Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 20 July 22 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Fifth Harmony (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Cabello[edit]

Camila Cabello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From my experiences with the groups music, and being a low-key fan of theirs, Cabello does seem like the standout member of her group Fifth Harmony. However, at this point in time, I don't feel that she's notable enough for a stand-alone article. This is a sandbox I knocked up, and it contains what the article looks like if you remove all of the information associated with her group, things like the entire Tours section, or Commercials subsection of Filmography, that could easily be moved into the group article as it applies to all members. Things I also removed for the sandbox version of her article include unsourced BLP violations (The first three sentences of Personal life) and trivia, things like how she's friends with Taylor Swift (every current popstar seems to be), and supports LGBT rights (can anyone name a current teeny-bop female popstar with half a brain and a good PR manager who publicly doesn't?) I've also applied CN tags where relevant. Note that there is a Members section of Fifth Harmony's article, and her sub-section already pretty much sums up the sandbox version of her article, but any other tidbits worth noting could be moved there should consensus be to delete. Azealia911 talk 23:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough in your sandbox to pass WP:GNG.--Launchballer 00:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but whats there could easily be compressed into the aforementioned members section, the majority of it already is. Azealia911 talk 00:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I operate under the guideline that if in merging it would take up more than twice the size of the next largest section, then it shouldn't be merged. Once I get off college tomorrow I'm going to knock up a sandbox myself of what the members section would look like if fully merged!--Launchballer 00:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me Azealia911 talk 00:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try here. Cabello's section is 1332 characters and the next biggest, Kordei's, is 595.--Launchballer 12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really seeing anything visually astonishing after tweaking (which I hope you don't mind) Azealia911 talk 16:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Fifth Harmony Launchballer, merging doesn't mean you need to include all, or even most, of this article in Fifth Harmony, it might be only a sentence or two that's added, or a simple redirect may suffice. She doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY independent of the band. Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Fifth Harmony Not notable by herself. She is only notable with the group. All of her accomplishments have been with Fifth Harmony. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 23:32, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youth for Equality[edit]

Youth for Equality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty much an open and shut case that this never got third-party coverage and is not notable. Searches and current links are nothing but social media and other self-generated material. It's worth noting it was been somewhat heavily edited since May 23, 2006 but always had primary sources and no third-party. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough third-party coverage. — Cirt (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While the sourcing of the article as it stands looks likely not to be reliable by our standards, what I am seeing of the GNews (and to a lesser extent GBooks) results seems to contain quite a number of third-party sources, some substantial, some reliable and some quite possibly both (though I am not familiar enough with the status of any but the most visible Indian news sources to be certain of the last). The organisation still seems to exist (though probably on a smaller scale than around 2006), and there is also some verifiable controversy about the existence and extent of past connections between Arvind Kejriwal and this organisation. In brief, I suspect this is notable, but need to leave it to others to determine one way or the other. PWilkinson (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per lack of apparent notability, though PWilkinson's comment was interesting, hence the weak delete.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:39, 28 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) 00:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bouckidji[edit]

Bouckidji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's not a shred of good evidence this place exists, sure it's Africa so good sources may not be available. However, the simplest searches found nothing and the only links are the listed ones and the website no longer exists (probably a website of fabricated information as well). For a village apparently started in 1983 and the article started September 2009, it's interesting there's not a single link for it. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I will defer to those with local expertise before declaring this a long-term hoax; but I will note that creating and editing this article six years ago represent the creator's only mainspace contributions. In my experience that is a major red flag in these situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable references exist for this village from sources inside or outside Congo. Google Maps and Google Earth indicate nothing. The idea of a village with "only 11 houses" but 900 inhabitants, before the supposed increase in 2008, is not totally inconceivable but dubious. The Education and Weather sections clearly have little substantive content. The only reference at all I've found for the "Barangala tribe" supposedly inhabiting this village comes from James George Frazer's 1910 work Totemism and Exogamy [1], but that refers to a group in Australia, not Congo. All of this seems to add up to a long-lived hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article or to even verify the existence of the place. I could not find it listed on GeoNames either. JbhTalk 17:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no sources have been found that verify its existence. I can't find anything about the Barangala but apparently Bahangala is a subgroup of the Kongo people, and there's a place called Simouloukouni somewhere between Kindamba and Mindouli. IP 196.12.10.5 has edited several articles about places in Namibia and the Republic of the Congo, including some created by editors with few or no other contributions, and most are verifiable as places (exceptions are this and N'kosso). Peter James (talk) 23:02, 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. Per consensus, fails WP:GNG and quite possibly a WP:HOAX  Philg88 ♦talk 06:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobohetti[edit]

Bobohetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm simply nominating this because it may be an unknown and obscure Indian food but all my searches (News, Books and browser) including the simplest searches found absolutely nothing apart from Wikipedia, or else I would've immediately tagged it as G3. I know there's a gap with foreign articles but this existing since May 2010 with no improvement or a shred of evidence is concerning. It's also worth noting images were "added" but never actually existed. @Calamondin12: is welcome to comment. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Very possibly a long-term hoax. The only Google hits appear to be derived from our article. The article is its creator's only contribution, always a red flag in these situations. The reference to Paul Brennan was a later addition to the article (see [2]) but is clearly nonsense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like a hoax: If this dish were indeed "popular in Western Europe," particularly fast food restaurants in the United Kingdom, we should be able to find thousands of reviews, menus, recipes, and similar mentions in various Western languages (it's not just a translation issue). And, as noted previously, the absence of other edits from the article's creator also points toward a hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and as near as I can tell does not exist as an actual, well known, dish. JbhTalk 17:50, 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 snowwwbally delete. Max Semenik (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gerald Lorge[edit]

Robert Gerald Lorge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable campaign biography DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN - a perennial candidate who has never won elected office; no coverage in local media (Google search shows largely self-published results); his candidacy is covered in related articles of winning candidates. 32.218.32.146 (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable; using Wikipedia as webpage. Quis separabit? 22:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - JohnInDC (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom-Thank you-RFD (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comprehensively fails the guidelines at both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Has never held elected office, and no significant independent coverage about him, apart from his mention in a local press article about bee-keeping where he is described as "a perennial candidate". Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's "an attempt to create artificial notability". The article was created as a brief stub back in 2006 [3] by an editor who appears unrelated to the subject. In those days, before the notability criteria and BLP sourcing requirements were tightened up, it was fairly common for people to create articles for the candidates in US Senate elections regardless of whether they had previously held an elected office or were otherwise notable. There was quite a big debate about the issue around the time this article was created. See Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections – Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably under the radar for those 6 years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9 years, Bugs, it's 2015 :). I'm sure there are a lot of articles like this lying around from the 2006 US elections. They only show up on the radar when there's some sort of kerfuffle. Voceditenore (talk) 05:39, 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 speedy keep (for this discussion, per the nominator's withdrawal). North America1000 00:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: The article was later speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per WP:A7, "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". North America1000 11:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Crooks[edit]

Allison Crooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity bio of non-notable YMCA employee. Fails WP:GNG. Someone removed A7. —teb728 t c 22:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn I was mistaken about A7 being removed —teb728 t c 22:21, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpshot (musician)[edit]

Jumpshot (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:N, has no reliable sources (and has been tagged as such since December 2012), and appears to be purely self-promotion. -- Irn (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only source I could find was here, and that might even be affiliated with him. Either way, definitely not enough to pass WP:GNG. ~ RobTalk 05:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo advert, lots of unverifiable claims, at two songs of the charting Joe Budden (album) a writer "Joseph Constantino" is mentioned, with a redirect to an otherwise unnamed Elementary (musician). Apparently you need a dozen or more producers to make a hip hop album... Kraxler (talk) 18:58, 28 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. North America1000 04:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting[edit]

2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting impact, a straightforward news story Nableezy 20:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • nonsense search I named the article following the convention used in naming the 2015 Chattanooga shootings and copied the relevant subheads used on that page, frankly because I did not know what to call this horrifically violent incident, other than to call it a shooting and name it after the nearest town named in the sources. If the name should be moved, I'm open to that. But anyone wishing to do a good-faith search for notability will have to try several different keywords, and variant spellings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is "nonsense search" supposed to mean? Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text" What course of action is "nonsense search"? Should I search for nonsense? (Found it already, further down) Should nonsense search for something? Is search nonsense? Please explain. Kraxler (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 15:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • comment routine news? The mastermind of this terrorist attack was a convicted murderer, one of the imprisoned Islamist terrorists released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. Supposedly confined to Gaza, he entered Jordan and ran a terror cell targeting Israeli civilians.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-researched and thoroughly documented article with nearly two dozen reliable and verifiable sources about the incident from publications on three continents. The article meets and exceeds the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does that in any way address WP:NOTNEWS? And for reference, WP:NOT is Wikipedia policy, WP:N is a guideline, and then theres this. nableezy - 20:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS is completely and totally irrelevant here. This article not 1) Journalism written as a primary reference; 2) routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities; 3) a Whos' Who; or 4) A diary. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a complete list of what NOTNEWS covers, as made plain by its saying for example, not these are the only things that are covered. nableezy - 12:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Im a big advocate of not writing memorial articles for routine news. And yes, routine. Four people were shot, one died. Im from a city where that happens on a more than weekly basis. We have policy that says this is an encyclopedia, not a news repository. You want to write this on Wikinews by all means, its appropriate there. But this is not an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 16:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No lasting impact. It come back if it is still in the news in a month or two. The fact that multiple news sources copy each other's stories for one or two days doesn't make it notable. Zerotalk 16:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that has User:Zero0000 started AFD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Danny Gonen. If he is reading this, he should know that I also just started Saleh al-Arouri, about the terrorist mastermind of these two incidents, and of many other murderous terror attacks and kidnappings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pr MShabazz, Huldra (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per WP:GNG the most important of the several policies that distinguish notable events from routine news and events. WP:GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." I point you to in-depth articles on this terror murder in linked in the article. I remind editors raising WP:NOTNEWS that WP is WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy based argument. An event with this breadth and depth of coverage does not have to demonstrate ongoing impact to be WP notable. Under WP:EVENTCRIT an event has to meet WP:INDEPTH, which this event objectively does. Nevertheless, this shooting has had demonstrable impact (in article since the creation) on the Israeli conversation about whether to agree to a prisoner exchange that Hamas is requesting this summer (for the bodies of soldiers, or for the return of a mentally ill Israelis who crossed the border into Gaza). It is argued that since this was one of 6 recent terror murders carried out by convicted terrorists released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, a fresh exchange endangers the lives of Israelis and is, therefore, bad policy. Independent of that, it is making waves in diplomatic relations between Turkey and Israel (because Saleh al-Arouri) and between Israel and Jordan (because the operative directly in charge of this Hamas terror cell resides in Jordan).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment While working on another AFD I came across this keep iVote [5]:
User:Libertarian12111971 argues "if this article is marked for deletion, then it honestly wouldn't make sense if the 2013 Santa Monica shooting, 2013 Hialeah shooting, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting, Clackamas Town Center shooting, Southern California Edison shooting, etc., etc. articles aren't." The article under debate was kept. From this and other recent AFDs I see that there has been a trend to keep shooting attacks as WP:NOTABLE.
There is, of course, also a clear tradition of keeping ideologically motivated terror attacks as notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a killing where 1 person was killed, 3 wounded. In comparison: 2013 Santa Monica shooting: 6 killed, 4 injured; 2013 Hialeah shooting: 7 killed, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting: 3 killed, 4 wounded; Clackamas Town Center shooting: 3 killed, 1 wounded; Southern California Edison shooting: 3 killed, 2 wounded. How many fatal shootings are there in Chicago every year? Several hundred, I believe. We do not have an article on each of those. As for ideologically motivated, sure, I´ll vote "keep" on this article the day Wikipedia have an article called Shooting of Mohammed Ahmed Alauna. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sandra Bland[edit]

Death of Sandra Bland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Conceding it has garnered some news coverage, article subject appears to be a run of the mill criminal case. It is tragic without doubt. But there is nothing exceptional here that is likely to have major ramifications and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Further news coverage is not the sole determining factor when asserting notability for an event. Article fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom When everyone is telling me I'm wrong, there is a pretty strong chance that I am. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Significant news coverage and follow-on effects, including federal scrutiny. This isn't a run-of-the-mill procedural crime story when it's getting play on front pages for more than a week and sparking an investigation into possible wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks for your comment. You have a point though I am still unconvinced this rings the WP:N bell. But if other editors start saying the same thing I will consider withdrawing the nom. On a side note and just as a friendly FYI, in AfD discussion the usual way !votes are registered is as Delete - Keep - Merge or Redirect. I am treating your !vote as a Keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant news coverage, upcoming murder investigation, in tandem with the Black Lives Matter movement suggests this is permanently notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a significant development regarding the Black Lives Matter social movement, which Bland was an activist in. If it was an isolated incident, I would say WP:NOTNEWS applies, but there's a bigger (and more notable) context here. Kaldari (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This tragedy could end up being as notable as the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, the Shooting of Michael Brown, or the Death of Eric Garner, depending on what the investigation uncovers, and how the events play out. We should allow more time before considering it for deletion. CuriousEric 21:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NOTNEWS does not apply per the biggest context. Unless someone owns a magical ball and can see into the future.. I say wait. This is notable right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:54, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single Subject Amendment[edit]

Single Subject Amendment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here's one of those articles that fills up its references section with links about tangential things in the hopes that you won't notice there aren't references to support what the article is actually about. References 4 through 8 (in the version current as of this writing) are about what a Super PAC is, and 9 is about how amending the U.S. Constitution works. 10 through 12 are about a memorial passed by the Florida state legislature on a subject the organization supports (but not about the organization itself), and it isn't even independent coverage of that memorial, it's just the state legislature's own website noting that the memorial exists and another website that lists state bills also noting that it exists. 14 and 15 are similar about a bill introduced in the House of Representatives last year that hasn't come to anything, again simply noting that it exists. 13, from the fringey WND, is about the issue the organization supports, but it doesn't even mention the organization (unless you want to count someone from the organization self-promoting in the comments section (!)). As for the first three, 1 is a promotional blurb in a state legislator newsletter, and 2 and 3 are from a local Florida paper so local, it isn't listed on List of newspapers in Florida. After checking Google, Google News, and Google Books, I've seen enough to be convinced this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 22 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) 02:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 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 delete. Yunshui 雲水 13:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intellect amplification[edit]

Intellect amplification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Neither reference mentions the subject by name. Also see WP:NOTESSAY. ubiquity (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:55, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dexon Software[edit]

Dexon Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient sources Antrocent (♫♬) 19:14, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yasha Jacob Grobman[edit]

Yasha Jacob Grobman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be one of a number of articles about the Grobman family and this one has a remarkably close resemblance to Yasha Grobman's college website profile. The claims of "numerous arcitecture prizes and competitions" is unsubstantiated and I'm unable to find independent proof. The one prize I was able to substantiate was for a building designed by another architecture company, it looks like Grobman-Axelrod Architects may have been only the site architects or something similar. At the moment this is simply a CV of someone who hasn't achieved individual notability. Sionk (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the Grobmans may be notable, this one is not. Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo advert, no indication in the article why he should be notable, no coverage in independent sources, web searches turn up social media, press releases and directories, only. Kraxler (talk) 19:32, 28 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. Yunshui 雲水 13:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maheshwara Engineering College[edit]

Maheshwara Engineering College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No content, only links to the college's website. Seemed a straightforward A3/G11 to me, but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz disagrees, so here we are... Bazj (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, and smack the nominator with the largest available trout quite a few times. No reasonable, competent editor could call this "a straightforward A3". It's not "only links to the college's website". It's an infobox, albeit a not-quite-perfect one. WP:A3 says, plain as day, without any ambiguity, "this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox". If Bazj doesn't understand that, they lack the basic WP:COMPETENCE to be applying speedy deletion tags. (And if they do understand it, why would they not only apply the tag but double down on the obvious error?) It's also clear that G11 doesn't apply; the infobox is standard form and its content appears entirely appropriate. Note also, very importantly, that this was the first attempt at article creation by an very inexperienced editor. All of their previous contributions were constructively and reasonably intended. So we have a well-intentioned, reasonably capable new editor who's just beginning to write their first article, does a pretty good job in their first step, and is inexplicably BITTEN by an experience editor who blithers in, tag-bombs the article with obviously inappropriate deletion tags without doing any of the most basic things that WP:BEFORE requires. And, unsurprisingly, the new editor is driven away. Fourteen minutes after beginning to write their first article, barely five minutes after their second edit of it, and for no reason other than the sheer carelessness and officiousness of an experienced editor who really should know better and is unwilling to admit and correct their most obvious error. The new editor ought to have a reasonable opportunity to return and complete their work. And that's much longer than the four whole goddam minutes Bazj so generously allowed after I posted to the article creator's talk page encouraging them to resume writing their first article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've updated the article by adding intro part and programme section but still it lacks references but, one should make decision only after looking INDAFD. — CutestPenguinHangout 19:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 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 keep. Yunshui 雲水 13:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kidson[edit]

Michael Kidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable teacher. Article is based around his having been David Cameron's favourite teacher and most of the references are the various printings of this memory. Nthep (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm wary of inheriting notability from Cameron. Per the letter of WP:N it's an easy pass, with all those newspaper mentions, but that's not the spirit of it. Yet why did Cameron make all these mentions of him? He hasn't spoken publicly about other teachers, so he is making some specific distinction in favour of Kidson. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Teachers can be notable. If, for example, books and articles are written about their special qualities. But there is only one obituary (I searched). Beyond that, this assertion of notability is far too derivative. Shortly after this beloved teacher passes away and the obituary runs, Cameron mentions him in speeches, then a small spate of other articles mention the fact that Cameron mentioned him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Striking , as per User:Necrothesp. Did not realize that a lone obit was dispositive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A full obituary in a major national newspaper such as the Daily Telegraph equates to notability. This is a long-held Wikipedia principle. Their notability requirements are far more stringent than ours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Necrothesp. Someone can close this discussion now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 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 Still Mine. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Morrison farmer[edit]

Craig Morrison farmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a person whose only real claim of notability, under Wikipedia's inclusion rules, is the fact that somebody made a film about a specific incident from his life — essentially, he's just a WP:BIO1E, and the article about the film itself is about all the coverage of him that Wikipedia really needs. Delete (or redirect to Still Mine.) Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Still Mine, indeed a BIO1E as nom notes but there is enough coverage of him to support a redirect to the thing he is known for. Everymorning talk 19:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Redirection is pointless since the man's name was Craig Morrison and not Craig Morrison farmer - nobody will be searching for this. Consider a hatnote on Craig Morrison. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.

Craig Morrison needs a disambiguation due to Craig_Morrison. The notability comes not only from the film but from the international press coverage on the events regarding him and his wife. Maybe create one article for the two of them or the events around them and the Royal District Planning Commission and theire 'Schildaesk' (english 'like Wise Men of Gotham' behaviour. The real people and events behind the film are IMHO notable by themselves. Unfortunately http://frsc.ca/minutes-3/ has no minutes from 2007 to 2012 online where this would be documented in detail. WolfgangFahl (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just because they got media coverage for a single event — kindly read the WP:BIO1E policy that I linked to above. To qualify for a standalone Wikipedia article, a person has to have sustained notability beyond one single burst of news coverage for one single event. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 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. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings and achievements of Taylor Swift[edit]

Rankings and achievements of Taylor Swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is simply listcruft. A bunch of these rankings (such as Askmen and 4Music) aren't particularly notable, and much of what is actually notable (such as Billboard and Forbes) can be covered within Swift's main article and/or her song articles (sales records, music video details, etc.). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The nomination effectively argues against deletion by by suggesting some of this content can be covered in other articles. If there's worthwhile sourced content here (which, among the less good stuff, there is) then it should at least be merged to other articles, which isn't going to happen if this is deleted. --Michig (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of it already is covered in other articles, so this doesn't necessarily argue against deletion. Besides, users can always move content to other articles before deletion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think there's *anything* that could usefully be merged to another article you should withdraw the nomination and start a discussion on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, another user has already voted "delete", so too late to withdraw anyway. Secondly, pretty much all of the noteworthy content is already contained in other articles. Third, even if this was to be merged, I can't think of a good target for that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • AskMen & 4Music aren't "particularly" notable? Then explain to us why it has its own Wikipedia article and why does Billboard make article about them? Mat 1997 (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • The reason those specific rankings aren't very notable (if at all) is because of questionable-at-best reliability. There is consensus that listings from unreliable sources are not notable and therefore should not be included in articles per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Snuggums, what sources are you referring to? most of the sources I see are from Billboard which is highly reliable. Yes, there was one source from Celebuzz (which I replaced), but that doesn't make the entire article unreliable. דיידרים (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • In terms of citations, things like Daily Mail, 4Music, and Huffington Post. Not sure what to say about Nova FM, Cutting the chai, "torontopics" or Frontier Touring. As for organizations themselves that listings are from, that would be Askmen (likely user-generated), 4Music, maybe Singapore FHM. Other listings are for trivial details like "Best Dressed" or "Celebs Gone Good". Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Snuggums, it took some time, but I replaced all the problematic sources. Is it Okay now? thank you very much, דיידרים (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Commendable, but the bigger issues are A) the organizations themselves are dubious/questionable and therefore their listings shouldn't be included in the first place (i.e. Askmen and 4Music listings shouldn't be mentioned at all), B) All the noteworthy pieces are already included in other articles, making this page an unnecessary WP:CFORK to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any article about a person is mainly about that person's achievements. Borock (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
but if the article about the person gets too big we tend to split of content like this to a separate article. --Michig (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Wikimandia. Awards and the like go on the award page. Calidum T|C 05:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote. I'm no longer sure this should be deleted, per Liz's comment below. Calidum T|C 22:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, these were previously seen in the List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift page. But, FrB.TG believes that these entries should be in the parent article. However, the latter cannot accept the revision since it was too big. The former cannot have it back too since it is currently a featured list candidate and cannot go through inconsistencies. These are worthy achievements of Taylor Swift and "MOST" of these cannot be seen in the other articles. This page shall go under revision and not deletion. Just give the article a chance. Mat 1997 (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously an exhaustive list would be overkill for either page. However, as I previously stated, just about all the notable stuff is already covered in other articles. Since Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, the non-notable listings have no benefit. Keep in mind that her some of this is already in her song articles. All in all, nothing beneficial about this list since it's a bloated WP:CFORK. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a prior discussion regarding the listing of her achievements in her awards page here. I suggested that these achievements should be in her parent article but it would be too big, and would not add value. Since this is records on charts and some other achievements of her work, I thought their respective articles would be the best place to add e.g. if "Bad Blood" has set a record, it should be in the "Bad Blood" article, not in her awards page or her parent article. That said, I would like to stay neutral at this point and see what others think about it. -- Frankie talk 15:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankie, now that List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift is a FL, can it accept these entries? דיידרים (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for AFD's because one cannot determine the notability (or lack thereof) for an article solely based on whether or not other articles are notable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles in that category are titled "Lists of awards and nominations...", not "rankings and achievements of..." — and List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift already exists anyway, which means that Taylor Swift already has the article that would fit into that tree, and doesn't need this to coexist with it. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, Bearcat, and I have struck my original comment. Thanks for pointing out what I overlooked. I now agree with those arguing that any content that is appropriate should Merge with List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. Liz Read! Talk! 10:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. Most of the "Rankings" entries are unique to this article, well-sourced and notable (given by notable enough to have Wikipedia article, but also read this RfC), so it isn't WP:CFORK. As for the achievements, I support moving those that are about her songs and albums to their articles, leaving only those regarding Swift herself and those who can't won't fit in the other articles (i.e. "most-awarded person in Teen Choice history"). The data in this article was was removed from the "List of awards" and was suggested to be moved into Taylor Swift, who could not accept it because WP:TOOBIG. Then it was suggested to be moved back to the list who could not accept it because it was a featured list candidate and could not accept new entries which will make it inconsistent. It simply fell between the cracks. דיידרים (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. List-cruft. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rankings and achievements" articles are not a thing we do on Wikipedia — "list of nominations and awards" is, but that article already exists and we definitely don't need both. Redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift — anything appropriate for inclusion in that article which isn't already there should be added to it, but a lot of this is just listcruft that isn't encyclopedic anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a thing we do? Not all artists need this specific page. Plus, List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift can't have too much entries since it is already a featured list. Yes, some here already exists in other articles but most of it cannot be seen out there. Take a look at the article entries first. Mat 1997 (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the question is, do All awards and achievements by Taylor Swift have notability independent from Taylor Swift herself? Has her number of awards broken records? Has her achievement outclassed others who have also achieved a lot in the entertainment industry? If the answer to those questions are no, then the awards and nominations can't have a standalone article. "The number of awards are too great for the article" argument doesn't save this article from the requirements of the WP:GNG. References list her awards and rankings but I don't see references where the sum of her awards and the quality of her awards are being discussed as the main topic of section/article. So, as the references to the article stands, there is no independent notability. For a wikipedia article to grab every award she's ever had and then saying 'this is notable' amounts to WP:OR original research. A WP:RS must discuss her sum or list of awards to verify notability of this sub-topic for it to remain a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you misunderstand the notability criteria. It is common when articles get too large for parts to be split off into separate articles. In these cases there is no requirement for the split-off content to itself satisfy a notability guideline. The question is really whether or not there is any encyclopedic content here that doesn't already exist in other articles related to Swift, and if there is, how that should best be organized. --Michig (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Michig, I disagree with your interpretation of the GNG, article content only has to be verifiable, not notable. Once a lump of an article content is to be split out into a standalone article, suddenly its inclusion criteria have become stricter. There is nothing in the GNG which says it doesn't apply to each and every standalone article. In fact it mandates that if an article needs to be split, each piece split out needs to itself be GNG notable as well. This will prevent editors from creating articles like List of shampoos used by Taylor Swift simply because such information could be verified. So the GNG should be consulted when organising material about TS and splitting articles imho. AadaamS (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure that WP:GNG actually says anything specifically about content split out from parent articles, but common sense should suggest that if the content would be appropriate in the parent article then it is still appropriate if split out to a separate article for reasons of size. --Michig (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're not after common sense, we're after encyclopedic sense and that's what the GNG is about. Lists of awards and achievements by an entertainer also isn't included as a suitable topic for a list according to WP:SALAT. My argument of course becomes moot if RS sources verify that her list of rankings and achievements reach GNG notability. AadaamS (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Per What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we shouldn't have excessive listings within articles Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hi @Michig:, in fact the GNG does say that the list subject must be notable as a group, see section WP:LISTN of the WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I previously stated, it says nothing about content split off from a parent article due to size considerations, and as I also previously stated I don't think there's much argument in favour of keeping this article as it is anyway - the question is really whether there is anything here that should be retained and where we should put it - keeping the whole thing and deleting the whole thing are not the only options here. I find that when 'Wikipedia sense' diverges from real world sense is when we have start to have real problems in this project. --Michig (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Quite right it doesn't list any exceptions due to size and so far I can't see that it lists any exceptions at all. Of course content from this article might be merged elsewhere. This article could also be userfied as an interim solution. AadaamS (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its a content fork and frankly borderline fancruft. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete awfully painful fancruft. Half the listings hold no notability whatsoever, do pieces of information such as the fact that Taylor Swift was ranked #1 on the "4Music Pop Powerlist 2015" (I don't even understand what they're ranking) really need an independent article? Or that some old lady clinging onto a career in journalism labeled her the third most interesting person of the year? (Barbara Walters's 10 Most Fascinating People of 2014) Grossly trivial list. Azealia911 talk 00:57, 31 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. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kotomi Yamakawa[edit]

Kotomi Yamakawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable voice actor whose most prominent role was Ako in Negima which was not one of the major characters in the series. She plays Louise's sister Cattleya in The Familiar of Zero who is a peripheral supporting role. She plays Mai in Izumo: Takeki Tsurugi no Senki but that isn't a notable series. Has not appeared in any overseas conventions or headlined news articles in ANN. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe redirect to Shirobako as it seems that her longest role or simply delete if preferred, my searches found nothing particularly good and her IMDb shows basically the same. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no coverage in independent sources, web searches turn up film directories and cast lists, no reviews, fails {{WP:GNG]] and any other guideline Kraxler (talk) 19:41, 28 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) 19:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victorien Angban (footballer, born 1996)[edit]

Victorien Angban (footballer, born 1996) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL as not played in any WP:FPL and does not pass WP:GNG Qed237 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 16:36, 21 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) 16:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although he could warrant a future article if he returns to Chelsea F.C.. I'm just going to stay out of football AfDs. And there are a ton of articles I'd like to send to AfD. Liz Read! Talk! 12:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. 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) 15:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rolandas Baravykas[edit]

Rolandas Baravykas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even tough FK Atlantas does not count as a club in a fully professional league they have played UEFA Europa League Football which is a top level professional competition. User:Vanmodhe Note: User Vanmodhe is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.
Appearances in UEFA Club competitions only confer notability if both clubs involved play league football in a fully pro league. As already stated, Atlantas do not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:39, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nsefu Wildlife Conservation Foundation[edit]

Nsefu Wildlife Conservation Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization lacking non-trivial support. One reference does not mention the organization and the other is the organization's website. reddogsix (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:ORG. Lacking in depth coverage, only has existed for a year so unless it's done something remarkable unlikely to have significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo advert, trying to raise funds?, no coverage in independent sources, the refs in article are 3 trivial mentions and the subject's own website, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 20:05, 28 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) 05:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nidor[edit]

Nidor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no indication this fictional planet, setting for two SF novels, has received any significant notice. Other than the first two sentences, all of the content is in-universe. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- we already have articles on the two books this planet is in, and the article is pretty much nothing but in-universe plot summary. Reyk YO! 07:07, 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 15:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The planet itself isn't notable, owing to the lack of discussion in third-party sources. Maybe there could be a general article on the series with some of this info, but not this amount of unsourced content which is purely regurgitation of the books' contents (WP:NOTPLOT). Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is sufficient coverage of this fictional world in The Shrouded Planet and The Dawning Light articles. Not a fictional element that is notable outside of these two novels. Liz Read! Talk! 11:59, 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Urban and Regional Planning (JU)[edit]

Department of Urban and Regional Planning (JU) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:Notability guideline Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Single department at a university. Not independently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Jahangirnagar University (WP:CHEAP) or delete if its apt to cause confusion. --Animalparty! 05:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Since no articles link to it except the university article and nobody is going to enter "Department of Urban and Regional Planning (JU)" as a search term I don't think there's any value in redirection. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 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 15:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete University departments are rarely notable. Another possibility is to Redirect to Jahangirnagar University as Animalparty! proposes but I think that deletion is more appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 11:53, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian bush flower essences[edit]

Australian bush flower essences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Googling fails to turn up any references WP:RS which WP:V verifies the WP:GNG notability level of this subject. Therefore it is not a suitable subject for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pfeifer Zeliska .600 Nitro Express revolver[edit]

Pfeifer Zeliska .600 Nitro Express revolver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Googling Books, News and Newspapers turn up no references that verify WP:V the WP:GNG notability for this revolver. It is therefore a possibility this subject is not suitable for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the prose is horrid but this is notable with regard to its size and power. There are sources out there, but it is not a commonly seen firearm.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although the revolver isn't being adopted or produced in large quantities, its extreme size makes it notable. The manufacturer's site (http://www.zeliska.ch/zeliska-458-win-mag/) appears to have a mentioned in the Guinness Book of World Records and what appears to be a scan of a magazine article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, a world record would indeed have made it notable. I can read german so the note beside it says that the world record was rejected on the grounds that Guinness don't award records for "crimes & wars", a statement that seems misapplied by Guinness because it's clearly a firearm unsuitable for either crime or war. According to this link http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-huge-personal-firearms.php (under 10) it was formerly made in the US, perhaps it's easier to find references for it under its previous incarnations? AadaamS (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:45, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Fanfare Records[edit]

Limited Fanfare Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A label whose fanfare is limited to articles from its own website, it seems. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's recently founded (2011) and limited to Miami and there's not even anything to suggest good local notability with the best my searches were some News. SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:45, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go Native (company)[edit]

Go Native (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

borderline WP:CORPDEPTH (SPA/COI advert) Widefox; talk 10:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately delete as my searches found to suggest good improvement after the time it's existed, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I consider it acceptable practice to lean towards delete for any company of less than 100 employees, unless there is some specific claim to notability. These borderline cases tend to result in relying on lower quality sources. Especially when the article is overtly promotional, filled with broken link citations, and obviously written by a COI. Our response to borderline spam shouldn't be to salvage the piece and spend hours on pages that so few readers have an interest in. CorporateM (Talk) 07:03, 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 15:44, 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 redirect to Darrel Treece-Birch. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nth Ascension[edit]

Nth Ascension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND Sulfurboy (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:34, 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 12:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added references to the article and the band's second album, please let me know what else is needed to be done so as to update it accordingly. -- comment made by Michael13111983

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Darrel Treece-Birch. I'm not sure what future the article on the musician has but while that article exists a redirect is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mylo Carbia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mylo Carbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Carbia's page was deleted 10 years ago and is now back. If you have access to the original, it's well worth a read. Similar to the first time, there is out of control boasting: "The Queen of Horror", one of the "25 Most Beautiful Women Behind The Camera", "number one horror film ghostwriter in Hollywood", etc. There are not, however, any verifiable claims of notability. I think this is the first time I've seen an astrological reading used as a reference. Richfife (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Haha, this is an interesting one and especially with the same nominator. Unfortunately, whether intended or not (although I have to compliment the neatness and sources at least), this article reads a little more like a personal page and, while my searches found results here, here, here and here, there's nothing to suggest marginal notability or let alone improve the article's current state. @Richfife: Was this a page you recently revisited at random or was it on your watchlist? SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. It's certainly not something I search for all that much. Just had a Jungian urge. She wasn't on my watchlist. - Richfife (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just received a private email from her publicity agency. I did not read it (except for the first few lines) and directed them to put any comments directly here. - Richfife (talk) 20:12, 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 13:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of this article sounds identical to her About page (http://zoharfilms.com/about-author-mylo-carbia/) and most of the references, announcing the release of her book, sound identical and like press releases with the same identifiers ("number one horror film ghostwriter in Hollywood", "The Queen of Horror", etc.). As for the "25 Most Beautiful Women Behind The Camera", that is simply a list put together by an IMDb user, like other user-generated lists. Most telling though is that her IMDB profile (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2229172/) which doesn't have any credits for her before 2015 and even the 2015 film is post-production and not released. Other films have been merely announced which doesn't mean that they will ever see the light of day. I would think that a screenwriter who had a three picture deal in 2003 would have at least one verified film credit to her name. Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Javauto[edit]

Javauto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG. Primarily blogs and forge sites. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Q&A sites used as refs are user-editable and not significant independent coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of independent notability. PianoDan (talk) 20:30, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Craft Centre[edit]

Malacca Craft Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG could not find any significant coverage for this tiny craft centre LibStar (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found information about Melaka online but the only information I could find on the Malacca Craft Centre was a promotional site for the area (http://amazingmelaka.com/) and a Foursquare check-in. Fails WP:ORGSIG. Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abiodun Ayodele Ojo[edit]

Abiodun Ayodele Ojo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article is an associate professor (not yet a professor) and acting provost (not yet a provost). He fails WP:ACADEMIC. He fails criterion 1 as his research has not made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. He would have manage to pass criterion 5, had it been he's a full Professor. His appointment as provost (without been a professor) is an indication that a Provost is not a "Distinguished Professor" appointment, therefore fails criterion 5, perhaps the seat is reserved for a professor who will be appointed soon and probably that is why the subject of the article is acting (no reason to be hasty to have a stand-alone article). Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 00:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails wp:academic. Oji has the educational experience but sadly that does note equate notability. –323MU (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately the bar that WP:PROF sets is pretty high for academics and he doesn't meet it. Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Note to closing admin --- the page creator Gabnite (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabnite. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:16, 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 keep. kelapstick(bainuu) 15:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whitechapel Gods[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Whitechapel Gods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD three years ago ended in no consensus. Appears to fail all aspects of WP:NBOOKS. Author is non notable and does not have an article on Wikipedia. I can find reviews from a few minor online reviewers, but no major reviews. Book was not a significant seller. Article tagged for notability since 2009. Safiel (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only coverage I can find in reliable sources is a throwaway putdown in AV Club[6]. Not notable, even by the standards of science fiction which gets less mainstream coverage than many genres. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found some sources, but they're not the strongest. I think that the author would pass notability guidelines so I'll start on an article for him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I found just enough to where the author could scrape by notability guidelines, but there's not an awful lot. It looks like this author put out two books and then effectively disappeared from the scene in 2009. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Safiel, Colapeninsula, what do you think about the author's page? I'm kind of a little undecided on him - there's enough to where I could probably justify a mainspace article for him, but at the same time this isn't all that heavy and that's pretty much the extent of his coverage. If this is all that he's ever going to get (ie, if he never releases anything again and never gets covered further) then this really isn't an exceedingly strong article. I could maybe flesh it out with a little synopsis of his work, but that's about it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tokyogirl79: Comment Given that WP:NAUTHOR reads:
  • Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
Clearly this author fails all aspects of WP:NAUTHOR so I would recommend against a move to article space. Safiel (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... the thing about authors is that they can pass notability guidelines if they're received reviews on their work in reliable sources - which he has (five of them). Reviews can count towards author notability depending on where they're posted. What I'm basically concerned with is that although he's received coverage in RS to where he could probably squeak by notability guidelines there really isn't a whole lot out there as a whole. I do for the most part agree that this probably shouldn't be moved to the mainspace but I do want to be on record as saying that reviews would count towards author notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a Background section based on a newspaper article. The Library Journal and Steampunk Magazine articles seem non-trivial, too. So I lean towards keep, but I can see how it is a borderline case. maclean (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar 23:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 12:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. meets WP:NBOOK with the 3 reviews in the article ie. "1.The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I have also found this which may contribute to its notability [7] - Determining the Roots of Steampunk: A Comparison of Contemporary Works with Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Forerunners of Speculative fiction by Matthew Delman appearing in Presentations of the 2010 Upstate Steampunk Extravaganza and Meetup pages 83 to 110, which is unfortunately incomplete (damn you google books!:)) but in his conclusion states "The high-level mechanical and steam-powered technology the likes of which Verne and Wells composed in their seminal novels make an appearance throughout the entirety of Steampunk literature. The steam-powered Boiler Men of Whitechapel Gods, ... all of these fictional innovations exist because of the technology of the Nineteenth Century," Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more believing that further discussion can get us to somewhere.. JAaron95 Talk 15:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I changed my vote with the new sources. It's very marginal, but just scrapes notability. Steampunk Magazine is an actual print publication. Plus a couple of other reviews (RT is also a reliable source), local press, and other throwaway references. Wouldn't be averse to turning it into an article on the author but I don't think it's necessary. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep due to satisfying WP:NBOOK as the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works (reviews) independent of the book itself. Liz Read! Talk! 13:12, 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 delete. As this is a copy of anther article with some slight modifications. The user who created it has been blocked for a long-term pattern of ignoring our basic content policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summer 2015 Invasion of Syria[edit]

Summer 2015 Invasion of Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains almost exclusively rumors and assumptions about a non-event, while the title suggets an actual invasion has happened. Most of the sources are dodgy weblogs rather than reliable sources. bender235 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After all, the shooting has already started. The Financial Times and most Middle Eastern national newspapers aren't something to be sniffed at. If you want to make improvements or move it to a better title, please go ahead. The thing is, is that this thing is actually happening, and deleting an article only to have to bring it back a couple of days later is a total waste of time and bandwidth.Ericl (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Turkey–ISIL conflict - The infobox has been copied from this article anyway, with most of the information there as well. Nub Cake (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • addendum: You will note that almost ALL the so-called "rumors and assumptions" have been confirmed by the Turkish government in the last day or so. Press conferences do not disseminate rumors. The invasion has to some extent already started and needs an article of it's own. As I said before, it would be a total waste of time and bandwidth take it down and then put it back up in less than a dayEricl (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ericl: why not keep as a WP:DRAFT?
Because the event has already started. The Turkish military response, which includes bombing Kurdish targets in Iraq, is ongoing. that it might need to be moved to a better title, (Allied invasion of Syria: 2015 or something) or edited to within an inch of it's life, (which it does, so be my guest) is besides the point. This isn't about some airy-fairy paranoid peverication, it's about stuff like Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–July 2014), which was totally forgotten about because the war, like that in Iraq has been going on for a while and people get bored. Think about World War II, everybody knew D-Day was going to happen, however where and when was a top secret. Same here. Only this time there were leaks beforehand. The leaks and reaction to same were worth an article. However, now it's turning into a battle campaign which was long expected. World-Changing events need articlesEricl (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page is simply a more brief copy of the page Turkey–ISIL conflict. The infobox has been copied from there, and the name of this article is misleading. The invasion has not started. The events at the moment have occurred mostly on the Syrian-Turkish border and the fighter jets who have bombed ISIL positions have done so without invading Syrian airspace. Plus, this is not an invasion of Syria targeting the Syrian government. It is a conflict between Turkey and ISIL. Nub Cake (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An invasion of a country has nothing to do with which group's being targeted. Free France took part in D-Day. The Turkish air force has indeed violated Syrian airspace, and according to the good people at the Syrian Human rights observatory, may have bombed a Nusra Front base.Ericl (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't change the fact that it is exactly a copy of the other article. In that case, my opinion is Delete. The invasion consists of Turkish F-16s bombing ISIL headquarters and gathering points from Turkish airspace. Nub Cake (talk) 16:40, 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. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reykjavik (film)[edit]

Reykjavik (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film was announced, but never entered production. Koala15 (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Baltsasar Kormakur as this especially found no results past last May and this other search found nothing else so this may have been canceled or put aside without announcement. With basically nothing even at IMDb, this article looks better and that's simply from the pre-production announcements. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:32, 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. There is clear consensus that the current content, under the current title, does not belong in the encyclopedia, so this all starts with a delete consensus.

After that, the multi-way merge suggestion of North of Eden has substantial support. I'm not going to go so far as to state that there's consensus to do that, but there's also certainly nothing here which prevents somebody from going ahead and doing it on their own as part of the normal editorial process. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secession in Russia[edit]

Secession in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A sketchy, largely unsourced list of alleged movements and proposed states without any article content at all (compare Secession in the United States or Secession in India). Many of the political parties seem to be marginal and little-known. Delete per WP:RS, possibly WP:OR and WP:N. HPfan4 (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:32, 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 redirect to Behind the Mask (album). Consensus is that the articles do not meet the notability guidelines and no opposition to the redirects. Davewild (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom (Fleetwood Mac song)[edit]

Freedom (Fleetwood Mac song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also included in nomination:

Behind the Mask (Fleetwood Mac song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not all songs by notable artists are notable as WP:NSONGS makes clear. Freedom (Fleetwood Mac song) and Behind the Mask (Fleetwood Mac song) are stubs about tracks from the same album for which there is no notability independent of the album. Author contested redirection of both to album article. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is also related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thoughts on a Grey Day - two tracks from a different Fleetwood Mac album. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both or redirect to the album. This editor has created a large number of articles about Fleetwood Mac with no regard whatsoever to notability. I've spoken to him about it with no results, and as RichardOSmith has said, this guy contests general moves towards redirection. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:32, 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. Davewild (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister El Salvador[edit]

Mister El Salvador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pageant - fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Supported by primary sources only for 2014 event Flat Out (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some blogs with pics about some years events, but nothing reliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:32, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Míster España[edit]

Míster España (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced, non-notable pageant fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: not my favorite subject but there is no way this thing fails GNG: [8], [9], [10] and that's just coverage for this year, never mind past years. Vrac (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've started a conversation about the 2015 beauty pageant AFD marathon here. Vrac (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 02:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are lots of sources, see above, passes easily WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. The nominator failed to observe WP:BEFORE B2 and C1. Kraxler (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Source searches demonstrate that the topic meets WP:EVENTCRIT. North America1000 04:16, 30 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. Davewild (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Markwick[edit]

Jay Markwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable. Only reference is a reprint of a press release in an online aggregator. valereee (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC) EDIT TO ADD: I started going through the sourcing and finally just stopped because I was removing every.single.one of them. ALL of these sources are unreliable. One of them had a byline of "Press Release." Several are unpaid local weeklies. Most are simple reviews of local performances in local community weeklies. There seems to be no actual evidence of notability. valereee (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:31, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commonground/MGS[edit]

Commonground/MGS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is probably going to be a train wreck of an AfD, but I am not convinced an article on this organisation can be improved to the point of acceptance. The article fails to say what the organisation actually does and the 25 citations in the lead are a cliche of paid editing, looking closer they appear to all be only tangential or press releases. I note the comment in one says "While I certainly wish Mr. Islam and Mr. Wright all the best of luck, their enterprise is by no means the largest multicultural agency, nor is it the first minority-owned multicultural marketing holding company; not by more than a decade." I smell paid advocacy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Covered in reliable sources. Claims of unimprovability or unmaintainability are not supported by the article's edit history: nobody has even tried to fix it. Obviously a bad article, but equally obviously not what AfD is for. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Nobody has even tried to fix it" - yes, and that includes you. If you can, I'm happy to speedy close this. I've had a headache trying. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Look, let's take the citation overkill on the lead. [11] - marked as "Advertising". [12] - the "AD" in the source name is a clue. [13] - looks like a press release, [14] - "Mediapost Agency Daily" - press release. [15] - press release. And they're all from the same date - well that's because they are all repeating the same press release. That does not meet GNG. I could go on with the other 20 sources but I'd lose the will to live. And the "AfD is not cleanup" mantra doesn't really work in practice, if you don't clean up stuff, readers will look at it, think "what a load of rubbish Wikipedia is" and slink off elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL the "advertising" tag in the NY Times article is because that is the subject, NOT because it's a paid advertisement!! Just like this article is tagged as "food." (Please try not to eat your screen.) It's an ad agency, so obviously it's going to also be covered by advertising industry publications. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP First source I clicked on was an in-depth profile in The New York Times. I disagree that "AFD is not cleanup" from the perspective that some articles are good AFD candidates because of WP:TNT if they are hopelessly promotional. In this page however, the unsourced promotion was easy to cleanup and the remaining stub looks fine. CorporateM (Talk) 06:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam. Sources do not hold up. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:31, 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 speedy delete. as copyvio of the sources below, and the reason it was speedied previously as well. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KairUs[edit]

KairUs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet general notability guidelines. No sources have been supplied, but papers by the subjects (mentioned in the article as "notable") have been offered as "references". Promotional, proprietary tone. Strongly suspect conflict of interest. ubiquity (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 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 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE G12 (Copyright violation). Content is pulled from, in order, [16], [17], [18], [19], [kairus.org/redakar-arts-festival/], and t a list of publications, which is not eo ipso a copyvio, but does round out that all the content was pulled from other sources which explicitly claim copyright on the pages. CrowCaw 22:00, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States boys' national under-15 soccer team[edit]

United States boys' national under-15 soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that the content of the article was substantially different from the last version of this article. However, notability concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States boy's national under-15 soccer team remain. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 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 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication the team has participated in an official CONCACAF or FIFA tournament, only unofficial friendly tournaments and matches. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 30 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. Davewild (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Peak (railcar)[edit]

Castle Peak (railcar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources verify WP:V the notability WP:GNG of this railcar. The sources so far also do not prove WP:SIGCOV significant coverage. It is therefore likely this is not a suitable subject for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 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 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How is this notable except as a museum exhibit? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 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 delete. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wenxin Keli[edit]

Wenxin Keli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An alt-med treatment with 100% primary sourcing (a no-no per WP:MEDRS). No reality-based commentary at all, just a tiny number of supportive primary studies. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • contemplative delete because although it seems there are sources, I'm not sure if there's much good notability and it would've been nice to mention elsewhere but there's no obvious move target (draft/userfy would probably be a good compromise). My searches were this, this, this and this but there's nothing that convinces me of improvement. @David Eppstein: is welcome to comment. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no particular expertise to contribute to this debate. We have plenty of other editors who know much more than I about medicine and medical fringe topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no coverage in non-medical sources, the refs are medical research papers. Although this might be worth a mention in a medical textbook at some time, this fails to be an encyclopedic subject. Also, the research has been so far inconclusive, which makes this a sort of promo advert. Kraxler (talk) 18:01, 29 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 g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOFLO.Today[edit]

SOFLO.Today (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources, just the company's own website and tweets, and the site of its CEO. Can't find any obvious secondary coverage of the service. McGeddon (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has ever even been to South Florida will know the name of this site. I don't get the reason to delete the history of such a famous website. I understand there is no other sources that I can find, but it wouldn't make much sense to find them either. Think logically why would another media company like a news site or a newspaper mention basically there competition. If you get down to it I assume many of the media companies in South Florida have similar services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryLang294 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 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 speedy delete. Deleted per A7 SmartSE (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wadhwa group[edit]

The wadhwa group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined speedy: for the life of me I can't see any assertion of notability. Just another (borderline promotional) article on a thourougly unremarkable property company. TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 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 redirect to Buckethead. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buckethead & Brain[edit]

Buckethead & Brain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both members of this loosely defined band are notable on their own right, but as a unit who's only released 2 albums credited as "Buckethead & Brain" together, they aren't notable for inclusion on wikipedia. Plus the article itself is incomplete & unsourced. RF23 (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not worth a standalone article: the question is whether it should be a redirect to Buckethead or to Bryan Mantia. I'd say the former. (at a glace there does not seem anything worth merging)TheLongTone (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Buckethead - There's nothing obvious to suggest improvement or notability and I almost wouldn't even support the move as suggested (if it wasn't the best option) as the best my searches found was this. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Heritage International[edit]

Miss Heritage International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010Talk 22:46, 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 keep. Hopefully somebody will add the sources found by Kraxler to the article... Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reinado Internacional del Café[edit]

Reinado Internacional del Café (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no independent sourcing conform WP:RS The Banner talk 13:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The coverage in El Tiempo alone, the newspaper of reference in Colombia, is quite significant... passes WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've started a conversation about the 2015 beauty pageant AFD marathon here. Vrac (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 03:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a notable pageant, held since 1957, with extensive coverage in independent reliable sources, passes easily WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. The absence of sources in the article is irrelevant when it is possible to find them at web searches. The nominator failed to observe WP:BEFORE B2 and C1. Kraxler (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing the sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many of them are here. Kraxler (talk) 03:43, 30 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Miss University 2011[edit]

World Miss University 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Year version of a pageant with doubtful notability itself. No independent and/or reliable sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 13:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010Talk 22:46, 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 snow keep. Article was kept at AfD less than a month ago. No additional rationale has been raised to question that result. – czar 17:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksepticeye[edit]

Jacksepticeye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) Fiddle Faddle 13:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep. The nominator apparently did not read the AfD discussion from one month ago. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasoning in the last AfD. Anarchyte 08:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasoning in the last AfD for this article. Kamran Mackey (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subject meets WP:GNG and has a large following in his genre. The article could use some significant improvement, though. Scr★pIronIV 17:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This WP:BLP article is continually in a poor state due to it being mistreated as a fanpage, with frequent vandalism and additions of unsourced or poorly sourced material, as is evidenced in the page history. [20] [21] With that said, the subject does appear to be notable according to the recent outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JackSepticEye. Poorly sourced claims attributed to YouTube and the like should be diminished in favor of coverage from the Irish Times, the Irish Examiner, and similarly reliable third party publications. regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:42, 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 speedy delete. A7: No indication of importance. Yunshui 雲水 14:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Horsfield[edit]

James Horsfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • speedy Delete - Article is literally just three words of a youth player for manchester city who has never played a league or cup match, only a friendly match.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YOUBORA[edit]

YOUBORA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, as the sources are both WP:PRIMARY: a press release and a partner company's own website. McGeddon (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:34, 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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos wrightson[edit]

Nikos wrightson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who has never played professionally or been the subject of coverage in reliable independent sources, so fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG (if he even exists at all - I can't find any proof of this). PROD was removed by article creator with no explanation given. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:02, 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 deleted as G5 (by Bbb23) (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Walker[edit]

Caleb Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is questionable, and the only source used is to say that he was in Furious 7. Could be written and sourced better if it were to be kept. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 10:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:54, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penuballi[edit]

Penuballi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2007. No WP:V to support what's said, no evidence to even support WP:N. Why do Indian villages (and this is a widespread problem) seemingly have a bye to the basic core policies of WP that are enforced on every other article? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's listed in the Indian census results for Khammam.[22] It was classed as part of Andhra Pradesh not Telangana at the time of the last census. Any material which is controversial or of questionable accuracy can of course be deleted or tagged. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like a real village/town to me. Frequently Indian places are difficult to verify due to the multiple different spellings in Latin characters. This didn't seem to have the problem. --Oakshade (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really claiming a population of 52,000 people, why not add that to the article? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per deletion policy, AfD is not to be used as a substitution for regular editing. And it's not Gene93k "claiming" a population of 52,000", it's the Indian government reporting it. --Oakshade (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I've added the population figures. Off-wiki commitments kept me from editing it sooner. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 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 delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Straits Quay[edit]

Straits Quay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion - nearly identical re-creation after having been deleted about year and a half ago (deleted version here). No third-party references, Google search hasn't returned anything but business profiles and advertising. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 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 keep. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don R. Sommerfeldt[edit]

Don R. Sommerfeldt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability made, one self-reference Garchy (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the tax court of Canada does not appear to be a court of a level judges on it are default notable, and sourcing is not enough for other ways to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken, the Tax Court of Canada is a federal court with nationwide jurisdiction, composed of judges from all provinces of Canada, it's top level. Kraxler (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable. As the Tax Court of Canada is a national court, he satisfies POLITICIAN by holding "national office". Sources indicate, however, that the informal procedure of the court is not precedent setting. James500 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per John Lambert. The tax court does not hold the same status as the Canadian surpreme court or court of appeal. There is an absence of coverage to demonstrate WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To what status do you refer? By what criteria have you selected those two courts in particular? James500 (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I require a 600 character plus long winded response before replying. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does that mean that you have just picked those two courts at random, that you have just plucked them out of thin air? James500 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      your response needs to be much much longer. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this article actually contained substantive content about him, sourced to enough properly reliable sourcing to support it, then I'd be completely comfortable voting to keep on WP:GNG grounds regardless of any debate about whether the Tax Court is notable enough or not. But it doesn't — in its current form, all it consists of is a single sentence asserting his existence, resting on a single primary sourced confirmation on the court's own website. (And even that source just lists his name, without even giving him the standalone profile that some of the other judges have to provide more information about them beyond name, rank and serial number.) But that's not how any person ever gets a Wikipedia article — no Wikipedia inclusion guideline ever confers a notability freebie on anybody, regardless of the "inherent" notability of their office, until reliable, independent sources can be added to support the claim. I'm willing to revisit this if the sourcing and content can be beefed up well beyond where they're sitting right now — but in its existing form, there's just not enough substance, and not a whit of valid referencing, here. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the rubric of BIO is that a judge who satisfies POLITICIAN, but not BASIC, must (it is not optional) be merged (not deleted) to an article on a broader topic, typically a list of judges of the court in question. James500 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect to the Tax Court's article, which is where the judges are listed rather than in a separate spinoff, would also be perfectly acceptable. But it still can't stay as a standalone BLP if this is the best we can do for sourcing or content about him or his role on the court. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's strange that the Tax Court's official website doesn't have a bio of Sommerfeldt, but it's undoubtedly reliable to verify that, yes, he does sit on the Tax Court. A brief bio, however, can be found here (a government announcement of his appointment) giving his educational and career background, so the article can clearly be expanded beyond one sentence (and an additional source here, though brief on Sommerfeldt himself). As I'm not familiar with the structure of Canadian courts, I'm trying to figure out what the analog in the U.S. would be: an Article III federal district court judge? Or an Article I judge on the U.S. Tax Court? He was appointed, but I don't know if he went through a confirmation process as would a U.S. federal judge (or if that matters). In the absence of a more definitive answer to the contrary, I'm leaning towards weak keep, but no matter what he'd be a valid redirect to Tax Court of Canada#Judges. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge → Tax Court of Canada#Judges (=move the reference over to support this person sitting on the court) and convert article to a redirect; don't redirect talk page as this should have a wikiproject biography banner on it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, as per User:Ceyockey.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Canada Tax Court is comparable to the United States Tax Court, both have federal jurisdiction and are composed of not too many judges. The subjrect passes WP:NPOL # 1 "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" (note that this guideline supersedes WP:GNG, sources are only neede to confirm the existence of the person and the office held, see also WP:POLOUTCOMES) The idea to merge any federal judges's bios into articles like List of judges of the United States Tax Court or even United States District Court for the Northern District of New York which all contain full lists of judges (all blue-linked) is ludicrous. Come on, you didn't arrive at Wikipedia yesterday, or did you? Kraxler (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I don't have a problem with there being a separate article ... if the content supports it. A redirect is not a diminution of the person or role; it is a recognition of the amount of content available. The current content is "Don R. Sommerfeldt is a judge currently serving on the Tax Court of Canada." with an additional start date in an infobox. I think that it would be more appropriate to merge this content into the list than to have a standalone article. This does not prevent or even create a roadbump for back-converting the redirect to an article if more content should emerge supporting a true biographical article. At present, the only notable element for the person is his membership on the court - and that is the only information available in the article. That is the basis of my arguing for merge. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have articles about medieval archbishops, princes regnant and - I think - some U.S. Congressmen that have as little information. The pages stay because they are in a category that gets them a page. Its pretty tautological. And I take Ceyockey's point that such pages look almost silly. But I also suspect that they have the function that a new or newish editors with knowledge of a subject is perhaps more likely to add information to a page that already exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, we have more information available here, so we shouldn't just be looking at the current state of the article. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the info. Kraxler (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I would keep it open for now. It doesn't appear that there is a clear consensus of majority just yet, although it seems to be leaning towards keep. We're in no rush (it won't be deleted while this is open!), so I say we allow the discussion to continue as the votes are nearly even. Garchy (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE count election, it's based in argument considering guidelines and policy. The complete Biographical Directory of Federal Judges has been imported into Wikipedia on the strength of NPOL #1, many articles of which have the link to this directory as their only source. Nobody ever thought about nominating them for deletion. Maybe I should mention consistency and common sense here. Kraxler (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the improvements made the page seems to fit WP:BIO. Please remember, while reading WP:BIO, that the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges is neither a biographical page nor a page about a politician. You do realize that saying no one has nominated it for deletion does not correlate to nominating a biographical page which, at the time, was ambiguous as to what level of office was held? There are different guidelines on significance and notability for different pages and topics...but that's beside the point. I can put that issue aside and now vote Keep based on the information learned about the federal level of the court, as well as the added references and information. Garchy (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood, "the complete Directory was imported" means that a bot transcribed all bios contained in the Directory (more than thousand) to Wikipedia, so that every single federal US judge since 1789 has now an article here, and that none of those articles ever were nominated for deletion, although many times the only source is this Directory, see Asa Wentworth Tenney. Kraxler (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is precedent to maintaining articles on Canadian federal tax judges (Eugene Rossiter, Campbell J. Miller, etc.) Furthermore, I think it's fair to say that non-ALJ federal court judges, even if they serve on a limited-jurisdiction court, should be considered notable. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia's notability policies for judges aren't as specific, and accordingly aren't construed as leniently, as they are for politicians. North of Eden (talk) 22:43, 30 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/snowball deletion, blatantly unencyclopedic, could conceivably fall under the criterion WP:CSD#A3 - just chat-like contents. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to know if someones a true friend[edit]

How to know if someones a true friend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A how-to page written like a blog. Unreferenced and not written in an encyclopedic tone. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 07:49, 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 deleted by User:Jimfbleak with comment "non-notable COI first person spam". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QChartist[edit]

QChartist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

copyright problems and notability also Govindaharihari (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT: a web search turns up only blogs and download sites. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:46, 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. Materialscientist (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elakkiya pithan[edit]

Elakkiya pithan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible autobiography judging by the username of the article creator. Uses YouTube, Facebook and personal website as sources and contains promotional language. The subject is "famous" but does not meet WP:GNG. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 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 as blatant nonsense. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The truth about suffering[edit]

The truth about suffering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contains vandalism, probably a practical joke. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 07:11, 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 merge to ISF Waterloo. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World International School[edit]

World International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Educated to the age of 18 (or 16) and was therefore a secondary school. The article appears to have been altered by editors connected to ISF Waterloo which replaced it, who seem to be attempting to remove all traces of its existence. It is unclear whether this school is a direct successor to the WIS or just occupies the same site. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp and per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010Talk 23:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (changed from delete, see below) WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.". That's here the case. There are zero refs in the article and there are zero sources in web searches. It might be some predecessor organization of the ISF Waterloo, or just a mistaken name for the same institution, or a hoax. Without sources, we can't know. Kraxler (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source clarifies that it is the same campus, just a different name after a merger. Thus the history of the older school should be merged, and the name redirected, to ISF Waterloo. Kraxler (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:44, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DuinOS[edit]

DuinOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT: very minor (one-man) operating system, sources are GitHub and forum posts. Apparently mentioned in this research paper (says GScholar), but judging by the snippet that I can see outside the paywall, it's a trivial mention. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 06:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately delete for now as my searches found nothing particularly good and I would've said keep simply to include this (for the hell of it) but as there aren't any good third-party sources, there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 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. Fails WP:V and no apparent notability for the "legend" either. Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benito Bonito[edit]

Benito Bonito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The information is not verifiable. The sources are not reliable. The article has three different accounts of Benito's death, two different accounts of where his treasure was buried. It has a fake distinction between the Loot of Lima and the Treasure of Lima. It is very hard to improve the article. A Google search comes up with three different nationalities (Spanish, Portuguese, British). There is no consistent story about him. There is a persuasive identification with Benito de Soto who already has an article. Details about the supposed treasure can adequately be dealt with at the Cocos Island page. Jack Upland (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to list of pirates where he is mentioned rather than delete (for possible future improvement) as my searches found absolutely nothing and the other Wikis basically have the same content and links, and even the links aren't entirely good. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag the hell out of it, at least until someone knowledgeable can come and do a better job. I write this because runnig it through a simple search on google books turns up a lot of material that seems to indicate that this is a very popular legend cycle with an actual pirate somewhere back there.18:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Ill-considered.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The only thing the sources have in common is buried treasure, and I think that can be dealt with in the articles about the supposed sites. The fact that the Queenscliff, Victoria article doesn't mention the story indicates it's not well-known there.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V, tour guide story told the tourists, combining some standard elements of piracy and changing the details according to the audience... Kraxler (talk) 18:41, 29 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 consensus is that there is no evidence that this film meets the notability criteria, mainly due to the lack of sources about it. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High Heels (2015 film)[edit]

High Heels (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a supposed internet-only short film - does not appear to be notable. The article is principally not about the film at all, rather it it is a WP:COATRACK about News Success Holding Group Corp, and their assertion that internet-only short films will drive their success. It reads like a press release and that is not surprising - half of the article is a direct quote from exactly that. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • RichardOSmith, you could probably get away with speedy deletion tagging this as a promotional article. It's not entirely copyvio since the quotes are marked as quotes, however they do make up the bulk of the article and are somewhat lengthy, so it skirts a pretty dangerous line. In any case, I would probably say that this could redirect to the article for Alyssa Chia. She seems to be the most prominent person in this. However at the same time... I am concerned that this film was apparently not considered notable enough to add to Chia's Wikipedia article in WP ZH. I'm also performing a search using Google Translate (I do not speak/read Chinese) and I'm really not finding much of anything for this film in general. Pretty much all I'm finding is mentions of her in relation to her status as a fashion icon in China (and for wearing high heels during her pregnancy) - there isn't even really a whisper of coverage for the film, which is pretty telling. I have no reason to doubt that this film is fake (not the reason I'm mentioning this) but I think that this is likely just a random short film she made that never gained any attention - it happens quite frequently in show business, as you can have a known person star in a film yet never actually gain any attention. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although... before we redirect at all it'd probably be a good idea to get someone from WP:CHINA to take a look for sources just to make sure. I don't think that it is a hoax (this editor doesn't seem to be affiliated with the company but rather seems to be a Chia fan), but given the dearth of sources (and the obvious barriers of using GT) I'd like to make sure that this film was actually made. It wouldn't be the first time someone has created an article based on a press release for a film that never happened or was never going to happen at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actress:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: Apparently this film went into production in November 2014, and so is not unsourcable. I am sill trying to determine if we have enough to meet WP:NF for a separate article or if a redirect to its star Alyssa Chia is best. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as while this film has been released and can be watched, it has not received the requisite coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NF. It shold be okay to mention in related articles, but not in an article of its own. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have only been two editors contributing to the conversation; allow another cycle to see if others might weigh in. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't watch the film in the link you posted, did you watch it? In fact, has anyone watched the film? I can't seem to find the release date and to me that's an indication that the film is not notable. Delete. (Though if you are an Alyssa Chia fan there are so many pages from her filmography that can be created.) Timmyshin (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I have no interest in watching the film about a woman and/or her high heel shoes, and while the lack of a release date for a foreign language released film (probably available through searches under its Mandarin name) is not automatically non-notable. It was the apparent lack of coverage which was my determining factor. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:25, 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smarter Lunchroom Approach[edit]

Smarter Lunchroom Approach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

publicity for a specific government program. Excessive reporting of primary research data, use of promotional name. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It should also be noted that a lot of the sources like the ABC and HuffPost article refer to it as the "Smarter Lunchroom Movement" not approach. I'm not sure if we're talking about two different things here or the title of the article was completely wrong. I'm going to wait for other comments before I give a solid vote, but I think this article would need to be wholly re-written even though it might likely be notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is just not notable. How about encouraging admins to rush threw there AfDs to get to the delete button?. I think I just throwed up my lunch...Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, though I also enjoyed Kupung's rationale.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although it looks like the article has already been deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it looked as if it had been deleted is that the originator of the article edited this discussion, changing the name or the article above from Smarter Lunchroom Approach to Smarter Lunchroom Movement. I've changed it back, since the article itself has not been moved. Worldbruce (talk) 22:26, 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tolikara riot[edit]

Tolikara riot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A run of the mill riot. I don't see anything exceptional here. Article fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Not seeing any greater significance here, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The death of a child is a shame, of course, but if we had an article on every child's untimely death, we would pretty much break the internet. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I doubt that we will ever know what happened, but, certainly, printing a story like this based on local sources risks allowing WP to be used to disseminate misleading information or outright propaganda. As written when I looked (just now), the article asserts that the riot "was an attack and arson in July 17, 2015, targeting Muslims in the Tolikara Regency, Papua province, Indonesia. The attack occurred when local Muslims were performing the Eid prayer." It was sparked when someone put out a false bulletin asserting that the rights of Christians were about to be restricted in some unspecified manner. Upon hearing that such a report was abroad, "To avoid conflict the Muslims (gathered for Eid prayers) immediately dispersed themselves." Despite this Muslim caution and restraint, we are told that the Christians rioted violently and the outcome was that a Christian boy was killed and 12 Christians injured but no Muslims were killed and none reported harmed by this article. I have no idea what happened. But given the sources available for coverage of events in rural Papua (province) - no reliable ones, as far as I know - I strongly suggest that we delete articles of this ilk.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Contentious commentary hidden, per WP:NOTFORUM -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I read all too often of Muslimns persecuting Christians and oppressing them. It is good to have a case where the boot was on the other foot. Javans transmmigrating to west New Guinea are essentially moving into an alien environment and should not be imposing their culture on the indigenous poipulation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 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. Not enough consensus to delete, and the statement that virtually all sources are to Wikipedia is outright incorrect (at the time of this closure). The article could use a rewrite/trim, but that is not justification for wholesale deletion. kelapstick(bainuu) 20:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister International[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mister International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted 3 times previously. Article is unsourced and overtly promotional, not a notable pageant and a lack of depth of coverage to meet standards for notability. Flat Out (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When virtually all references are to Wikipedia an article is clearly overly promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the references in the article are "to Wikipedia". Kraxler (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - was speedied in 2007 and 2008 (ancient Wiki history) as promotional and copyvio, none of this seems to apply here anymore, only previous AfD ended in "no consensus". Pageant has been held for a ten years now, and the article is mostly a list of winners and other facts, not at all a WP:PROMO piece. Web searches turn up thousands of news stories and hundred thousands of google hits, mostly about the annual winners of the national pageants which select the contestants to the international final event. About the organization and its owner there are a few mentiuons, but look at the sourcing of Miss Universe, there are about 30 refs, two about on which TV channel the events are broadcast, and the rest about individual winners/pageants. Kraxler (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've revised the bare url citations to formatted citations to assist in evaluating the quality of the existing sources. Personally, I'm neutral on retention of the article, though I do think it is overly long and detailed for the degree of citation support provided. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010Talk 22:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing enough coverage from the Manila Bulletin of coverage of this pageant to believe GNG is met. See [24] for an overview. NEVENT does not apply, for obvious reasons, this is about ten or more years of pageants, not a single event. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:23, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 23:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleem Shah (actor)[edit]

Kaleem Shah (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced for eight years, flagged as such for three years, and the usual searches uncovered no sources. Looking through the List of film periodicals I don't see any obvious Pashto-specific sources to search. With no references, the subject cannot meet any notability guideline. Worldbruce (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Lack of attention does not equate to lack of notability, particularly for people who are deceased and their main career occurred before the age of the internet, particularly in the Third World. Looks like he was in a number of films and I don't think we should let lack of online or English-language sources provide grounds for deletion. I'd tread cautiously to be careful about our own possible pro-western bias. Montanabw(talk) 06:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, I am seeing him in non-wiki mirrors at the following locations: [25], [26] (misspelled). Probably someone who knows that part of the world can help; I suggest posting at wikiproject Pakistan or something. Montanabw(talk) 06:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for searching mazhar.dk; it's encouraging that the name appears in the credits for two films. When I nominated it, I made sure it was listed in WikiProject Pakistan's "Articles up for deletion" section. If you think a more prominent announcement or one targeted at a different group would be helpful, by all means make it.
I have to disagree with your assertion that "lack of attention does not equate to lack of notability." Notability in a nutshell is: "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." The attention certainly does not need to be online or in English, but notability requires verifiable evidence in some form. That is true no matter what time period or part of the world is involved. Worldbruce (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is a pro-western bias; I think we need to hesitate to delete articles of this sort - those that are most likely to need someone who is close to the topic to assess notability because there simply will not be a lot of sources we can access from our 21st-century first world vantage point. (I recently helped salvage Hilda Plowright, for example). What I meant by "lack of attention" was "lack of editor attention" - in response to your "unreferenced for eight years" comment. I'm sympathetic to your position (I'm often the first to complain that some footballer who played one season of professional leagues in a small third world nation is deemed notable), but I think this is an area where we need to assume good faith that offline sources exist, particularly where this individual does have an extensive filmography, even if all are Pakistani films. Montanabw(talk) 20:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article is unsourced, two film credits have been unearthed, but nothing else. Web searches get links to a homonymous entrepreneur, nothing on the actor, albeit for the already mentioned reason. So, the actor existed, but his notability has not been established. We can not invert the onus of the guideline, saying that anybody who has not been proven non-notable may be included, to avoid possible bias. Sorry. Kraxler (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:15, 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. The consensus was that the subject's notability was insufficient to warrant an article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susan L Combs[edit]

Susan L Combs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Has been quoted in a number of magazines, and been interviewed, but I don't see anything in-depth about her. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no actual evidence of notability, and no reason to expect any. I removed an A7 speedy, because there is enough of a claim to importance from the trade award to pass speedy--though not for actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and I doubt anyone would be interested to draft/userfy to their space - My searches found nothing particularly good aside from some links here. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I did a little cleaning and rearranging of content, removing some of the relatively non-consequential pieces of info; there was some disconnect between content and citation, so I fixed that up too. This is someone early in their career who is now the elected president of a national association and a company founder -- albeit neither of those association or company have articles on wikipedia. There is sufficient 2ndary source material to support the article, and I think she is just over the edge of notability to justify retention ... I'm not arguing she's a stellar entrepreneur, but that she just makes it over the line of notability, in my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo advert, no indication of notability in the article, run-of-the-WP:MILL entrepreneur, no significant coverage, web searches turn up social media and directory listings. Kraxler (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the "Entrepreneur" source is just a trivial mention, and I'm not sure that "CAFNR News" is sufficiently independent, but the two references from "LifeHealthPro" are substantial and about her, and it seems to be a real publication (not a blog), albeit one with quite a narrow focus. Probably just enough here to squeak her over the WP:GNG line. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see any real notability here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Didn't find much, not sure about the CAFNR news as a source, did find brief coverage here, still don't think it adds up to GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:13, 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 Snow Delete. No need to wait for a week: this is obviously nonsense, almost certainly made up by the creator of the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Cain[edit]

Leo Cain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding this character anywhere. Adam9007 (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is so fantastical, it could've been speedied. Even the simplest searches found nothing. I'm being bold and tagging tge article as such to save us an obvious AfD. SwisterTwister talk 16:06, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coe Lewis[edit]

Coe Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable DJ lacking non-trivial support. References lack in-depth support of individual. reddogsix (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are mentions here but nothing like in-depth coverage for us to build a case why CL is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately as my searches found mostly local coverage and not enough to suggest local notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lewis is not a notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 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 Keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Prentice[edit]

Jessica Prentice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

insignificant secondary coverage, all selfpublished, neologism, dubious notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added references. Coverage of her in major publications including Globe and Mail, SF Gate and other San Francisco area press; "locavore" was Oxford Dictionaries' word of the year, with press coverage, and wide usage including New York Times article; criticism of her work published in Esquire and National Geographic. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the legwork-based on that, I withdraw the nom.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:09, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_July_21&oldid=1142625701"