but not all opera singers are notable; and she might be notable if any of the claims made in the article were verifiable, but they're not; so we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source the article. I don't think finding references for the competition wins is going to be as hard as you say. I spent five minutes scrolling through a google search and found these references verifying her prize wins at several notable international singing competitions: [135], [136], [137]. There were also plenty of reviews in magazines, journals, and newspapers that can verify her performances in leading roles at the Teatro Massimo and the Zurich Opera. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so you've managed to dig out the fact that she won third prize, along with two other singers, in a single competition, and sourced it to Objectiv Vocea Brăilei (unknown provincial newspaper, circulation 2500), Bucharest Herald (a news aggregator for anglophone expatriates) and Ziariști Online (a blog with neo-fascist tendencies), all of which apparently reproduced the same press release. I suggest you keep trying if you'd like this to be kept. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 4meter4 and I believe that non-english WP:RS exist as well. However, WP:BEFORE would have reduce Biruitorul's stress of bringing this here for discussion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I pretty thoroughly explained why the sources supplied by 4meter4 don't do much in terms of showing notability, and "believing" sources exist is not a substitute for actually showing they do. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see having reservations about the resume-like tone, but a Zurich Oper bio (took me a lot less than 5' to find) seems sufficient for notability. Sparafucil (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's review WP:BIO: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (emphasis mine). The Zurich Opera pays Kutasi to appear on its stage; she is an employee of theirs. Obviously, a blurb written by an employer about one of its employees is, in no sense of the term, a source that is "independent of the subject". Keep trying, Sparafucil. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources that I find list her only in minor roles, [138], [139], [140], like "third woman" and "handmaid". She is listed at the Zurich Opera House as a member of the "ensemble". I wouldn't think that ensemble performers have automatic notability. I don't find anything showing her in a leading role, nor do I find reviews of her performances. I'll check back to see if more has been revealed. LaMona (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another opera singer, shared third price at a singing contest, ensemble member at the Zürich Opera House, but no significant coverage in independent sources, fails WP:ARTIST (no reviews) and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Morgan International. Don't usually close on one !vote but Redirect is always preferred over deletion and personally It makes sense to redirect this instead of deleting so redirect it shall be. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Ganni[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, can't find significant coverage that isn't primary and doesn't completely hinge on just him being the CEO. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Morgan International as my searches found nothing to suggest good independent notability here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JS aka The Best[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable musician. Provided references are either passing mentions or were written by the subject himself. Article has been deleted via PROD twice--once in 2011 and once earlier today. Current version of the article was created by a brand new account almost immediately after the most recent deletion, so I'm treating this as a contested PROD. --Finngall ^talk 17:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable musician. References are trivial at best. reddogsix (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well. Non-notable musician. Would be the equivalent of giving every single minor composer on a work a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.246 (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted. Individual seems to have collaborated on minor projects with minor artists and commercials. Based on the deletion patterns, user continues to seek Wikipedia as a place to solidify his credibility and thus views it as a marketing platform for his resumè. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.13.117 (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References to person are from news articles that are from non notable sources. Person appears to be a music producer, which is valid as a profession, but not one of notability to be considered for notation on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.233.100.236 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not notable; fails in reliable sources. Agree refernces are trivial and I have removed one that is just a track listing for a mixtape for another artist. Even for that artist, this would not be usable. Fylbecatulous talk 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to GlaxoSmithKline. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horlicks NutriQuest[edit]

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

Non-notable mobile game app. Fails GNG. —teb728 t c 19:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This game has just released, hence the lack of notability. Plus it is only released in Pakistan. Give it some time —Frostbullet Frostbullet — Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GlaxoSmithKline. We do give it some time, but until then it stays deleted or moved to a userspace draft. Therticle topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had zero hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Also those images are blatant copyright violations. The pharmaceutical company's page is a fine redirect target, where it can build out summary style, if even necessary. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mumbai telecom companies[edit]

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

This list has a set of telecom companies out of which all are not based in Mumbai. Moreover telecom companies operate in a circle rather than in a particular city/town. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai is a telecom circle, so that part of the nom would be inapplicable. However, I'm not sure what the value of having all these individual telecom lists is. You have less than 20 players nationwide (including the multiple names used by the same group) and it's simpler to just have one list cross-matching all the players with all these circles. Delete. —SpacemanSpiff 14:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bright Chimezie. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zigima Sound[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. It is a local genre of music with no evidence of notability. Zigima sound fails the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of "Bright Chimezie". Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I suggest the article be merged with Bright Chimezie because it is a genre of music synonimous to him OluwaCurtis The King : talk to me 14:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't expect anything different from a "keep" or "merge" and sometime "redirect" vote from an article creator when their ridiculous articles get nominated for deletion through WP:AfD because editors rarely want their articles or contributions deleted. However, there is actually nothing in the article to merge to Bright Chimezie, the context of the article (Zigima Sound) had already been covered in the Bright Chimezie's article and obviously nothing can be written further about the Zigima Sound's article beyond its current state, hence my inclination and disposition for the article's deletion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Yunshui under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 20:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Chouksey[edit]

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

Non-notable 21 year old actor, director and hacker. Was tagged as CSD and then PROD which were removed. I believe much of the biographical information is incorrect as it is hard to achieve what is claimed by the age of 21. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs deleting - achievements are completely unreferenced. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Please delete this.--122.166.137.167 (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The IMDb link goes to someone called 'Aachal Munjal' who is an actress, and so does the bollywoodhungama.com one too. If the subject of this article has appeared in 50 theatrical performances AND got a degree in engineering by 21, there should be more than 1700 hits on Google for his name, and the hits shouldn't start off with a great flood of social media and such. Peridon (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a promotional article. The references are just facebook page and a youtube video of the subject. The creator of the page is the subject himself as evident from his photo Sulabhvarshney (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haute Living[edit]

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

This has been around since 2011 and despite tagging as unreferenced, it still has not a single reference. What it does have is advertising babble (with poor spelling) and a distinct whiff of Ownership. However , above all else, if fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional puff piece entirely unreferenced and fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This thing has been suffering long enough, it's not ever going to be notable, shoot it in the head already. Brianhe (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Herold[edit]

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

Alleged to be CSD eligible on spam/advertising grounds, however I think the article may just be in need of a good spit and polish. Any spitting and/or polishing will come after the afd which decides if the community thinks it should stay though. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam created by an undisclosed paid editor about a non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches such as this and this found nothing to suggest good independent notability. The article is neat and sourced but this would rather be moved elsewhere as he'd best known as COO. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete vanity article if I ever saw one. Even with some clean up established editors it reeks of grandiose promotion. LibStar (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopeless; there's no point in even moving it to draft space. I do not see how a paid editor taking money for writing this sort of article is acting ethically, even not considering of our terms of service. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TomStar81: Edits that created it are undisclosed paid advocacy, which is illegal in the USA. Keeping it would be aiding and abetting. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ROMA Design Group. Both nom & 2 !voters prefer redirect so no point dragging it on any further. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Dramov[edit]

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

Suggest this largely unsourced biographical article is redirected to ROMA Design Group, of which he is a principal with his wife Bonnie Fisher. The journalistic coverage, if it exists, is about the company and its works. I'd have boldly redirected it myself, but the article has been around a while and it would be good to settle the issue. As an individual he fails WP:GNG Sionk (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to ROMA Design Group. He did receive the USC honor but for now it's not enough to support his own bio; however, he probably could have one someday if he continues to be successful, so I think a redirect is better at this point. I did not find any coverage in Bulgarian media either, and they usually massively celebrate any Bulgars being successful anywhere. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ROMA as mentioned at Bonnie Fisher. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ROMA Design Group. Both nom & 2 !voters prefer redirect so no point dragging it on any further. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Fisher[edit]

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

Suggest this largely unsourced biographical article is redirected to ROMA Design Group, of which she is a principal with her husband Boris Dramov. The journalistic coverage, if it exists, is about the company and its works. I'd have boldly redirected it myself, but the article has been around a while and it would be good to settle the issue. As an individual she fails WP:GNG Sionk (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the merging of both principal architects into the ROMA design group is a good idea. When either appears in news articles, they're representing ROMA. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ROMA Design Group - I agree with megalibrarygirl and my searches here, here and here found several results but nothing to suggest independent notability from ROMA. SwisterTwister talk 17:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ROMA Design Group Agreeing with above. That architects are prominent but we have at present three (3) articles -- Roma Design Group, and then two more, one for each principal, seems like it is getting into spam territory. One good article for RDG should be sufficient.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Jhaveri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD closed as no-consensus as there were no votes other than the creator of the article as myself. Same rationale as before, Fails WP:BIO - non-notable individual with no significant coverage from third party sources. Take a look at the article talk page for a review of the sources. KH-1 (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Frankly, I think the article should've been deleted by the first AfD but I suppose that gave it time to improve which I'm not seeing any and my searches found no good sources. I'm not seeing much substance with the current sources to convince me to keep. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popular stars of 1955[edit]

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

I would say this list duplicates 1955 in film, but with not as good a selection criterion (who's a popular celebrity? is this about American pop culture, Anglo-Saxon pop culture, Western pop culture?). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also it's notable that article creator Dellhpapple (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitely because he made a bunch of stub pages with no sources for articles that were quickly deleted.... I didn't know that was a reason for being banned but I guess he got on someone's nerves. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unnecessary duplicated version of much better article Kraxler (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Pangelinan[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. I don't believe that being named one of the most impressive women is enough to make her notable Gbawden (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mid-ranking officer with a couple of minor "awards". No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails draft guideline MILPEOPLE. Highest rank lieutenant colonel. No combat command or significant other achievement. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She doesn't have to meet MILPEOPLE, she meets GNG. The article isn't about her military service, it is about her service to citizens in an environmental crisis and her on-going support of her fellow soldiers. STEM is not a minor award it is an international program and the award she received is a national award.[141] Secondly, she was called to the "Little Hoover Commission" as an expert witness. Again, notable. SusunW (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's a minor award. And being an expert witness doesn't equal automatic notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your assessment. She holds a doctorate in Health Administration. Her expertise is in military mental health. She was called as an expert in that capacity to testify regarding veteran suicide rates, from what I am reading. Rather than tossing the article without evaluating it, maybe you should evaluate some of the links? I have a heavy schedule for the next few days, but will help with improving the article in the next few days. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that having a doctorate and/or being consulted on the subject of that doctorate = notability? Er, no. She's an expert and she's given expert testimony, just like many other experts. That by itself does not make any of them notable, as it's what experts do. Does she hold a significant post? No. Does she hold general officer rank? No. Has she received a significant national or international award? No. Does she have a large corpus of significant published work? No. Is she a familiar face on national media? No. Sorry, but she's just not notable enough for an article yet. Maybe in the future, but not now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not say that. There is nothing in Wiki criteria that requires anything that you have cited. For GNG she does not have to "be a familiar face on national media", nor does she have to have a "large corpus of significant published work". GNG requires that she have "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" which is not fleeting. Almost all of the articles about her are from the military, I believe that qualifies as RS. She has been called "a role model" by the National Guard in 2009 and one of the "most impressive women serving in the military Business Insider in 2013. Both RS, and show not fleeting. Her area of expertise, military suicide and mental health, is significant and of concern to the military. She is co-chair of the CA governor's Suicide Prevention and Intervention Group CA gov as well as having been called as an expert witness [142]. And there are multiple articles that give significant coverage to her involvement here, [143]. Please provide documentation for your claim that the STEM Role model award is a minor award. Sources I am reviewing do not confirm that it is a minor award. award description SusunW (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just giving examples of proof that she might be notable. But routine coverage (which is what everything you've cited is) and receipt of what is essentially a pat-on-the-back commendation certificate are not evidence of notability. Pretty much any military officer and/or expert of her rank and qualifications will have such coverage and awards. Note that she has been given precisely zero actual official national-level honours or decorations which might suggest a level of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I point out to you that you have provided zero documentation that STEM is an unimportant national award. It is not per se a military award, though in this case it was given by the military, but is given in multiple disciplines. I have provided you with documentation to confirm it is a national award and is for exemplary individuals. She neither has have national honors nor military honors to meet GNG. SusunW (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources mentioned do not meet GNG as they are routine or mention her in passing. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whilst I agree with SusunW's comments re the WP:GNG (policy) over-riding WP:MILPEOPLE (an essay) Pangelinan doesn't appear to meet the threshold of "significant coverage" in WP:GNG either to me. An accomplished career to this point which seems to have received some passing coverage but that is it. Anotherclown (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A number of reliable independent sources discuss the subject in some depth. The amount of detail given by the article, entirely based on these sources, is evidence. There is significant coverage of the subject, which is enough to establish notability regardless of the reason for the coverage. Rank, awards, official posts etc. are irrelevant to Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the new editor who started this page began it as a draft and submitted it for review at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Sulfurboy (talk · contribs) reviewed, approved and promoted the article into mainspace on 6 July 2015. There seems to be a process problem here. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the same @Aymatth2: but was unfamiliar with the protocol of whether I could ask his vote to be stricken on that basis.SusunW (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Sulfurboy (talk · contribs) is allowed to have second thoughts, although it must be a bit discouraging to the author. This is anyway not a voting process but a discussion. The subject does not meet the criteria in the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People, but the General Notability Guideline is all it has to meet, so the nomination reason is invalid and some of the comments above are irrelevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Aymatth. If there's coverage in multiple reliable sources it should pass GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article clearly meets the General Notability Guidelines with several of the articles being specifically about her and several others including her on a short list of people recognized as being remarkable people. These reliable sources give more than enough information to create a start class article....and that is exactly the purpose of the notability guideline. (It is not our job to decide whether she is important enough for an article, but to decide whether reliable sources give adequate information to discuss her.) Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 02:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Her leading role from within the military as an advocate and practical leader in support of damaged service veterans is well attested by the sources and marks her out as (1) interesting and (2) of particular importance to a very large constituency of potential and actual wiki-readers whose families are directly and personally affected by issues which, in previous generations, governments have been too quick to dismiss out of hand. Also, it appears from the sources that there is plenty more scope for additional "marks of notability" to be added when someone gets the time to do it. That said, the important question is not one of "guidelines" over what we should think. Many Wikipedia readers are smart enough to be able to think for themselves, and that should go for Wikipedia contributors as well. An important test is whether there is information included that is important or interesting (better still, both) for the generalist reader who wants to decide whether it's worth moving towards a specialist level of knowledge. Clearly with Susan Pangelinan there is. There is clearly NO requirement for EVERY wikipedia reader to find EVERY Wikipedia entry interesting or important, or even comprehensible. (Though on the planet I inhabit the comprehensibility bit is .... quite seriously important ....) And wikipedia's declared eye watering ambitions for itself are not well served by nominating for deletion an entry of this nature before more than the first few lines of the first draft have been completed. Every wiki-entry is a work in progress: let us not block the progress without good reason. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Treating the GNG criteria in a rule-based manner, the subject (barely) passes.[144][145] So I go with a general presumption of an article being warranted. When in addition there is sufficient reliable material to reference a brief overall biography of someone with high achievements, I think the article is worth keeping. Thincat (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aymatth. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the sources are not particularly substantial (eg: the Sacramento Bee piece relegates her to a soundpiece for the main topic of rehabilitating war veterans. However, there's no obvious merge / redirect target, and the sources are all acceptable for a BLP, so the only remaining option is to keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmorack Gallery[edit]

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

Non-notable gallery lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless truly significant coverage is discovered. I see local listings of shows and listings in tour books mentioning that it is a beautiful place to visit. In my opinion, such coverage is insufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-notable gallery. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 10:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in The Scotsman is enough to establish notability. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a big gallery, but it does appear to be a notable example of a conversion/ reuse of a B-listed building, attracting artists to exhibit their work in a relatively rural location. Some coverage in national press. There has been some improvement of the article itself since the nomination was made. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So let's look at the references attached to the article. 1) The first is close to only in-depth; 2) Only a very brief listing; 3) Only a brief listing; 4) Not even about the gallery - about the artists, Henry Fraser and David Cook; 5) Not about the gallery - about the original building; 6) A brief description of the new use of the building - not in-depth; 7) Only the briefest of mentions that the gallery exists, not in-depth. I don't see how this coverage is a non-trivial, in-depth collection of support for the gallery. The gallery fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial art galleries are there to exhibit art. Coverage of exhibitions is coverage of the gallery even when, as is usual, it talks mainly or entirely about the art. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough references for back the content. Can improve over time.--122.166.137.167 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Dembla[edit]

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

This person is not particularly notable. The links given just link to celebs. There are no reliable sources and I believe he fails GNG.This promotional article tells us more about the people he designed for than him Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a handful of news articles on Google search. No references given by the author. Less than thousand followers on twitter. The person does not meet WP:BIO criteria.Sulabhvarshney (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article reads more like a personal page and my searches found results here and here but nothing to suggest significant and good notability. I would've mentioned draft/userfy but there's nothing outstanding to keep and can easily be restored later. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. without prejudice to the creation of a redirect, etc., as suggested by SwisterTwister. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Visie[edit]

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

not demonstrably notable-passing mention does not indicate notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If it is a congregation, as the second sentence says, I would mhave thought it was NN, but it is always difficult to tell much from a small stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unfortunately as my searches found nothing good at all and the only good move target is Orania, Northern Cape which casually mentions it. Overall, there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to an appropriate redirect. postdlf (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors of the Boer Nation[edit]

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

purportedly unsubstantiated yadda yadda Wikipedia does not deal in rumors Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first line "a suspected but unsubstantiated South African terrorist group" says it's a rumor. It fails WP:V. This article has existed 2005, and in those 10 years no one has provided sources to substantiate its existence. Doing a Google search brings up nothing but other sites that repeat that same sentence - suspected, but unsubstantiated. In the current state of the world, terrorist groups by name are all over the news, and on lists of state security agencies. This one would have shown up somewhere. This could be a hoax. This could be anything, but what it cannot be is an encyclopedic article as it currently exists. — Maile (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to 2002 Soweto bombings, seems to lack significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG so unable to sustain an article of its own. Seems a viable search term though. Anotherclown (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect although I would've easily said delete as well with my searches finding nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. It's easy to start rumors, if this one is real, sources will follow and there can be an article then. Bur, really, basing on an article on "unauthenticated" letters? It is a common technique to smear an enemy by sending fake letters. WP is better than this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Has already had three weeks and the last two relists didn't result in any further input. Michig (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haruka Aizawa[edit]

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

Author has little notability for EN Wikipedia. Has a bunch of works for the particular magazine, at least according to Media Arts DB, but none of the works have reached significance to warrant stuff like an anime adaptation (no ANN entry) or an English adaptation. As notable as an AV film star of the same name. On the JA wiki article, only two of the links go to articles and those aren't even developed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both the book cited in Japanese Wikipedia (the printed encyclopedia Mangaka Jinmei Jiten) and the book cited in our WP (the Italian book Come bambole: il fumetto giapponese per ragazze by Mario A. Rumor, which covers the author and her works for several pages, and refers to her as an outstanding author) are reliable and highly reputable sources, enough for a claim of notability IMO. Arguments about redlinks do not carry much weigh, and in any event two bluelinks is way different from no bluelinks (but as I said before, even if they were all bluelinks it would not be a strong argument). Cavarrone 10:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cavarrone, we've enough sources to establish notability. (I'll also see if I can add some more.) —innotata 06:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the illustrator apparently exists, beyond that, and the Italian source in the article, I can't find any coverage anywhere in RS in Latin script. Kraxler (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith[edit]

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

Article about an unelected candidate for political office — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As always, an unelected candidate in an election — past, present or future doesn't matter — is not eligible for a Wikipedia article on that basis itself. If you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become eligible for an article until he wins the election. This article gives and sources no indication that he would get over any other inclusion rule instead of WP:NPOL, and further is written very much like a campaign brochure rather than an encyclopedia article — which is exactly the kind of article that no politician, even a full-fledged office holder who passes NPOL #1, is ever allowed to have on here. And on top of that, the closest thing here to an acceptable reliable source is the newspaper of Centennial College's journalism program — but college and university papers are a class of sourcing that we deprecate as being unable to carry a topic's notability in and of themselves. They're acceptable for some additional confirmation of facts after the topic's notability has been properly established by more widely-distributed sources, but they cannot get a person into Wikipedia if they are the best sources you've got. (Also, conflict of interest applies here, as the creator's username exactly matches the name of the treasurer of Erskine-Smith's electoral district association.) Delete — he can have an article in October if he wins the seat, but not before. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a campaign advertising host Kraxler (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 12:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Film Critics Circle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another non notable award mill. Nothing but local notability for this award mill. Additional nominations will be added momentarily. Safiel (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Individual awards by years and by categories. Please review before commenting/voting. Collapsing for brevity, due to extreme length. Safiel (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I think that is everything. Safiel (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main article was deleted after AFD in 2007 without opposition. The current subject of the main article is the same subject of the deleted article, and I can find no reason to overturn the previous AFD. Sources within the article do not pass muster to keep the article. Further, the subsidiary listing articles are dependent upon the main article to have value and should be deleted as well. However, the page has been "restored" for an extended period of time so I believe the AFD should "run its course" and the article not removed via WP:SPEEDY. There is no harm in having the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Unopposed AFD discussion in my opinion should be deleted and not relisted. Through two AFDs, no one came back with a position of KEEP. Time is up. Consensus is clear, WP:RELISTINGISEVIL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I researched this before and could not find in-depth organizational coverage. Any sources I found were periodicals just listing the recognitions from this organization. I did not find anything about this organization's founding (using the founder's name as a search keyword). Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All For the main one the only WP:SECONDARY source (which looks to be self-published BTW) is for the death of the founder. They don't meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 18:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All for reasons given above.Pincrete (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masoom Sharma[edit]

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

There are no valid references/citation on the web. The sources cited do not contain any information about this person, therefore cannot be verified. The subject does not meet notability guidelines.The article is poorly written with many grammar and spelling errors. The claims made in the article about the subject are not supported by reliable citations. Outbox123 (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search doesn't seem to reveal any RSs. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Mojo[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable hip-hop group. There is an AllMusic page on one of their albums, a short review in the Examiner and some routine mentions of gigs, but nothing substantial. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paradiso Solutions[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP with zero substantial coverage in RS. Sources cited are press releases that are of no use for demonstrating notability. SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. My assessment of the sources aligns with Smartse's conclusion that they are press releases, and my searches for sources returned mostly press releases.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Paradiso Solutions to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources, web searches turn up social media and directories, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Insufficient input despite being here for 3 weeks, although I would note that User:Cavarrone's argument for keeping is stronger than the argument for deletion put forward by the nominator. Michig (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croce Taravella[edit]

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

No independent significant coverage, found only passing mentions, catalog records and a few exhibition announcements. Article doesn't establish notability either. GermanJoe (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Italian version of the article include a lot of RS, examples of significant coverage include [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152]. Especially ANSA, La Repubblica and L'Unità are highly reputable mainstream sources. He has an entry in Atlante: geografia e storia della giovane arte italiana, an dictionary about contemporary art, plus other minor book sources. Also, participating at the Venice Biennale is almost ever a strong sign of notability for a contemporary artist. Cavarrone 01:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Age Republicans[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete / Redirect~~ to Republican Party (United States). Insufficient RS to pass WP:ORG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Updated !vote based on the evidence presented by Carrite below. There's still a clear need for sources which talk about the organization in a significant way, but there's enough historical relevance that I'm persuaded such sources would exist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the policy of IAR (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). I am in favor of the lowest of possible barriers for articles about political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders, without regard to size or ideology — this is the sort of material that our readers have reason to expect to be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. This is one of three official national youth organizations of the Republican Party in the United States, one of the two biggest political parties in the country (along with Young Republicans and College Republicans). Even if there were zero sources extant, this is enough for me. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sabato and Ernst's Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections, National Teen Age Republicans (note official name for a name change if this article is kept) is the "Under 18" organization for the Republican Party LINK. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is the sort of material that our readers have reason to expect to be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia -- This is an argument for having the material somewhere on Wikipedia, not a rationale for it having its own article, which would have to be supported by significant coverage in reliable sources. If those don't exist to a sufficient degree, what would we base the article on? Primary sources? Perma-stub? I would support a selective merge to mention it elsewhere (a mention seems about all that's merited at this point anyway), but you haven't given a rationale for why we should ignore all rules (a particularly hard sell at AfD except in very unusual cases, which I don't think this is). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, there is no good redirect target unless one is willing to lose the information in a massive Republican Party page, which is really not sufficient. I will also note thatthere was some sort a high school "teen age Republican" organization that held national conventions in 1940, 1944, and 1948 (at least), which 1100 delegates to the 1948 model convention in Pennsylvania and there was organizing being done under this name in 1950 as well. So, yeah, there is work to be done here, I don't think the 1960 origination date is necessarily correct. This should easily pass GNG with a little sifting, Newspapers.com is showing over 4,000 hits for "Teen Age Republicans" for the 1960 to 1980 period alone... Carrite (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is a piece from the Huron Daily Plainsman (Aug. 27, 1963) about the 1967 NTAR encampment in Wisconsin, which was addressed by a sitting Tennessee Congressional representative. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And THIS is a piece from the Massillon Evening Independent about one of two 1964 NTAR camps, this one in Webster Springs, WV and attended by Mike Goldwater, son of Barry G. Large photo accompanies. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And ANOTHER piece on NTAR activities in 1965, this coverage of the 1965 camp at South Dakota, addressed by the Governor of the state and various state officials. This from the Mitchell Daily Republic of Aug. 21, 1965. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THIS short piece from the LaCrosse Tribune of July 7, 1968 notes that NTAR claimed a membership of 100,000, with 37 state and 5 national camps held, attended by 8,000 young activists. A sitting Congressman was heading fundraising efforts for the organization. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A SNIPPET from the Kingsport Times (June 18, 1969) noting that Tricia Nixon, daughter of RMN, held a "punch-and-cookies" party at the White House for 148 members of NTAR. This was in a zillion newspapers via UPI. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ELK GROVE HERALD (Oct. 15, 1970) notes that Senator Strom Thurmond had issued a fundraising appeal on behalf of NTAR for its efforts to fight drug abuse. No "youthful indiscretions" for them! Carrite (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally hundreds of such articles, and I exaggerate not, involving this organization. It is, indeed, one of the Republican Party's official youth sections. Two hundred members were assembled in the White House Rose Garden by President Gerald Ford in June 1975 for a Ford pronouncement on an anti-crime offensive. And on and on and on... So this is a stub now. Someday someone will write the piece. It is neither a "permastub" nor something which must be sourced exclusively from the organization's own website. Carrite (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This organization easily passes GNG, based on the above, for what it's worth... Carrite (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wfithdraw nomination per all aboe. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onyeka Kerous Ibeanusi[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ARTIST. The artist has not been discussed in reliable publications. The website he's the founder of is a non-notable blog. None of the references cited in the article discusses the artist in detail. As a matter of fact, most of the sources are unreliable. Versace1608 (Talk) 05:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found no good sources even in the slightest. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GMAPIR[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG. Only 850 ghits and one incoming link. Raymie (t • c) 04:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement for a university course. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo advert, run-of-the-WP:MILL, made-up acronym, refs are to the university and to an ad for prospective students. Kraxler (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pet anus cover[edit]

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

Neologism only used as an article title and nowhere in the references. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, no coverage, non-notable concept. Esquivalience ^t 02:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little coverage in reliable sources. Not an article that is likely to be missed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Title could easily be changed to a more descriptive term if one is found. As it stands, this object is designed to cover up a pet's anus, making this seem like the best title for now. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is ultimately something that someone came up with one day as a novelty gift. The two novelty gift types did gain some coverage but it's all fairly recent. What we would need here is a depth of coverage beyond a one off mention in the news as one of those quirky slow news day stories. If we had an article for pet clothing I'd probably recommend a merge into that article, but we don't and this doesn't merit its own article at this point in time. On a side note, if anyone wants to write an article about pet clothing (ie, non-medical clothing and not things like the cone of shame) then I'd say that there might be some merit in having an article about the general subject. The thing about news stories like these is that gag gifts like these are really just reactions to the idea of dressing up your pet or doing something beyond the typical medical care and maintenance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do in fact have an article on dog clothing. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angie McArthur[edit]

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

No independent sources, so fails WP:AUTHOR. Conifer (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sure why is she at all notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; my news sweeps did not find anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of tax resistance[edit]

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

A misleading example farm that has had people complain on its talk page for years. As it stand this article is really "List of protests, rebellions, and revolutions vaguely involving taxes somewhere." And vague is correct: I certainly wouldn't associate the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong as largely related to taxation. Lots of the examples are peripherally related to taxes at best: to take one example of many, the Comuneros of New Granada were (partially) protesting royal monopolies forbidding tobacco cultivation, which was certainly a form of revenue generation for the government, but not exactly a tax in the modern sense.

A better list might focus on some consistent type of tax resistance: are we talking some kind of anarchist / libertarian opposition to taxes in general? Conscientious objection to wars and the like, a la Thoreau? Political questions over the process & legitimacy of a tax, e.g. *parts* (but not all!) of the American Revolution? Or just the more common "people don't like or want to pay a proposed tax", but are not tax-resisters in general? I'm not averse to possibly porting *some* of the content to a new article, but as it stands this article is a mishmash that could arguably extend to half the revolts in history, since there's usually some complaints about taxes in 'em. SnowFire (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - important article on a notable topic. Tax resistance is widely covered on WP (see Template:Tax resistance) and a history of it is important. Nominator is kindly reminded that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with the "AFD is not cleanup sentiment", but perhaps I should be more explicit: This article is unsalvageable in its current form. It is not an accurate or useful article, so if it is important, it's misleading! If someone wants to write an actual article on the history of tax resistance or some form of it, great, but this is really just "List of random revolts & protests." It has very little to do with actual tax resistance. SnowFire (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note as well that my original complaint was in 2011. I think that 4 years is a good faith time given for some sort of actual article to be written, or for a better list that actually has some sort of inclusion criteria to be created! SnowFire (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contrary to the misleading intro, aside from SnowFire's own complaint there are a total of *two* people on the talk page over the years who have made complaints that might be considered germaine to this afd. The given ideas for improvement or extension (e.g. differently organized lists) may have merit, but aren't good arguments for deletion. —Moorlock (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do my complaints not count or something? 3 people complaining about a very obscure article on talk is a lot I'd think, 3 more than the vast majority of articles nominated for AfD! More to the point, can you explain why exactly these repeated complaints about this article being a misleading example farm are wrong? SnowFire (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please do not edit other editor's comments. You can say why you think I'm wrong just fine here. SnowFire (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)'[reply]

We don't decide whether articles get deleted because people complain about them. It's sort of irrelevant - that's what issue templates are for. Please familiarize yourself with the criteria for deletion at WP:DEL-REASON: I don't see that you are citing any of the listed issues that can be used as criteria for deletion.Your issue is basically that you don't like the article in its current state, apparently don't care to fix it, and so you want it deleted... yes? Again I kindly suggest you reread the superfragilistic essay "Articles for Deletion is not to be used to fix articles with issues". —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact I didn't throw alphabet soup is the problem? WP:INDISCRIMINATE I suppose, but sheesh, is the fact that the article is *incorrect* not enough?! I gave two examples above and could go on at length about why many/most of the examples in the list are wrong / misleading. If someone created an article on an "important article on a notable topic" like History of Barack Obama that was 100% wrong, then even if we'd be fine with somebody writing a good article on that topic some day, it'd be entirely reasonable to redirect to the main article and/or cut to a stub. Not just reasonable, required! This would be true even if everything had nice references (that were irrelevant). SnowFire (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, per above, I too despise the old trend of using AFD as cleanup, as I already said! However I think going to AFD is good wikiquette rather than just blindly redirecting the content. If you're saying that you'd be okay with me just "cleaning it up" that way, I guess I could, but then why not vote redirect rather than keep? You want me to be specific, so please be specific for me: do you think the current incorrect example farm has encyclopedic value that you'd like kept somewhere? SnowFire (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how else I can explain it so you can get it. An article having factual errors is not an issue for AfD: mere factual errors can be easily removed. None of the criteria at AfD requires alphabet soup but it does require a valid reason according to the deletion guideline I keep asking you to read - you can say it doesn't meet notability guidelines, it's an ad/spam, copyright violation, duplicate of another article, an unacceptable fork of another topic, neologism, etc. WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't work on an article that meets GNG. If someone created an article on a notable topic about Obama that was 100 percent wrong/invented, then it would clearly fall under vandaliasm/hoax or attack page, and would violate the policy about biograpy of living people, all of which are valid reasons for deletion. Additionally, an article that is 100 percent wrong is 100 percent likely to be vandalism, and this article on the history of tax resistance shows no signs of vandalism or malicious edits. It just needs to be cleaned up. Please just remove the bad examples - you are welcome and highly encouraged to do that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going in circles on this, but to be clear, I'm fine with stubbing the article from its current state but keeping it as a potential location for a new article. The problem with this particular article isn't "factual errors" exactly, which is why it's complicated; it's more "irrelevant / misleading synthesis", since everybody agrees these revolts / protests actually happened. (I think there was a similarly sticky situation a long while back where people had created "Allegations of {X} apartheid" that were collections of sources mentioning the word "apartheid" near the topic {X} somewhere, vaguely similar to revolts that involved a tax somewhere. Sourced, yet needed to be deleted at AFD as a bad idea.) We disagree on proper Wikipedia etiquette when such a drastic cutback is proposed though: you seem to think this is merely a matter for cleanup, while I believe it should usually go to AFD. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. SnowFire (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my opinion but policy. WP:BEFORE states before nominating, you need to: Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. You're unhappy with examples you don't think should be there... anyone, you included, can easily remove the irrelevant ones. It's list format so it should not be very complicated. Removing those examples falls under "normal editing;" therefore this article is not a candidate for AfD. Just go through and delete the problematic examples. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continued on your talk page. SnowFire (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but gut - The topic is notable and there are clearly sources that could be used to write an article about the "the history of tax resistance," so this is an obvious "keep" for me - the article as it stands, however, is not a "history of tax resistance," but rather a (dubiously sourced, likely synthesized) list of alleged tax revolts/rebellions, which includes many "revolts" that arguably should not be on the list. I think the article should be kept but stubbed. If people want to resurrect some of the content in a separate list article, they're free to do so, but care should be taken to ensure that the list follows the relevant guidelines for lists and that the list is properly sourced. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cut it substantially. I am happy to allow "resistance" to cover a variety of different kinds of movement, ranging from political campaigning through tax strikes to all out rebellions. However, I would prefer to see this as a list article, with columns covering such matters as date, location, tax involved, and outcome. Each item should link to another article, which would be the appropriate place for sources to be cited: in other words the link to another article would be the list's source. Nevertheless, I have to day that the article is excessively long, and may need splitting geographically. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a table format would work better and this changed to a list in the title. We need someone knowledgable in this area to clean it up however. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela World 2014[edit]

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

Miss Venezuela World deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Venezuela World Flat Out (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this should be a group nomination with the others. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the parent article was deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:EVENT.parent article was already deleted. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela World 2002[edit]

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

Miss Venezuela World deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Venezuela World Flat Out (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the parent article was deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela World 2013[edit]

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

Miss Venezuela World deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Venezuela World Flat Out (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 22:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the parent article was deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela World 2001[edit]

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

Miss Venezuela World deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Venezuela World Flat Out (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 22:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the parent article was deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela World 2015[edit]

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

Miss Venezuela World deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Venezuela World Flat Out (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 22:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the parent article was deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela World 2006[edit]

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

Miss Venezuela World deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Venezuela World Flat Out (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 22:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the parent article was deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela World 2000[edit]

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

Miss Venezuela World deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Venezuela World Flat Out (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 22:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the parent article was deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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