Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 July	27 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to The 1975. Consensus is to redirect, Any more edit wars and I'll have the page protected, Anyway consensus is to redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Healy[edit]

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

There is no indication that this singer is notable independently of the band he leads (The 1975). Per WP:MUSICBIO, Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases.

Until recently, the article was, in fact, redirected to The 1975, but edit warring over the redirect by various editors since then has led me to file an AfD to nail down consensus on independent notability. clpo13_(talk) 23:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The 1975 as not independently notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The 1975. The lead paragraph says "He is best known for being the lead singer and guitarist for the English Alternative rock band The 1975." and nowhere in the article is there any claim of independent notability. --Slashme (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The 1975. Not notable outside of the band. Yeepsi (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 1975. I was looking for other work he has prominently done, other things he is known for, but I came up empty. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 1975. Per above. Sources do not suggest independent notability. Grayfell (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect to the 1975, agree with everyone else here. 108.44.51.127, the IP who started the article, possibly might be the same person as currently blocked User:Wasabi,the,one, whose block was extended due to trying to evade it at Special:Contributions/108.44.59.56. Sro23 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that this will be redirected as of now, but we're talking about the quite heavily written about singer of one of the biggest pop bands of today here. Matthew gets a lot of coverage via showbiz and celebrity sort of sources, and a number of things he has said have proved to be controversial. Naturally, this coverage does mention the band, but it's quite clearly about his words and his opinions, and for that I deem him to be clearly independently notable. (Please note that he's often called Matty Healy in the press, not Matthew.) Some examples of coverage:

Solo interview with Teen Vogue

ELLE coverage (note the band is only mentioned in around paragraph ten)

Daily Mirror showbiz coverage

Solo interview with Billboard

GQ magazine feature on him

Interview with Los Angeles Times

There's quite a lot more out there, too, but these are all either substantial interviews with him alone, or press coverage of him and his actions. He's a quite famous, well-known young celebrity who definitely warrants his own article. Just my view. KaisaL (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that interviews are not generally considered useful for notability, as they are not independent of the subject. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Healy has had quite a bit of controversy surrounding him, as well as some quite heavily publicised issues with mental illness and drug addiction, thus making him notable independently notable. A lot d of articles on the band also tend to focus on him specifically and his personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.117.70 (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The 1975. Clearly all the interviews and articles point towards him being a member of the band. Unless he goes solo or archives Freddie Mercury type of notoriety, this is all WP:TOOSOON and can all be covered in the main article. And his name is Matthew Healy. The British music press has a tendency to stick a lot of names on people (Morrissey as Mozzer etc.) that is considered unencyclopaedic. Karst (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by SpacemanSpiff per WP:A10, "Article where the only content is already existing in another article and where a redirect to the existing article would be implausible". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Repally Shiva Praveen Kumar[edit]

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

Contentfork of Dr Repally Shiva Praveen Kumar, that already is on AfD als failing WP:GNG and failing to show notability. The Banner talk 23:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CONTENTFORK Please see already deleted page (per G11 unambiguous advertising): [1] Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Repally Shiva Praveen Kumar[edit]

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

failsWP:GNG, no indication of notability The Banner talk 23:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing here suggests notability but more like self aggrandisement. No references show anything other than local awareness, and most are unacceptable YouTube clips. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources cited do nothing to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see that an article on R. S. Praveen Kumar was speedied two days ago. Maproom (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also previously created and speedily deleted as Dr Repalle Shiva Praveen Kumar. Nthep (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable Indian doctor. Engleham (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's a police officer, not a doctor. But he's still not notable. Maproom (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article Dr. R S Praveen Kumar was speedy deleted today. Ca2james (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His claim to notability is that he became secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (APSWREI Society_ but there aren't sufficient sources that provide significant coverage of him. If there was an APSWREI Society article, I'd suggest redirecting this article to that one. Ca2james (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still advertorial and also then nothing actually convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and a puff piece so also fails WP:SPAM. ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No notability, no verifiability. Millbug ^talk 04:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to bring to your notice that I have given the reference for the Indian Police Medal^[1] and Gallantry^[2]. Hence, I request you to consider this content or article as original and remove from the speedy delete option. And I request you to give me suggestions to improve it for better content.Shanker Sampangi (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is recipient of Police Medal (India) from Government of India in 2011. Hence he is a notable person according to Wiki notability guidelines. We can remove the deletion log for this distinguished police officer.Rajasekhar1961 06:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Police Medal is certainly not a high enough award for inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ma'am i have given sufficient reference but what actually i want add in this project?

could you please suggest me. Shanker Sampangi (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, He is also recipient of Police Medal for Gallantry in 2002 ^[3] he is a notable person according to Wikipedia guidelines.. Hence i request you to remove the deletion log for this distinguished Administrator as well as Police officer from India.^[4]15:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Shanker Sampangi (talk)
Speedy Delete. Sources cited do nothing to establish notability. he Police Medal is certainly not a high enough award for inherent notability Uncletomwood (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for not to delete Dear sir i have clearly mentioned that the Indian Police Medal^[5] and also The Police Medal for Gallantry^[6] both are highly reputed Medals in Indian Police Service^[7]. if you have any doubt you please read those two referencesShanker Sampangi (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is also recipient of John Kenneth Galbraith Fellowship^[8] from Harvard Kennedy School^[9], Harvard University, USA 2011. Hence i request you to remove the deletion log. Shanker Sampangi (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Shanker Sampangi (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me check the sources: The Banner talk 17:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LIST OF AWARDEES OF GALLANTRY MEDALS ON THE OCCASION OF REPUBLIC DAY 2013: Not mentioned
Chedanam: A blog is not a reliable source conform WP:RS. He is mentioned, but the list is so fuzzy that it made nothing clear.
POLICE MEDAL FOR MERITORIOUS SERVICE INDEPENDENCE DAY-2011: Mentioned, but this is a medal for being a good boy, not gallantry
IPS officer dons role of student: man with a job is doing his job
Fellowships: no proof given

Here i am giving you proof of Fellowship^[1], another Proof for Police Medal Gallantry^[2]. Hence i request you to remove delete log. Shanker Sampangi (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/ Ma'am If you want check The Police Medal for Gallantry you please check in the website^[3] website provide you information regarding Police Medal for Gallantry. you please follow Name: R S Praveen Kumar, Year: 2002, State/ Organisation: Andhra Pradesh, Medal Name: Police Medal for Gallantry. I hope i have given sufficient details for your question.Shanker Sampangi (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here i am giving another proof for R S Praveen Kumar IPS for recognition of his notability^[4], He is also recipient of Sakshi Excellence Award in 2014 as Telugu Person of the Year Dr. R. S. Praveen Kumar ^[5]. Hence i request you to remove deletion log.14.139.86.99 (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)14.139.86.99 (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.V.Bheemasena Rao[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Some zamindari certainly are notable but I can find nothing to indicate that being so in this case. Sitush (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Title of nobility as the only keep pro. Millbug ^talk 04:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Islamic theological jurisprudence. HyperGaruda and Eperoton make good points about how this could be a valid search term in jurisprudence. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fiqh al ibadat[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a bad translation of the linked article on the Arabic WP, which is also completely unsourced. The subject is a major field of Islamic jurisprudence, but this version is barely intelligible WP:OR and calls for a WP:TNT deletion. Eperoton (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to fiqh (or maybe another target, see down below) per Eperoton. Half of this article is about fiqh (jurisprudence) in general. The other half about fiqh al-ibadat is just one field of jurisprudence, specifically that which deals with matters of worship. In that sense, I wonder if it is the same as Islamic theological jurisprudence. Said article, however, links to ar:مناسخة‎, but I am unable to understand Arabic sufficiently to tell the difference. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic theological jurisprudence is not a category I've seen before. Theology (what one should believe) and jurisprudence (what one should do) are different fields in traditional Islamic studies. Fiqh al-Ibadat is usually translated as laws dealing with matters of ritual, worship, and the like. I've just deleted a bizarre coatrack section about legal maturity from it. When Fiqh al ibadat article gets deleted, I'll create a stub for Fiqh al-Ibadat and we can delete Islamic theological jurisprudence too. The interlanguage links are completely off-the-wall (مناسخة is a term from inheritance law). So, to sum up, yes to redirecting to Fiqh for now. Eperoton (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. After more thought, I've requested a move of Islamic theological jurisprudence to Islamic ritual jurisprudence. So, we can redirect to Islamic theological jurisprudence and the bot will fix the double redirect later. Eperoton (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as original essay and unreferenced. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panyam Vuppu Vanaja Bai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. She appears to have been a local politician of no particular note. Sitush (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no RS found in my search results. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete~~keep: Looks like she is a state-level politician, not a local level one. If so, I think NPOL applies, as we most certainly keep articles on US State-level politicians.~~ Willing to reconsider my position upon further discussion. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Change to delete per Sitush. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: No. She was at best a politician in her town. She was never elected to the state assembly, nor have I even found evidence that she stood for it, despite the misleading "Panyam constituency" mention. - Sitush (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Lamas[edit]

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

Subject does not have much coverage to constitute notability. No significant accomplishments aside from some low-level exhibits TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find additional sources to constitute notability.ALongStay (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven (Inna song)[edit]

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

Article was the subject of an RfC held on its Talk page, in which it was decided to convert the article into a redirect. The primary contributors have ignored the finding of the RfC, restoring (and adding to) the article whenever it is converted to a redirect. Am bringing this here to get resolution to the situtation. The particular issue is whether the song has received independent coverage sufficient to meet the guidance set forth in WP:NSONGS. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ignored the finding? That RfC closed the same week of the song's release, nearly two months ago. That song wasn't notable enough two months ago to warrant an entire article, but it does now. There are several upon several independent sources regarding the single within the article, to which the challengers have seemed to ignore. There's my two cents. Carbrera (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inna discography (as nominator). Much of this article is filler. Most of the Promotion section is sourced to the YouTube video for the song, the Track Listing section gives a table for the download's sole track, and the prose in the Chart section gives a week-by-week account of the songs chart's performance. But the real issue is whether the song has received the significant coverage from "multiple, non-trivial published sources" called for under WP:NSONGS. The article section that discusses the critical response is largely given over to a single review in People Magazine (the Zambian publication, not the U.S. one). That review contains mostly press-release information on the recording and the video, and devotes only three sentences to a discussion of the song itself. Indeed, the article here uses more words to describe what the reviewer said than were used in the review itself. As for the other two sources quoted (Outland and Urban.ro), the brief statements that appear in the article here are essentially the only things that were said by the sources. So, the question is whether these three brief statements satisfy the requirements for a stand-alone article. I think they do not. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is much work that has undergone to this article. I found several sources regarding its structure, reception and so on. I think, the article would have been notable even if it wouldn't have charted anywhere, but it actually did. Hitmixes is like pretty much the same length, even shorter, but it is allowed to stand alone there. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The RFC was closed nearly a month ago and the article looked like this, A month later it now looks like this, The article has been significantly improved and sourced since it's creation and since the RFC, Quite frankly I don't see any valid reason for deleting (If the RFC was 2 weeks ago then fine but it was a month ago!). –Davey2010^Talk 21:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsher Singh Sandhu[edit]

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

BLP with no references Rathfelder (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to establish notability for this person found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A writer is not automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because he exists, especially if that article is unsourced and has some advertorial undertones — rather, a writer earns a Wikipedia article only when he can be reliably sourced over WP:AUTHOR for one or more specific accomplishments, or at least passing WP:GNG on the volume of sourcing available. But nothing written here gives him a pass, and proper sources don't seem to be available to support any of it. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachin15 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is not noting anything. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches and examinations are not finding better. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Public (band)[edit]

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

The page appears to be a long-lived hoax. Not only do no references exist for the subject itself, the additional supposed bands listed in the article (Galactic Armageddon, The Chompies, Lights Out Gang, Cakewalk Champion) also appear to be fictitious, generating no clear Google results apart from Wikipedia and mirrors. Even if the band did exist, which appears doubtful, there is no evidence that it ever released a single or album or otherwise received coverage in WP:RS. Thus, the article also appears to fail WP:NMUSIC and WP:V. Calamondin12 (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if, and I say if, found not to be a hoax; no RS citing and not notable at all. Kierzek (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: looking at the article history, I suspect this may have started out as a bit of self-publicity for a high school band, and has been "hoaxified" by other editors over the years. But regardless, they fail WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zvi Band[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The references do not establish the subject's notability. ubiquity (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for a stand alone article and reads like a promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Exemplo347 (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Management & Social Sciences[edit]

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

Has been at AfD before, which was closed as no consensus after several relistings and hardly any participation in the discussion. No new sources have been forthcoming. In fact, the journal seems to have disappeared since then. Still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. I know there was "no consensus" before, but it has no RS citing and does not convey any real information; a very minor stub. When looking at the "view history" section, it does not show any meaningful work in years, as far as improvement of information or improvement in relation to being a notable subject for an article. Kierzek (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first AfD included an argument that DOAJ is selective but I don't buy that: it is selective merely in the fact that it has some definition of "open access" that listed journals must obey, and that's not good enough. No other sign of notability is evident, per WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the journal on the web here: [2]. The DOAJ is not a selective index as pertains to WP:NJOURNALS. Whoever Ivoted that it is selective before didn't understand selective according to standards set by Wikipedia and NJOURNALS. Hence, not listed in any selective data bases and no impact factor. Also, this journal apparently ceased publication in 2013 - according to its webpage (see link). So, it has no historical value either.Steve Quinn (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Change to DAB page as essentially no one has objected to this and no one is vying for actually keeping it altogether, it makes sense as a page for each of the brothers and such, I'll change it as such (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bankhead Brothers[edit]

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

Individual these players are notable. However, I have not found any sources which credit them as notable because of their relationships to each other. Any sources are devoted to the individual brothers, not as one uniform group. ALongStay (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into a DAB page or delete. The only similar situation I can think of off the top of my head is the Alou family, and that article is weak itself. The nominated article serves no benefit to the reader except maybe as a definition of who the players are, so maybe a DAB page is appropriate. Rgrds. --64.85.216.235 (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the hockey side there is at least one similar article on the Sutter family. This probably shouldn't be a standalone article but may make sense as a DAB page, in case this term is used in works covering the history of the Negro Leagues. Rlendog (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Banks and Bayley[edit]

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

Article about two subjects (Sasha Banks and Bayley (wrestler)) that does not meaningfully contribute any more information than what can be added in the two individual articles. —Latchem 20:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it contains no references and does not proclaim notability of the pair separate from what their individual articles already cover (WP:BIO). Pianoman320 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for this article unless the pair is notable AS A PAIR, and the total lack of references argues against this. ubiquity (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tagged the article for speedy deletion under section A10 speedy deletion criteria. —Latchem 20:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fast as possible - such a team doesn't exist (yet). Str1977 ^(talk) 21:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Somalia Province[edit]

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

~~Another promotional article.~~ There's no such a province or Walayah. The subject does not pass WP:GNG. Mhhossein (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - Group clearly meets the general notability guidelines, has carried out at least three attacks in the last week in Mogadishu and Baidoa. this editor is an iranian shiite with a conflict of interest who goes around proposing deletion of all IS pages claiming they are not notable, despite them obviously being notable, he is a malicious vandalSmith1122 (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnotable "provinces" should simply be listed under the article ISIL territorial claims. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - However as Mhhossein says, there is no "Somalia province" claimed by IS, they just have a number of followers there. Gazkthul (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, your keep is meaningless when you admit that there's no such province! Mhhossein (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be kept with a renamed title. Gazkthul (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are also ISIL followers in existence within the United States and France, but this does not justify the existence of articles such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – American Province or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – French Province. As I argue below, the existence of a terrorist "province" in a state is a controversial claim that needs coverage beyond the existence of supporters in the given state. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the presence in Somalia, while nascent, is more concrete and notable than some followers or sleeper agents living in the West. For example [3][4] an ISIL media outlet recently released a video showing a rudimentary training camp, a claim of responsibility for an attack, and a pledge of loyalty by an ex-Shabab commander, under the name Jund al-Khilāfah in Somalia (Not Somalia Province). Gazkthul (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Spirit of Eagle as an appropriate notification. --Mhhossein (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has not any reliable source to confirm its notability. In the all sections of the article, lead is about the title and has not source. Another parts of this article is about ISIL that has separate article.Saff V. (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claiming that a terrorist organization is running a political entity from territory it took over from a sovereign nation is a pretty major claim that requires substantial reliable sources to back up. Now there are actually numerous sources covering ISIL activity in Somalia, but the sole source referring to the existence of the supposed province is ISIL propaganda (I am not kidding about this either, the entity's name is literally sourced to ISIL propaganda in the article). Furthermore, the article on Al-Shabaab (which actually does control substantial rural territory tens of times more members than ISIL in Somalia) does not actually refer to the group as a sovereign entity, so I think it is absolute ridiculous to refer to ISIL in Somalia as one. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Refugee. Consensus was that there is a lack of clarity around the scope of an article concerning this topic as named. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim refugees[edit]

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

Article serves no purpose other than to say that there are Muslim refugees. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All this can ever be is a dictionary definition: "A Muslim refugee is a refugee who is a Muslim." Of course notable groups of Muslim refugees through history should each have their own article. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, Muslim refugees is a likely search term and shouldn't be a redlink. If we decide we don't want this content, a redirect target will be required.—S Marshall T/C 19:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Refugee. Not only does it manage to be a WP:COATRACK, which is no mean feat for a stub, it is also redundant in principle, given the plethora of articles about Muslim refugees linked from Refugee and no rationale for grouping these refugees together except their religion. Eperoton (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "Delete & redirect to Refugee" -- yes, please. Definitely issues of coatrack going on. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DICDEF, then redirect to Muhajir or Refugee. We don't need a Christian refugee, Buddhist refugee, etc. article when each article should deal with specific countries, phenomena, and instances. For example, we have Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, Refugees of the Syrian Civil War, and Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50). GAB^gab 23:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page used to be a redirect to Mujahir, but probably Muhajir was meant. ~~Perhaps that is a better target?~~ - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhajir means "emigrant" rather than "refugee", and it's laden with religous and historical connotations due to its connection to the Hejira. The standard word for refugee in modern Arabic is laji'. This is going somewhat off-topic, but the Muhajir article should be turned into a disambiguation page that lists the Arabic meaning plus links to articles directly related to the term "muhaijr", with all the unsourced links to random emigrant and refugee groups removed. P.S. I went ahead and did that. Eperoton (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, yes. By the way, Muhajir was actually meant to be a dab page until someone removed the dab note in December 2014. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a thing, but it is such a mess that it is unclear what the thing is or that people have been made into refugees on account on their being Muslim per se. Both the sources and this discussion do not clarify the matter. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content of the article into Muhajirun.Saff V. (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything to merge. All the (scant) material in Muslim refugees relevant to Muhajirun is already covered there. Eperoton (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current article is a tautology followed by a WP:COATRACK pair of WP:DICDEFs. I can't see where it would redirect to. It's more of a category than an article topic; there isn't any clear common thread around which to unite coverage of the 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis, refugees of the Syrian Civil War, and the 17th century expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain in the same article. Largoplazo (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to VGN Developers. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pratish Devadoss[edit]

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

I actually PRODed this in May but it was removed with the apparent basis of news sources but both examining this and my own searches found nothing convincing aside from trivial mentions at local news stories. Notifying recent taggers DGG and Uncletomwood. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to company. Seems obvious solution. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThank You SwisterTwister. The person is nonnotable and the references contain only trivial mentions. Uncletomwood (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to VGN Developers. The subject does not meet WP:BASIC per sources searches, but the name is a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Adni[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. A single mention in a online column does not prove notability. All the other references are self-published or promotional. ubiquity (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) Delete as I reviewed this in December and would've PRODed sooner even, but I was uninterested in having it boldly removed. There's still nothing at all actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tepid delete. Most of the coverage I saw was in tabloids like Metro, which is useless, but I did find this article. I'm not familiar with UPROXX the other one I could find, although its WIki page does say it has editorial oversight, and isn't just a blog. If there were a few more reviews of his single, I'd change my vote to keep. Yvarta (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable musician. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually convincing for his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete charitably, it is much WP:TOOSOON. he posts on youtube. lacks RS .E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Bangladesh Province[edit]

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

Not notable and does not pass WP:GNG! ~~The article seems to be promotional~~. Mhhossein (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I have not yet evaluated the notability of the organization, I'm not sure if the article is indeed promotional. GAB^gab 13:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - Group clearly meets the general notability guidelines, has carried out many attacks. this editor is an iranian shiite with a conflict of interest who goes around proposing deletion of all IS pages claiming they are not notable, despite them obviously being notable, he is a malicious vandalSmith1122 (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnotable "provinces" should simply be listed under the article ISIL territorial claims. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The content is notable, however the article title is incorrect, IS does not refer to the Bangladesh group as a province. Gazkthul (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, your keep is meaningless when you admit that there's no such province! Mhhossein (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be kept with a renamed title. Gazkthul (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Spirit of Eagle as an appropriate notification. --Mhhossein (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has not any reliable source to confirm its notability. Also, first sentence of the article that define this province, has citation need tag. Also, most of ISIL province are fighting and fate of these places are unclear.Saff V. (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read through a lot of sources covering ISIL activity in Bangladesh. Most of the sources cited within the article discuss terrorist attacks that took place within Bangladesh that ISIL claims responsibility for, but local and national authorities claim are from indigenous terrorist groups. I did find a single article discussing a legitimate ISIL cell operating within Bangladesh [5]. However, ISIL does not actually control territory in Bangladesh, nor are there sources covering the supposed province in Bangladesh (even in terms of the province consisting of ISIL supporters as the article claims).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's simply just too soon for some folks to have a biographical article, as is the case here. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny DeGennaro[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. AFAICT from his IMDB page, he has no credited named roles, just roles like "Thug #2", "Perp #1", and "Soldier #1". Sources in the article are all self-published, can't find any independent coverage. Kolbasz (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too Soon for an independent article since he seems to be in the beginning of his acting career with many uncredited and background roles. In veritas (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say do not Delete Not Too Soon for an independent article since he has had recurring roles on some notable TV shows. Not every character has a name on TV. 2606:6000:6690:5E00:F114:618D:2762:7D4B (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC) — 2606:6000:6690:5E00:F114:618D:2762:7D4B (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete As of present has not had enough significant roles to be considered a notable actor. Sro23 (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma State–Baylor football rivalry[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a supposed rivalry between two football teams. I've searched for sources but the only one I can find reliable sources about is a rivalry between Baylor and TCU (and even then the clubs deny it) [6] Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable rivalry, the 2 teams involved are hardly famous outside of their location for starters. Seasider91 (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two programs are in power five leagues and have played in BCS and other major bowl games the past five years, so yes they are big programs however, that doesn't mean this is a rivalry.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite playing in the same conference there are no citations demonstrating a rivalry, and from living in the area OSU fans typically don't consider the game a rivalry.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, no sources found that discusses this. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two teams in the same conference do not constitute a notable rivalry.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A set of regularly-scheduled meetings does not automatically constitute a rivarly, and without any indication that this is considered one by third-party sources, this is non-notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qamar Al-Hamdani[edit]

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

PROD removed by page's creator. Subject lacks significant notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tried and failed to source it in English. Article is about a genealogist who has written 3 books about his own ancestors. (I have a 2nd cousin twice removed who writes books like that, and my cousin isn't notable either. Even though he says that some of his ancestors were.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and NAUTHOR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 18:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Početni Entuzijazam[edit]

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

Nothing at all actually suggesting the needed significant notability and my searches and examinations found nothing better at all; I'll note there's no Bosnian equivalent. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pešes[edit]

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

Nothing currently actually suggesting the needed substance as my searches and examinations found nothing and that's not surprising since there's apparently only 1 album. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Von Eich[edit]

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

Not a notable artist. The roles done are very minor roles. Failure of WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's not even enough for a stub. He made a movie, so what? Bearian (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" makes no sense. Sandstein 19:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spirgai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The 2 references added do not prove notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An element of a cuisine is an element of cuisine improve but certainly don"t take it off the menuMasterknighted (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem with establishing notability for this dish is that there is a paucity of English sources. The one book cited, by Martin Scheffer, has just a passing mention. Searches just don't turn up reliable sources in English. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, don't need to be English sources ie. WP:NONENG - "Citations to non-English sources are allowed on English Wikipedia. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, Coolabahapple, I did not know that one. Perhaps a Lithuanian speaker can evaluate the mentioned that turn up in a gNews search. They look to me like non-reliable sources, but I can't be sure, as I am not conversant in Lithuanian. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus, although limited participation DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Sustain[edit]

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

Notability not established. No reliable sources added since Notability tag added in 2009. Searches don't bring up any mainstream media coverage. Nick Number (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real coverage found. Allmusic entry suggests he mixed a few tracks, IMDB states that he appeared in a documentary. Nothing that would really justify an article. --Michig (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to It's Showtime (variety show). I never close on one !vote however redirect is always preferred over deletion and as this has been relisted 3 times it seems better to just redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hashtags (dancers)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as what I know, I don't think this dance group has any other involvements outside It's Showtime, probably a case of WP:TOOSOON.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It's Showtime (variety show) I found a source for verification [7], but this is way WP:TOOSOON and also a 1E at this point. A redirect is appropriate here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Loss given default. Consensus is to redirect to Loss given default (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery amount[edit]

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

Just a definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The quantity is more commonly known as the recovery rate in the financial risk industry. I cannot find RS using recovery amount as anything more than a vague synonym, so cannot recommend a redirect here. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bankruptcy, where the concept comes into play.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Loss given default or Bankruptcy. This is such an obscure topic that it makes no sense to have its own stub. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a dictionary. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but to Loss given default, not Bankruptcy-, which is much too broad an article and does not I think actually provide any information on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus Henderson (computer scientist)[edit]

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

Non-notable computer scientist. The single reference in the article is clearly unreliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable computer scientist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This BIO article from 2006 is, well, from another era. Interestingly, this article was tagged in its first, originating edit, as being questionable in its notability. It seems to me that this was a test of sorts, checking the bounds of what notability was going to be defined to be. And/or a reaction to article Fergus Henderson, about a chef, exploring how disambiguation would be done. The entire current text content is:
Fergus Henderson (born 1971) is a computer scientist who was one of the original developers of the Mercury programming language. He is the maintainer for Distcc.^[6] / He now lives in the UK works for Google in London, England. He currently a tech lead on the TTS team where he works on services and tools for speech synthesis and speech recognition.

References

^ http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra_pradesh/article380542.ece?service=print
^ http://mha1.nic.in/vhs/default.aspx
^ http://mha1.nic.in/vhs/default.aspx
^ http://www.civilsocietyonline.com/hall-of-fame/praveen-kumar-officer-on-a-dream-mission/
^ http://www.sakshiexcellenceawards.com/pages/winners/2014/mainawards/43914864TELUGU%20PERSON%20OF%20THE%20YEAR.pdf
^ Pool, Martin (6 June 2008). "new distcc maintainer: Fergus Henderson". distcc (Mailing list). Retrieved 2008-06-11.

It is not enough to establish notability by the BIO standards that have since evolved. --do ncr am 22:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EconJobRumors[edit]

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

Nothing actually suggestive of the needed independent notability and my searches have found nothing better at all, the apparent best source is NYTimes but it never actually mentions this by name. SwisterTwister talk 00:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. referred to a very few times, but not notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Decepticons. MBisanz ^talk 13:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadwing[edit]

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

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I'm seeing no evidence of notability. I'm not particularly opposed to a merge if anyone feels that there is something worth merging. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 13:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Driver (band)[edit]

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

The only cited source which is reliable, is not about this subject. A passing mention in a gig guide is not enough to establish notability. The "referenciness" is provided by blogs and MySpace, which obviously does not establish notability either. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliably-sourced popularity within the steampunk scene would potentially meet point seven of WP:NMUSICIAN, but I can't really see any evidence that isn't just hyperbole for the purposes of a single review via an unreliable source. More importantly, their festival spots suggest that they were clearly a small, non-notable band - if you're only opening the Cambridge Folk Festival you're unlikely to meet any of our criteria. KaisaL (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you appreciate what a major event the Cambridge Folk Festival is (and has been for decades)? I would see an opening slot there as a notability pass for any band, just on that basis alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known on the UK steampunk scene for several years, repeatedly played the main festivals, released physical copy recordings. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few festival appearances, a few plays on the radio, but barely any coverage in reliable sources. I don't really see a case for inclusion here. --Michig (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both noteworty and unique not to mention sui generisMasterknighted (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy (video gamer)[edit]

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

An eSports player, not clear that he passes WP:GNG and has had a notability tag since May. There's a huge pile of sources, but they're all from the same websites and none of them are reliable sources, and most of them are heavily dedicated to niche interest. The vast majority of content in the article is detail about his eSports activities with a ton of red links. He has won a couple of competitions but I am not satisfied that this alone asserts notability. KaisaL (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nomination alludes to, the sourcing is a bit misleading, with most sources not looking to be an WP:RS, or barely mention the subject himself at all - passing mentions. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Star player of a team that won two CS:GO Majors and reached the final of another, the highest level in the esport. Gets coverage in mainstream sources like L'Express: [8]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think this is a bad argument, I note having translated the link you've given that he's one of a team being interviewed and there's no actual write-up about him. This doesn't confer his individual notability, at best it supports that of the team and potentially merging any viable information into that article. KaisaL (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Combined with widely available reports reporting from sources likely ESPN, Daily Dot, and other esports, plus his stature as the captain of a former #1 team in one of the biggest esports in the world would be enough IMHO for it to meet WP:BASIC.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely" ESPN etc? In short, you don't actually know one way or another? Sorry, but qualifying sources providing "significant coverage" to the subject (as opposed to casual mentions among a bunch of other guys) is what meets the GNG, not these WP:ROUTINE fleeting mentions, and if you think that L'Express link constitutes qualifying coverage, I urge you to review WP:GNG. Failing anyone providing those sources -- as opposed to blithely assuming they must exist -- make mine Delete. Ravenswing 13:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just like it's likely you would find extensive coverage of a major sports figure in publications covering that sport, it's likely you would find extensive coverage of a major e-sports figure in publications covering that e-sport. A Google News search of Happy EnVyUs CSGO gets 636 hits and a Google News search of Happy LDLC CSGO gets 176]. Many of these are in passing, but there is enough in-depth coverage specifically focused on Happy (some examples of which I've added to the article) to pass WP:BASIC, which says that even if there is a lack of sources with deep coverage, extensive non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources can also be used to demonstrate notability.

The point of using the L'Express source is that people tend to vote to delete esports players no matter how much coverage they get from reliable, e-sports coverage, if mainstream sources don't cover them (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD. Since a mainstream source like L'Express chose to interview him, it brings legitemacy to the idea that maybe he should have an article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What brings legitimacy to a person having an article is receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. I really don't give a damn whether someone's name is dropped in the Times of London or the Washington Post -- if he does not receive significant coverage, then the sources do not support the notability of the subject. Period. Ravenswing 03:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments are also per Ravenswing. When significant reliable coverage dedicated to the individual (not their team) is raised I am happy to consider - hence my shift to a weak delete on Allu's concurrent AFD. KaisaL (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage in reliable sources as well as mainstream, presumably print sources like L'Express. [9] The L'express article is a interview with Happy and teammate KennyS, and even though it's not entirely about him the fact that it's a mainstream print news magazine means it gives the subject a lot more merit.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A mainstream news article that makes it clear that Happy's play for EnVyUs had made them arguably the best team in the world at the time. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is not enough in sources to prove independent notability outside of a team. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to TISM. MBisanz ^talk 13:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collected Recordings 1986–1993[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TISM, insufficient material available for a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to TISM. MBisanz ^talk 13:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Serious Mum (album)[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect' to band article, notable group, not-so notable album editorEهեইдအ😎 23:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested nomination. MBisanz ^talk 13:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boys in the Hoods[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

<--

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incontinent in Ten Continents[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NasssaNser 09:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot seem to find a single source, present or contemporary, which states anything about this video. There are a couple of fan sites with a little bit about it, but no reliable sources. Unless someone else can find something, this seems like a clear deletion. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

-->

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 18:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TISM Television Primer[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested nomination. MBisanz ^talk 13:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoddy & Poor[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to TISM. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Form and Meaning Reach Ultimate Communion[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 03:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TISM seems to have insufficient material to support a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Great Truckin' Songs of the Renaissance. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

40 Years – Then Death[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Great Truckin' Songs of the Renaissance. Ca2james (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ca2james, seems to have insufficient material to support a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Great Truckin' Songs of the Renaissance. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballad of John Bonham's Coke Roadie[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Great Truckin' Songs of the Renaissance (the song's album). Ca2james (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ca2james, seems to have insufficient material to support a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Great Truckin' Songs of the Renaissance. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Interested in Apathy[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Great Truckin' Songs of the Renaissance (the song's album). Ca2james (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ca2james, seems to have insufficient material to support a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Great Truckin' Songs of the Renaissance. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Palsy[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Great Truckin' Songs of the Renaissance (the song's album). Ca2james (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ca2james, seems to have insufficient material to support a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Great Truckin' Songs of the Renaissance. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Scorsese Is Really Quite a Jovial Fellow[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Great Truckin' Songs of the Renaissance (the song's album). Ca2james (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ca2james, seems to have insufficient material to support a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hot Dogma. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Want TISM, I Want a Girlfriend[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hot Dogma, which is also up for AfD but because it charted in Australia, will likely be kept. Ca2james (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hot Dogma per Ca2james: if that article is kept, if not redirect to TISM; seems to have insufficient material to support a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to De RigueurMortis. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If You're Not Famous at Fourteen, You're Finished[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to De RigueurMortis (the song's album). Ca2james (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ca2james. Not sufficient material available for a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect most of the current article content is unsourced, couldn't find significant material published in reliable sources, fails notability|music, see no harm in a redirect. Gab4gab (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Www.tism.wanker.com. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbirds Are Coming Out[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to www.tism.wanker.com (the song's album). Ca2james (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ca2james, seems to have insufficient material to support a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hot Dogma. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Western Civilisation[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hot Dogma, which is at AfD but will probably be kept. Ca2james (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hot Dogma per Ca2james: if that article is kept, if not redirect to TISM; seems to have insufficient material to support a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hot Dogma. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Form a Company[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hot Dogma which is at AfD but will probably be kept because it charted in Australia. Ca2james (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hot Dogma per Ca2james: if that article is kept, if not redirect to TISM; seems to have insufficient material to support a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Machiavelli and the Four Seasons. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage (song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Machiavelli and the Four Seasons. This track is not notable enough by itself to warrant a separate article, but I think a footnote about it on the album's page (specifically under the "singles" subheader) is probably warranted. (Unfortunately, this means the single's awesome cover art will have to be deleted as an orphaned fair use image, but I guess that's just how it rolls sometimes.) Kurtis ^(talk) 06:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Machiavelli and the Four Seasons (the song's album). Ca2james (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Machiavelli and the Four Seasons per Kurtis; seems to have insufficient verifiable material to support a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Www.tism.wanker.com. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yob (song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourceable. Not worth redirecting from this title. --Michig (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to www.tism.wanker.com (the song's album). Ca2james (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to www.tism.wanker.com per Ca2james; seems to have insufficient verifiable material to support a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Chamber of Commerce in Turkey[edit]

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

promotional article with no evidence of notability , though there are sure to be trivial notices of its activity to be found. As for promotionalism , "lists several exclusive events throughout the year for its members, all planned to help its members’ businesses develop. The events provide extensive networking opportunities, allowing members and guests to listen to the views of prominent investment and business figures and facilitate the building of sector specific platforms." This was an AfC, but the ed. just moved it to mainspace themselves, thus defeating the purpose.

And any article containing a link like this "Click to see the AmCham Turkey/ABFT's Board of Directors." is obviously closely adapted from a website which links to subpages in that fashion. Apart from an improper format of a link to an outside source, "Click to see" is not WP style. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I'm having a difficult time deciding here. On the one hand, I actually do think that there is some credible assertion of notability ("AmCham Turkey/ABFT represents 125 or more U.S. member firms with investments over $50 billion having created more than 60.000 jobs in Turkey"), but to the extent where it is viable for inclusion? That I'm not sure of. If AmCham Turkey is to be kept, then it needs a major overhaul with plenty of reliable third-party sources to establish its significance, as well as a near-complete rewrite so that it reads less like a brochure and more like an article. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep am chams helps establishing companies from US and this one is a notable one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachin15 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herry Tangiri[edit]

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

Autobio of an actor who has had a number of minor roles (presented as "lead" in the article, but I cannot find that he has actually had a lead role). Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. The article has been deleted as spam under the title Henry Tangdi; the spam has been mostly removed but that only makes the lack of notability more apparent. --bonadea contributions talk 19:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC) bonadea contributions talk 19:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of his roles to date (per IMdB) are single-named persons, giving me the idea that his roles might be of the Redshirt (character) type, that is, very run of the mill, supporting roles. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As WP:TOOSOON now but no prejudice to recreation later. I found a source [10] which says that the actor may enact a lead character soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venco Campus[edit]

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

Plain advertising, selfpromo, doubtful notability. Was put up for speedy deletion as plain advertising, but the author does not agree with that The Banner talk 14:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with respect to the existing article, which is excessively promotional while lacking a sufficient demonstration that the building's notability can be established by reference to independent reliable sources. This unusual building might actually be notable for its egg shape and technological innovation (reflecting the company's business and its apparent reputation for egg-ceptional design innovations [11]), but the two Dutch news articles included as sources [12][13] don't seem to make the case strongly, while the rest of the sources appear to be non-independent, and I was unable to come up with stronger sources in English. If someone can turn up some coverage in architectural journals, or more thorough news coverage in Dutch or otherwise, an article might be, er, sustainable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The description of the rather routine infrastructure of a commercial building is not an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juhan Kallaste[edit]

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

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N; most of what is here and findable online is routine coverage following a brief burst of interest in his extreme age and subsequent death. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing of encyclopedic value in this article. None of the refs are in English, so I'll AGF about whether the "facts" in this article actually appear in the sources. But even if they do, one sentence says "Kallaste's age has not been validated by any international body" and another says "...he changed his name in 1935 and there were claims that he was six years younger but made himself older to avoid the Soviet mobilisation during World War II...." That's hardly the stuff of encyclopedias.
And then there's this doozy: "He spent his last years in an old people's home in Viljandi.[1] In his last two weeks, he lay in bed but was not in pain. He had not walked around for a long time but went to the toilet himself some months before his death.[2]" OK, swell. Both sentences are specifically footnoted. Still, in my view, the facts themselves, though ascribed to a source, add nothing to our encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Being that he is believed to be the oldest Estonian ever male and was the oldest at tbe time of his death he represents in age a span of that culture just as other centarians and super centarians represent other cultures, by that barometer this artcle should stay Masterknighted (talk)

Delete. Lived, died. Nothing else. WP:BLP1E applies, as there's no sustained coverage to justify keeping the biography of someone who's only accomplishment that's been reported on is not dying. A dash of WP:PERMASTUB as well – when you start talking about that one time the article subject went poo and still can't get beyond stub length, that's indicative of something. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Went to the toilet himself some months before his death"? Are you fucking kidding me? E Eng 17:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 12:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic (Teairra Marí song)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable songs: Lack significant coverage in reliable sources. Songs should only have an individual article when there is enough material to warrant a detailed article.^{{{R from song}}} They could be redirected to the artist or the artist's discography as valid search terms. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly lacks the notability for a standalone article, although no objection to redirecting to Teairra Marí discography. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cause a Scene did at the very least chart. I believe there is potential for that. It may be that sources just need to be found from old magazines, newspapers, news website and entertainment websites.Rain the 1 19:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Charting is not sufficient. Charting only suggests that a song may be notable. Significant coverage in multiple non-trivial independent sources is still required.^WP:NSONG It must be demonstrated that such sourcing exists, not just speculation that it could or may. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand. Unless we look into it we will not know for sure. Personally may or could be due to a song charting is reasonable doubt not to hit the delete button. The article was created with minimal effort which put it in bad standing from the beginning. "Automatic" contains original research about the fellow singer Ashanti. I cannot find anything to support that claim. I cannot find much about it aside from blogs with bad editorial which are of no use here. The internet changes and sources disappear with link rot and such. I recall "Cause a Scene" gaining more coverage than this. Perhaps "Automatic" should be redirected and "Cause a Scene" given longer.Rain the 1 02:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for sources before starting this discussion. Don't just insist there could be sources, prove it. If significant coverage exists, then I have no problem with keeping the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asmahan Bitar[edit]

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

No indication of notability; sources are mostly directory entries that do not cover Bitar in any detail. prodded for that reason, prod removed without improvement. The Arabic source only quotes her about the state of dubbing in Lebanon but does not discuss Bitar in any detail. Huon (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete voice actors working doing dubbing work are rarely notable for such. We would need more than directory listings to show otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely un-notable. Engleham (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. non-notable, spam, disruptive editor, WP:Nothere I think all accounts now blocked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Rodríguez Macpherson[edit]

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

The page does not indicate with independent reliable sources how this musician meets notability guidelines. The only sources given are links to this person's albums for sale and/or video links. It also seems promotional in nature and has been edited by either the person themselves or at least one representative. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the two of the three usernames who have edited the page have been blocked as socks of the third name(the page creator). One of those socks had removed my CSD tag, which would be invalid since they seem to have been the page creator. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable subject as no RS can be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Sweetgreen. the contents is too promotional to keep; the redirect is sufficient DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Ru[edit]

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

Cannot see how the person has enough WP:RS to be notable. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Google results show Ru has got a lot of coverage in national publications such as New York Times, Bloomberg, FastCompany, Fortune and others. Those articles have info that aren't included in this article that could expand its detail. Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sweetgreen. coverage is about them, not him. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close comment - I originally closed as No Consensus however after a notice on my TP I've realized Music1201's relist didn't actually relist at all (IE it was on the old AFD log and not todays) and I never checked the date when I closed it .... so I've relisted it, and (in the nicest possible way) Music1201's relist should be ignored aswell, So this is still a third relist, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is covered significantly in reliable sources, the page just needs to be expanded. Meatsgains (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sweetgreen. Otherwise, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sweetgreen. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sweetgreen. This is a classic BLP1E. The coverage is more about the company and it seems the individual is not independently notable. A redirect should suffice here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already speedily deleted as patent nonsense.. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Donnegan[edit]

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

Might be a hoax. Might be in universe. Might be test page. Who knows? The only fact here is that this turns up with a lack of notability. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but to me seems like a candidate for speedy deletion without going through an AfD process so I have tagged it as such. Little info but from a search and the link in there, seems like this character appears in a lego ninja show. The main 6 characters are not notable enough to have their own article so can't see why this person would. On the lego ninja wiki, this person's entry is small compared to one of the main characters. Editor seems to have a number of unconstructive edits in their <100 edits. Rayman60 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. withdrawn by author DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akun Sabharwal[edit]

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

This was deleted, but the deletion has been challenged, so recreating to bring it here. I can't do better than repeat the original proposed deletion nomination text: Reason is he is a mid level police officer. not notable. Page is promotional and autobiographical with exaggerations. merely three references with refills. While we do have some biographies of very senior police officers—mainly those with direct responsibility for major metro areas—we've never usually hosted biographies of officials at this level. Plus, the article appears to be heavily padded with things which happened to occur on his watch, rather than things for which he was directly responsible. (For those not familiar with Indian police ranks, Deputy inspector general of police means "three levels down from the State police chief" and is equivalent to ACC in the British system or a Deputy Commissioner in the NYPD structure, and despite the name doesn't mean "second in command".) ‑ Iridescent 15:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non-Notable mid-level police official of a city Uncletomwood (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not sure why we get so many articles on mid-level civil servants in India. Either they pop up more for some reason, or people are better at deleting them. Although I have to admit I have seen a fair number of articles on unnotable politicians in the US as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's definitely a flood of Indian pages which meet no measure of notability and which need to be more closely monitored to avoid compromising the project. Engleham (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rewrite Some of the references are credible reportage. Without judging solely by the rank/status, won't it be logical to consider the commendable contributions made the subject? Curlzon (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What "commendable contributions"? Even if you don't discount all the puffery in the article, he sounds like a completely generic middle-manager. ‑ Iridescent 22:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please Delete no hard feelings, I made the contribution in good faith, but if it is not an encyclopedic subject yet, shouldn't be kept. Slu tsu (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVL Trees in Managed C++[edit]

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

As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVL Trees in C++. —Ruud 14:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Audero[edit]

(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. Contest rationale was He had been already included in the first squad for entire 2015-16 season. As a third goalkeeper, usually you have few opportunity to play. Also this article is under construction. None of this changes the fact that the article does not meet either of the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG). Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would request a late deletion until upcoming 2016–17 Serie A (21 August 2016). According to new rules of Serie A that limits number of first-team squad for each team, if Juventus includes him in first-team squad, he would be considered as playing in a Pro league. Also, goalkeeper is little different from other positions, especially the third goalkeeper in a team. Troubleo.WS 🍁 ^Talk 23:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation as to what may or may not happen is never grounds for notability. Also simply being part of the first team squad is insufficient. WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly says that: For the purposes of this guideline, played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails 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) 17:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NFOOTY, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY, could possibly be recreated in the future if subject meets it in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFOOTY. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sikander Warsi (Delhi)[edit]

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

Three times recreated after speedy deletion. Selfpromo. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - The disambiguation title that is not needed made me search and found that the article was already salted under the name Sikander Warsi [14]. Would recommend this one is as well if final outcome is delete. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Autobiography of a person with no evidence of notability. This should really be a speedy deletion A7 but given the repeated re-creations, WP:SALT is also appropriate. AllyD (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G5 speedy delete and block the article creator. The account User:Sikander Warsi (Delhi) is obviously an attempt to evade Sikander Warsi's SPI block. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Banchha Elo Phire[edit]

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

Article is regarding a movie that is still in production. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and article appears to be a bit of crystal balling. CSD Tag has been removed by author multiple times. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No notability. Article about a film that MAY be released in the future. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where this falls under any of the speedy deletion criteria - A7 doesn't apply to films and the article isn't so promotional that it would fall under the banner of unambiguous promotion. It may still fail notability guidelines, but I'll take a look for sourcing. I did find an article in the Hindustan Times, so it might pass NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I'd found the Hindustan Times article straight away so I was optimistic about this, but it looks like that was about it. There might be coverage in foreign language sources, but the overall absence of coverage is a little disheartening. If anyone can produce this, I'm open to changing my argument. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonology[edit]

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

Zero indep references; no evidence of notability separate from parent series. —swpb^T 12:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a series overview article. The main book of the series has an article and it appears to meet GNG. If from there we have what is an apparently large series, this article makes logical sense, at least as a List article. Needs a ton of work, but quality and notability are two separate issues. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a quick sweep of Google brings up quite a few sources that look reliable and in-depth. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, come on!, this is about dragons, of course its notable, meets WP:GNG, thanks to improvements by Tokyogirl79, there are more book reviews available, other titles could actually have their own article ie. The Dragonology Chronicles: The Dragon's Eye, reviews by pw, bookList, School Library Journal [15], and Kirkus [16]Coolabahapple (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ologies (series), with which it appears to be redundant. Note that the article on the first book in the series is Dragonology: The Complete Book of Dragons, which is NOT up for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. non-notable, self-promotional Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Thill[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERSON and WP:GNG. Also seems promotional. Large portions appear to be copied (but slightly modified) from http://www.lawqa.com/profile/timothy-j-thill-pc. Sunmist3 (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no claims of notability Exemplo347 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Pope[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stephen Pope

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

Is this guy notable? The article appears to give no indication of that, but my non-familiarity with cricket makes me hesitant: I don't think Twenty20 or List A looks like it's "played at the highest international or domestic level", to quote WP:ATHLETE's cricket section, which explicitly ignores his participation in a youth competition, but I could easily be wrong. I don't see him passing WP:GNG; a Google search finds occasional useful but not-particularly-extensive coverage (example), but it's mixed in with stuff about cricketer Steven Pope, who also played as a wicketkeeper, as well as generally useless stuff like forums (example), stuff about Stephen Pope's income (example), information related to the instigator of the Cadaver Synod, and Facebook entries for men with this name who post stuff about cricket. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable criketeer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List A and Twenty20 are the two highest forms of domestic one-day cricket. He has even played first-class cricket. He easily passes WP:CRIN and the user above clearly hasn't read those guidelines. AA (too lazy to log in) --82.30.29.7 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a player in both List A and first-class matches, he appears to comfortably pass WP:CRIN. Vanamonde (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nominator appears unaware of the notability standards here. St Anselm (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep clearly passes WP:NCRIC as he has played in List-A, First-Class and T20 cricket matches. See his Cricinfo profile for confirmation. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep Played first-class and List A cricket, so easily passes WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supanet Limited[edit]

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

Paged created by a known abusive sockpuppet User:Jaihosalman. Page appears to be self-promotion, also as evidenced by a Wikipedia link at subsidiary company at the bottom of http://www.timetalk.co.uk Deku-shrub (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as examining this has found nothing at all actually convincing of substance and minimally convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promo content on a non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company and article is promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Garden Pop[edit]

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

Unremarkable album. KDS4444 (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's badly written as it stands, but it probably does pass WP:NALBUM – the singer is notable (her name should be linked in the text to Yui (singer)), the album has also charted in South Korea and in Taiwan as well as in Japan, and it has been certified platinum in Japan. What it needs is some independent sources announcing the album's release, reviews, etc. (and a Japanese-speaking editor to translate them) to provide some text for the article body. Richard3120 (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Omg, I listen to this so frequently and YUI is one of my favourite singers. This is a compilation album and it was certified platinum by RIAJ. (See this for citation. Select December 2012 in the drop down box and search "YUI"). There is an album profile on Sony Music Japan, so a tracklist can be verified easily. But yes, more independent sources would help. I will try rewriting the article a bit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved it a bit now - add image, infobox, tracklisting and some more details. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As is, it should be redirected per WP:NALBUMS: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." No prejudice to keep should that be done prior to the close of this discussion. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM, article is now "reasonably detailed", thanks to Lemongirl942. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets criteria #2 of WP:NALBUM. Has been listed in a recommended Korean music chart 'goan chart', here. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 08:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEXIT[edit]

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

I take it this is a play on the word "Brexit"; article should either be deleted or turned into a redirect. See WP:NEOLOGISM. KDS4444 (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:NEOLOGISM. Fails WP:GNG and WP:42.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wp is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Term is not notable for the use it is claimed for. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. (Dr.) Usha Tandon[edit]

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

The subject of this article, while clearly being well-published, does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC: she holds no named chair positions, has received no national awards, etc. Successfully submitting reports, being identified as a national expert, being invited to conduct research, and being editor in chief of a non-notable journal do not constitute notability; neither do things like membership in the P.A.A., which is open to anyone, nor does having published a number of papers, nor does having presented her research at a number of conferences. I do not disagree that her work is important; I disagree with the argument (thus far) that she is notable (by Wikipedia's standards) because of it. KDS4444 (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have edited the article, removing the most egregious promotional language and a lot of trivial fluff. What's left is badly-sourced, but even when taking everything on face value, I don't see any evidence of notability. I searched GScholar and Google (time consuming, as there are several people of the same name). I did not see any evidence on GS of Tandon being cited in any significant way. although there are a number of Ghits, most are again about other people and the few sources that I saw (e.g., this one, on the faculty being derecognised by the Bar Council of India) are just in-passing mentions. The reports are in part published on blog websites. The book on population law is published with a publisher that is so insignificant, they don't even have a real website (instead, there's just a page on blogspot...) Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and I just discovered that the main contributor may be a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Ayub407^talk 13:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found basically the same GS results as RandyK...refs are web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. GS cites are too weak to support WP:Prof. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article includes what looks like a claim of notability under WP:PROF#C8 (editor-in-chief of two journals) that appears stronger than the #C1 claims based on citations to the subject's papers. But the two journals in question, Journal of the Campus Law Centre and National Journal of Comparative Law, both fail the "major, well-established" requirements of that notability criterion. In particular, the only information I can find online about the JCLC ends up directing me to a dead web address that is part of a collection of "Home Pages of University of Delhi Community Members" rather than any respectable publisher, and the NJCL is only little better, with only 15 hits on Google, one of them being this article itself and most of them looking very spammy. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Maria Ananny[edit]

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

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Mary Broughton KDS4444 (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Mary Broughton[edit]

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

It looks to me like this individual may not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for artists. She has not received any major awards for her work, and what I could find during a search for her on the Internet were the usual social media websites (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.) and listings of her works for sale or auction. I found one website which purported to cover artists in Canada, but all it had was a single sentence that verified her existence and said nothing else about her. Combined with info regarding where she currently resides, I suspect the author may have a WP:COI and without independent reliable verifiable non-trivial discussion of her in published sources, I think she may be a candidate for deletion. KDS4444 (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Pjevic[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The article does not cite any reliable sources. Google news search returns no hits at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self authored. Seems to be basically his fantasy life. Blythwood (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article claims that Pjevic has connections to the production of two notable works, but there is no evidence this claim is accuarate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Engleham (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, article created by a WP:SPA with user name of Adnanpjevic, so may be a case of WP:COI? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cinco Family products[edit]

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

The list is trivial. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! or possibly keep. DanielPenfield (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is classic fancruft. Poorly sourced, overly detailed directory of trivial fictional things. Merging anything of this stuff into another article would make that article worse. Reyk _YO! 10:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've reopened my WP:NPASR closure on contentions from two editors. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 10:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above in the clearly cited policies and guidelines that this article clearly fails, it's unencyclopedic because it's indiscriminant and non-notable WP:FANCRUFT WP:N. There is no hope of notability, and no hope of coverage by reliable sources. It is ideal for an outside fan site like wikia. The closest we could have would be if the article for the overall series cited a review which mentioned select Cinco products by name, as part of prose. But that has nothing at all to do with this article, which is a huge waste of effort for Wikipedia.— Smuckola (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British political crisis, 2016[edit]

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

The article is a synthesis of events that are largely unrelated - although they were all precipitated by Brexit, the internal strife within Labour is nothing to do with the resignation of Cameron, and Farage's resignation isn't a crisis at all since he resigned specifically because he was happy with the outcome. Content is mostly duplicated in more detail without the synthesis at Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. There are sources that use the phrase "British political crisis" as a pithy description in a headline, but few if any that treat it as a proper noun in main text. A merge is inappropriate, since a) all the content is already in Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, and b) what's left is SYNTH and OR. Article was previously put under proposed deletion (not by me), but was untagged, so I'm bringing it here. Smurrayinchester 07:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is already covered by Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, without the synthesis problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article noted in the nom and by Larry is superior in every respect and covers the referenced material in this spinoff. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The nomination contradicts itself in that it says that these events don't belong together but that they are all to be found in the other article which it prefers. There are certainly plenty of sources which cover these matters together; here's a selection:

The page in question has a bland and general title which seems to cover the broad topic reasonably well. It gets over a hundred hits each day currently and so is certainly plausible as a title or redirect. Our editing policy is to retain such material, rather than deleting it. As these issues are still quite current and unresolved, we should keep an open mind rather than rushing to judgement and insisting that it's all about Brexit and not other tensions in the old order. Andrew D. (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction - the events all had the same cause, but are not part of a common "crisis". Farage resigning has no relation to the leadership challenge on Corbyn. Smurrayinchester 13:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and TRM. Blythwood (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I PRODed the article per "This appears to be a largely factually accurate account of somewhat related major political events but their portrayal as one recognised phenomenon and characterisation as a crisis seems to be unsupported, novel and POV." and the discussion on the talk page. Per this and the deletion noms above I see no reason to keep the article but may be persuaded to support Andrew's initial course of action, a redirect to the "Aftermath" article if persuaded that, to my surprise, the rather novel looking title was in fact a search term likely to be employed. The traffic appears to be in the twenties rather than hundreds though, with a higher blip yesterday because of our collective scrutiny presumably. Not sure if that's sufficient to make it worth converting to a redirect and retaining. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...apologies, the accursed browser I'm using seems to be playing up - I am now similarly getting indications of hits around the hundred mark. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reflection and almost entirely due to the (surprising) level of hits, I'm plumping for a redirect/merge. Would not be distressed if it were deleted though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. The sources describing it as a "crisis" all seem to stem from the few days immediately after the referendum, when the "crisis", such as it may have appeared to be, were in fact part of the chaotic "aftermath". So, it is reasonable that the term "British political crisis" be retained as a redirect but that the substantive content and sources be merged into the (much better and more comprehensive) "aftermath" article. There is no case for retaining this as a separate article - if not merged, little would be lost if it were deleted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination --Liam McM (T) 13:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 08:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OneFamily[edit]

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

Simply a local newly started group for which my searches including at known British news have found nothing better than this and this, still nothing substantially convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an established UK mutual, government approved and listed on website (previously known as FamilyInvestments, now redirects). Also cited by BBC . Charitable work is recognised by The Princes Trust and Sport England. TheOneJohnBrown87UK (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable. I've deleted most of the promotional materials and added some more citations. Blythwood (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aglaja[edit]

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

nn dance company - üser:Altenmann >t 05:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Eremin[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited and he's only mentioned in connection with musicians he worked with. He may be asserting notability later in years to come, but now it's WP:TOSOON Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also concur there's essentially still nothing actually convincing for his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Spooksville (TV series). Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 08:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Morgan Taylor Campbell[edit]

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

BLP {{Notability}} tagged in March 2014, and not much has changed in the meantime. Fails WP:NACTOR (most notable role to date is Spooksville (TV series), and it was only a recurring role that does not get her mentioned in the only press on the show). Other refs at article (some of which I added myself) are basically passing mentions – not enough to establish notability. Basically WP:TOOSOON. However, as an "up-and-coming young actress", Dratifying/Userfying might be appropriate in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her recurring roles are barely a couple of episodes here and there. Her article looks like another IMDb retread from either a fan, herself, or someone close to her. You can't "-ify" anything without something concrete. — Wylie pedia 13:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Spooksville (TV series). Leaving a redlink just invites the article to be recreated. A redirect allows edit history to be preserved, and if it is no longer TOOSOON, makes spinning out a better article at a later date much easier. Also a merge is in line with WP:BEFORE: "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term." Montanabw ^(talk) 03:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Reading and Leeds Festivals. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little John's Farm[edit]

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

It's notable for only one thing, namely Reading Festival. It can quite easily be incorporated into that article as there is almost zero info here to justify its own article. Rayman60 (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS ARTICLE, IT JUST NEEDS A LITTLE WORK. Evangp (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other than its association with the festival, for which it can be written about in the reading festival article, what in your opinion is notable about this farm to warrant its own article? Rayman60 (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's legendary, so many great artists stood on the farm. Evangp (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that doesn't automatically warrant an article on the farm? Artists have stood on the land by virtue of it hosting the festival, agreed. I can't see much more to justify notability. Nothing outside of it being the host site of the festival - e.g. nothing in its capacity as a farm. Nothing special about that site historically. Even as the location for the festival, I cannot see any information provided by the article other than its location and a picture, which can both easily be incorporated into the article. Rayman60 (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reading and Leeds Festivals. The farm does have some notability, but the notability is all inherited from the festival. The fact that the festival has been at the farm since 1971 should be explicitly stated in the festival article (and currently lsn't), but needs a source that confirms this a little more precisely than saying that the festival was "in its 44th year" in 2015. PWilkinson (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Seems a good solution. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt. Sandstein 18:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NetSPI[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find any in-depth coverage more than quotes from employees, passing mentions and press releases. Already been deleted twice at AFD. Time to WP:SALT? Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite a history showing editors putting effort into removing promotional content, what is left is showing just a company going about its business. They have some local coverage,as per the reference in the article, but beyond that I am seeing only passing mentions and routine announcements, insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no claims to notability, no references other than one link to a local news article. My own searches found only the company website and the expected trade listings, job postings, etc. nothing to establish notability. Seems like a slam-dunk delete. Lithopsian (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT. Article is SPAM. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Aryal[edit]

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

Fails WP:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable business person.John Pack Lambert (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable CV. Wikipedia isn't Linkedin. Engleham (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George E. Schmidt[edit]

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

Junior officer who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award. No other claim to fame. Completely fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. Deprodded with the comment "incorrect reasoning for deletion, he received multiple awards". The other awards were the Purple Heart, awarded simply because he was killed in combat, and two service medals. Being killed is not a claim to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - single receipt of second highest award, reasonable presumption not likely to meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not enough for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Single[edit]

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

NCO who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award. No other claim to fame. Completely fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing that suggests notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loval E. Ayers[edit]

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

NCO who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award. No other claim to fame. Completely fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. Other awards very low-level or simply service or qualification awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- do not see this subject meeting GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not enough for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard S. Butterfield[edit]

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

NCO who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award. No other claim to fame. Completely fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd E. Patch[edit]

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

Junior officer who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award, as well as a Silver Star, a third-level award. No other claim to fame. Completely fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails SOLDIER and there's no other real claim to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing actually convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haldimand County Fire Department[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a municipal fire department. As always, this is not a class of topic that gets an automatic presumption of notability just because it exists; fire departments exist in thousands upon thousands of cities and towns worldwide and do the same things everywhere, so they can't all be notable -- a fire department has to pass WP:ORG on the basis of significant reliable sourcing to earn an encyclopedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insignificant fire station with no coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 04:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. individual town fire departments are almost never notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of the verified oldest men. czar 22:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James McCoubrey[edit]

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

The individual represented in this article received a brief burst of attention because he was thought to be the world's oldest man (turns out he wasn't), which continued for about a month until his own death. Of the four sources in this article (two are duplicates, one is just a note), two offer only trivial coverage and one is an obituary. I have been unable to find the level of coverage that would satisfy the requirements of WP:N. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of the reliable and verifiable sources provided based on the individual merits of the person described support the claim of notability by any standard used. Alansohn (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The duplicates and the note are not reliable sources. What's left for sourcing amounts to very little and does not satisfy our notability standards. Beyond that, much of the text is about a claim of longevity that proved to be inaccurate. There's simply no encyclopedic information here that cannot be accommodated by a list. Please see the WP:NOPAGE ~~essay~~ section of WP:N. David in DC (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of the verified oldest men - Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Removing the duplicate sources and the notes leaves you with a GRG table, two one sentence mentions in articles about other oldsters (Obituaries for Jiroemon Kimura and Shelby Harris respectively) and a local news article that was published in his birth town in Canada. Only other sources I can find through Google are obituaries. The guidelines at the WP:WOP tell us he belongs on a list, not a standalone article. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 04:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Lived, got old, died. Without extraordinary sourcing, that's not notable to the degree that encourages splitting from the existing list. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, isn't this a case of WP:ONEEVENT, so delete.Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo South International College[edit]

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

Unable to verify notability for this topic Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator this appears to pass Wikipedia standards for school, please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Also, all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Sunday Times confirms it exists.[17] Clarityfiend (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- For information purposes, part of my decision was based on this AfD disucssion:WP:Articles for deletion/Waukesha South High School.

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waukesha South High School[edit]

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

Unable to verify any indication of notability Steve Quinn (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator this appears to pass Wikipedia standards for school - see discussion below. All other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This High School can be found on the local School District site and Highbeam turns up various pieces of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel coverage ([18], [19] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ), which supports basic verification. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for pointing out "SCHOOLOUTCOMES". This is very helpful to me. Based on the above, I'm inclined to say this passes Wikipedia standards for schools. I'm withdrawing my nomination. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jagger Chase[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Actor with a few minor roles as a child. Nothing significant. I could find no coverage in RS. In fact, the article's only reference is IMDB. I'm not sure how this article has survived as long as it has. MB 04:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

apparently a WP:Walled garden: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaka Inc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, while looking for sources for Shaka Inc, I searched for Jagger Chase as well, and wasn't able to find any coverage of him either. Not surprised to see that the only sources on his page are IMDB. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 07:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR and GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have decided that unlike IMDb, Wikipedia does not want to have articles on everyone who has every appeared on a commercially released film. So IMDb alone is not enough of a source for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see where any of his roles are notable per Wikipedia's guidelines, as they're all one-offs, bit parts, and/or the films wouldn't pass notability guidelines. The only thing I found was this news article written by a local paper about him featuring in an episode of Samantha Who. Other than that the few mentions that are out there are brief, trivial mentions - and even then they tend to be in places Wikipedia wouldn't consider reliable, like blog posts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also endorse a snow close here - I don't think that this has a chance of surviving even if we wait out the full week. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, no useable sources found, only IMDB and mirrors of wikiarticle, this was slipped into wp in 2007 by a spa. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Mucklow[edit]

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

No significant notability. The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion is not a major national award--rather a deliberately promotional one for local businessmen.. . DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur, searches and examinations found nothing close to minimally better. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Tonyinman (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Orange Lights[edit]

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

A quite long-standing article that fails WP:BAND. No references besides a MySpace link, very little content, and there's not a great deal on the internet besides some very brief coverage dated to 2007 as The Guardian's New Band of the Week (link). Most trace of the band is gone, so as best I can tell they were one of the many to sign to a major and then fade away. Two of their members presently have articles, but I don't feel this meets point six of WP:NMUSIC as one of them appears to have purely been a session musician for bands, hence why he - Jason Hart (musician) - is now at AFD too. It's not clear that the other member with one, Paul Tucker (musician), is independently notable either so I've nominated him as well. KaisaL (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability whatsoever. ~~I actually think this article would be a viable candidate for speedy deletion per A7.~~ Kurtis ^(talk) 18:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it wouldn't be viable for A7 after all, seeing as Paul Tucker is a member of Lighthouse Family. However, notability is not inherited, and this particular band has done nothing of real significance. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as failing WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to demonstrate notability: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. --Michig (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The last two links are local newspapers, for a start, which cover thousands of bands. Useful for referencing, but not for asserting notability. The All Music biography can't give any more of an achievement than "gaining an important ally" (a radio DJ) and playing some shows. This is hardly a good sign, and having an All Music page isn't a criteria for inclusion. The Guardian piece is a website series on new bands, which hardly qualifies them. It's far too easy - and is AFD's biggest problem - to point to notable publications and say that means a subject is notable. I see nothing significant about their achievements and no sustained, significant level of coverage for this band to be included at all. KaisaL (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG. The coverage itself makes the subject notable, it doesn't have to indicate significant achievements. All newspapers are local to somewhere. Two newspapers from Manchester and Nottingham can't both be local to the band. --Michig (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the policy. I disagree that this is significant coverage; Band after band after band gets the odd brief piece on a news website or via regional newspapers. There is nothing to indicate the coverage was high-profile, or sustained, or substantial. What you are saying is that just because a subject has been covered by a source, it automatically justifies inclusion; that is a most alarming precedent to suggest. The content and the prominence of the sources matters just as much, if not more, than the title of the source. KaisaL (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate sources provided by Michig. SST flyer 01:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 01:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaka Inc[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GROUP. I can't even find trivial coverage of this company, much less the importance claim in the article that the company is "highly recognized in the jewelry industry". – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 00:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. I found more hits to two other small construction companies of the same name that to this. MB 04:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

apparently a WP:Walled garden: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagger Chase. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tagged this article on the need for references to establish notability when it was first created and I see it has not improved. As another user says above, there are other similarly named companies on which sources can be found, but I am seeing nothing about this firm. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I hinting consider this A7 and G11 material, nothing even close to minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jewelry company? Investment firm? Film production company? Seems to be a figment of someone's imagination/wishful thinking. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's simply nothing out there to show that this company is notable. Or that it honestly even exists, considering that the only things I'm finding (other than junk hits or content about companies with similar names) are Wikipedia mirrors. I'd endorse a snow close at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Just Like the Fambly Cat. Per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC) ~~The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Elevate Myself[edit]

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

Does not appear to have received enough independent coverage to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the album. Some encyclopedic content but can be covered there. --Michig (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album article Just Like the Fambly Cat for now per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES where it can be covered. No prejudice against rewriting if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IfMUD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent (secondary) sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in video game reliable sources and Google Books searches. There are no useful leads, merge targets, or worthwhile redirect targets. czar 21:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 21:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not certain that this topic is non-notable, but if it is, it should probably be merged to XYZZY Award. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having discovered that Montfort's material on ifMUD in Twisty Little Passages was not limited to a "thanks" type mention (clarification of this being new since the AfD's initiation), and considering that Granade's piece may be considered to contribute due to his status as a subject matter expert, I'm inclined to say this one squeaks by the GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But those quotes are quite literally the definition of passing mentions... they do not go into any depth about the subject matter. If anything it shows that there should be a section on competition within interactive fiction or one of its sub-articles. czar 02:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well... no. Montfort's throwaway quote, "I also appreciate the many conversations I have had about interactive fiction topics with friends from an enjoyable and topical online community, ifMUD." is the definition of a passing mention. The other two contain, y'know, information. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montfort, Nick (2005-04-01). Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction. The MIT Press. pp. 209–210. ISBN 0-262-63318-3. In general, mini-comps have functioned more like theme issues of a journal than like contests. Another sort of contest was inaugurated in October 1998 by David Cornelson, who had authors on ifMUD (a virtual environment for socializing among those in the IF community) engage in "SpeedIF." Participants created very small IF works within a time limit of one hour (the time limit later became two hours) based on a selection of unusual topics, characters, and items that were volunteered online. The results were uploaded for the "competitors," and anyone else, to enjoy. SpeedIF, occurring irregularly and often decided upon spontaneously, has also become a tradition. Although the focus on competition as a metaphor—even in noncompetitive events—may seem unusual, the many sorts of competitions that have transpired in recent years (including some for interactive fiction in other languages) have had clear benefits for the community.

It's more about the writing of interactive fiction than anything substantively about how the MUD, but I've already made my point. Adding up everything you were able to cull for this source, we have, at most, a paragraph of miscellaneous information, which isn't what we'd call significant coverage. We really should be looking at making lists/glossaries of MUD topics instead of standalone barebones like this, which end up just being cursory information instead of encyclopedia articles. czar 02:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pm-id11.pdf

[2] ttp://chedanam.blogspot.in/2009/12/blog-post_3148.html

[3] ttp://chedanam.blogspot.in/2009/12/blog-post_3148.html

[4] ttp://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/ips-officer-dons-role-of-student/article3625685.ece

[5] ttp://mha.nic.in/awards_medals

[6] ttp://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/gallantry-rd13.pdf

[7] ttp://mha1.nic.in/ips/ips_home.htm

[8] ttp://www.adaction.org/pages/posts/the-john-kenneth-galbraith-policy-fellowship-program617.php

[9] ttps://www.hks.harvard.edu/degrees/sfs/prospective-students/fellowships-scholarships/intl/hks-affiliated

[10] ttp://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra_pradesh/article380542.ece?service=print

[11] ttp://mha1.nic.in/vhs/default.aspx

[12] ttp://mha1.nic.in/vhs/default.aspx

[13] ttp://www.civilsocietyonline.com/hall-of-fame/praveen-kumar-officer-on-a-dream-mission/

[14] ttp://www.sakshiexcellenceawards.com/pages/winners/2014/mainawards/43914864TELUGU%20PERSON%20OF%20THE%20YEAR.pdf

[15] Pool, Martin (6 June 2008). "new distcc maintainer: Fergus Henderson". distcc (Mailing list). Retrieved 2008-06-11.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]