Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 July	31 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 Keep -- (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Share Our Strength[edit]

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

NPO with no assertion of notability. Article creator blocked for what I would imagine was a promotional username. MSJapan (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep It probably was created as WP:PROMO, however, article makes a claim that this charity (U.S. based, aka: Share Our Strength No Kid Hungry) raises $12 million annually. Article has been up since 2012 without secondary sourcing. But even a quick news search turns up an awful lot of article like thisse : [1], [2]. To me, it looks like a notable charity, with a lousy, self-sourced Wikipedia article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "namedrop articles" I agree with you that that's the extent of the coverage, but that's not a reason to keep. I really would like to know why you think a trivial mention is always a reason to keep, when policy explicitly says otherwise. Are you perhaps WP:WIKIHOUNDING my AfDs, as you like to accuse others of doing to your edits? MSJapan (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan, I admire your energy and your willingness to look at articles like this one, articles that have sat, inadequately sourced, for years. However, Wikipedia has lots of inadequately sourced articles and a lot of WP:Promo. Many need deletion, but others are inadequate articles on topics that support notability. The other day, going down a topic list (authors) of articles at AFD as I often do, I came upon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Susman, a minor playwright. I did a quick search for sources and enough came up that I argued for keep. I only noticed that you were Nom after you re-entered the discussion. My first edit was accurate: [[3]]. I am not arguing here that he is Eugene O'Neill, only that Susman looked to me like a writer with enough notability to pass. Your responding edit was not, I think, an accurate description [4] of the argicle form the Chicago Tribune, because Susman's was indeed discussed in the article I cited. This and your subsequent responses on the John Susman page prompted me to source the Susman article. And to look at the new AFD nominations in your list of recent edits. The two I clecked on and read, this one and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casino hotel, both appear to have been brought to AFD when a more thorough WP:BEFORE would have led an editor simply to tag them for sourcing, improvement, editing out the hype and so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tried to find sources for this organization. See the article talk page. They have minor press coverage, and proper IRS filings. It appears to be a legit organization that doesn't have much WP:RS coverage, but does have some. Searching for news under "No Kid Hungry" (their main program) turns up more hits than searching for "Share Our Strength". I'd suggest trimming the article down to a bare-bones organization article, removing the info that's sourced only to the organization's web site, and building up again from reliable sources. John Nagle (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where in policy does it say "IRS filings = presumption of notability?" This is an area I am familiar with, and IRS filings are wholly irrelevant - anyone who pays the fee and fills out the forms can be a 501(c)<whatever> organization, even if they have little to no revenue. Almost every local chapter of any fraternal organization in the US has an IRS filing. There's no "lower bar" for NPO status, and it doesn't make them notable. If you want to get picky, IRS filings are inadmissible as meeting GNG because they're primary sources created by the organization. The fact that you're finding only "minor coverage" seems to be more of an issue, don't you think? MSJapan (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD submission note says that the "Article creator [was] blocked" as "a promotional username". Just to clarify: the recent block of User_talk:Sharestrength was a relatively recent editor, not the original article creator. The organization has a history of using employees to edit the article, i.e., see User_talk:ShareOurStrength. I was an employee of the company in the 2008-2009 time period, and was instructed to edit wikipedia during that time as well. (I was a new editor at the time; I've since learned about the COI rules, and have thus not edited the article since 2009.) I'm giving this information as background, though I'm not sure if their tendency to try to edit their own article has anything to do with whether the article itself should be kept or deleted. (I'm not voting on this AfD due to possible COI, though it's been 7 years since I had anything to do with them, and so don't really feel like I have a COI with them anymore.) — Eric Herboso 03:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just did a minor rewrite/source of 2 sections. Sources do exist and it sounds like a real charity, at least, notable chefs famous big hotels volunteer to do the fund raisers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, searched WaPo since this NPO is D.C.-based, Share Our Strength attracts corporate dollars, [5]; New effort to get more students in Maryland eating breakfast, [6], With one change, this school doubled the number of kids eating school breakfast, [7]. There are more, some as you scroll down the page of hits: [8] are stronger than these first few.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EMGregory. And $245 million is huge. My username is doncram, thank you. --do ncr am 04:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
may be keep looks like a legitimate charity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachin15 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable charity, many hits in reliable 3rd party sources as stated by E. M. Gregory. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:23, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laborate Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, sources fail WP:RS, and a likely undisclosed paid editor as well. Changed PROD to AfD to discourage any recreation that does not provide actual usable content. MSJapan (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODding editor, where I wrote: Failed WP:CORP coverage-in-depth criterion. - Brianhe (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promo content on a non notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I frankly still consider this speedy delete material. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of trivial mentions in news articles, some as part of a litigation, but not a single articles describes the company in detail. Accordingly, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and should be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:31, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhri Ahmadov[edit]

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

WP:NOTPROMO, no assertion of notability. MSJapan (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NAUTHOR as blogger for WEF. Forbes article used as citation for "frequent contributor" merely mentions his company, a "boutique wealth advisory company" in passing. Other citations are equally weak. Overall this looks like a clumsy bit of undisclosed promotional editing. - Brianhe (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo article on a non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PR and nothing at all convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually don't see any credible claim of significance here. There are a few quotes by he subject, but nothing else. Fails GNG by a wide margin. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence of notability here.Tazerdadog (talk) 07:29, 6 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 Magnetic bearing. Consensus is that the subject does not warrant an article of its own, rather a paragraph or two on Magnetic bearing would do (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electrodynamic bearing[edit]

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

Article created by a single-purpose account, User:JobanWiki, seemingly for the purpose of self-promotion. See for example the link back here from [9] -- which coincidentally shows the exact same illustration as seen in in the article.

A checkuser for User:JobanWiki, User:Joajoaq, User:MagnetalWiki, and User:85.225.72.28 may show something, although we're talking about a lengthy time period. Krushia (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and de-peacock and prune promotional links. Otherwise well referenced (those conference proceedings are fine) and a widely adopted/discussed technology.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I cannot access the refs right now, and neither can I really say I understand what the article is about. In particular, how does this differ from magnetic bearings?

If the refs allow for some writing, then it is probably best to merge into magnetic bearing, but at that point it could be just anything. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:51, 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 15:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, already noted in a less promotional way by (passive) Magnetic bearing. Doesn't need its own article and lacks context the way it is. Still need to discuss editors' connection with the subject as they contributed to the magnetic bearing article as well. Jergling (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Magnetic bearing. The information is notable, but it is not notable enough to warrant an independent article for the subject and it is too peacocky. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 18:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. seems a reasonable solution. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 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 keep. Procedural close - No valid reason has been presented for deletion and the nom has been reminded more than once about BEFORE. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Incognita (Juliette Lewis album)[edit]

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

Unreferenced tracklist Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Unless I'm missing something, notable artist, album reviewed by the Independent, BBC and others. Five seconds on Discogs got me to a tracklist. Blythwood (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to complete WP:BEFORE failure and obvious notability. The first few pages of Google results also threw up coverage from Allmusic, A.V. Club, SPIN, The Guardian, Rock Sound, and Uncut. --Michig (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE, etc Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, to be fair to the nom, although WP:BEFORE is suggested, it is not obligatory, however, the article creator has WP:BURDEN to provide WP:RS (article had no references when nominated), that said, Keep, meets WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG, there being plenty of independent sources available. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 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 List of former Cedar Point attractions#Frontier Lift. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Lift[edit]

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

Author does not establish notability. Ride is pretty standard, not deserving of its own page. Astros4477 (Talk) 15:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I recommend this article be merged (or renamed) with a new article for the Sky Ride, which is the existing version of the ride. I looked through the book Cedar Point Queen of American Water Places and could not find a mention of the Frontier Lift; however, the Sky Ride does play an important role in the expansion of Cedar Point during that period. Since the Frontier Lift was practically an extension of Sky Ride, it would be an appropriate subset. FirstDrop87 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge/Redirect – We have articles that cover model overviews, such as chairlift, and unless a particular installation has something very unique about it (and a significant number of reliable sources have written about this unique quality), then the installation shouldn't have its own article. This is a situation in which a standalone article isn't warranted. If some mention is really needed, it can be added to the chairlift article (or similar one) that covers the amusement park version of this aerial lift. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated my stance per discussion below.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not a really unique ride that had a significant impact to establish notability for its own article. If needed, information could be merged into the Cedar Point article. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, clearly, once you see it is covered appropriately already at List of former Cedar Point attractions#Frontier Lift, leaving redirect to that table row. I say merge not redirect because target lacks references included here. The table row description is about as long as this article and can be longer. The list article seems encyclopedic while this article seems just trivial/crufty on its own.--do ncr am 05:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

doncram, the references are fan websites and not exactly reliable sources. To date, there has been nothing significant published in reliable sources about this ride. It is already briefly mentioned at the target and supported by reliable sources that exist there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there should be a redirect at least, right? To the continuing Wikipedia coverage, in a table row in the list-article of former attractions. I see no sources given within the description there. And surely you are not arguing the list-article's coverage cannot include sources. With this article existing, the list entry was sourced implicitly by the sources here; they need to be transferred. I cannot see first source but second is very convincing with photographic evidence (yes provided by fans but valid). It existed. It went through forest. One of its stations is gone, other survives ( at least to 2014 date of photo). There are no controversial assertions. What other sources are there? If better sources are put in and no info from here transfers over, then sure, the outcome could be redirect rather than merge. (But your vote is still showing as delete so am I missing something?). -do ncr am 03:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its existence within an article is not being contested; its notability as a standalone article is. Yes, photographs can be legitimately considered regardless of the source's quality, but the prose in this article needs an adequate source. You're absolutely right that the prose written at List of former Cedar Point attractions#Frontier Lift does not contain inline citations nor does it appear to be adequately sourced, but this deletion discussion doesn't cover the state of that list article. The prose content at both locations is cause for concern. As for resorting to a redirect, I'm not entirely opposed to that, but consider this. Should all items in this list have redirects? I don't think that's necessary, and therefore, if the entire page was deleted without leaving a redirect in its place, then I'm not sure doing so would create a disadvantage for the "Frontier Lift" topic as opposed to the other attractions in that list that don't have redirects either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some other items in the List of former Cedar Point attractions have full articles about them. But for those that don't have a separate article, yes there probably should be a redirect for each of them. Why not have them? And, there may be redirects for some of them already. Checking...

Broadway Trip did not have one but I just created it.
The Cyclone did not have one, but I just added it to the Cyclone (disambiguation) page, which is the equivalent of having a redirect.
Dip the Dips Scenic Railway was already a redirect, since 2012
Disaster Transport is a separate article
High Frolics has been a redirect since 2012
"Leap the Dips" did not have a redirect. Searching on it gives suggestion Leap-The-Dips, a different ride in Altoona, Pennsylvania. I just added a "For" link at the top of that, to help readers find their way to the Cedar Point one.
"Racer" did not have a redirect. I just added it to the Racer disambiguation page, to serve readers looking for it instead of two other "Racer" roller-coasters listed there.
I continued down the list, adding to "for" links, disambiguation pages, etc., through the end of the section on roller coasters. I conclude that my review suggests there should be redirects or disambiguation page entries or separate articles or "for" links for at least every roller coaster ride in the list-article.

For this AFD, the proper decision is to conclude with merge/redirect, i.e. for there to be a redirect left behind, and for the article not to be outright deleted, 1) to help readers find their way to it, 2) to prevent an editor from creating an article at the topic name without awareness of the former Cedar Point ride, 3) as an wp:ATD(?) to avoid the unnecessary insult of outright deleting others' contributions, which is a real turn-off driving editors away from wikipedia, and 4) in order to comply with our commitment to editors that their work be credited. If/when there are additional sources and someone takes time to develop a better Frontier Lift article, that should be done in place at the redirect, with the edit history intact, crediting original editors with their contributions. There is no reason not to have a redirect, and there are positive reasons to have one. --do ncr am 18:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good points above. I do not participate in a lot of these deletion discussions, and as I said earlier, I was not all that opposed to the idea of a redirect. I've updated my position above. We can merge the sources/info for now into the list article. Eventually, that article will need to be revamped, and the shoddy sourcing can be later removed if deemed necessary. Thanks for taking the time to respond. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of former Cedar Point attractions#Frontier Lift where this is appropriately covered. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 6 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Allura[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines WP:GNG. Common problem with several open source projects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for a bit and couldn't find any significant coverage of this project at all. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 02:10, 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 00:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two new sources were added to the article:

"SourceForge open sources its own source - The H Open: News and Features". The H. No. 11 March 2011. Heise. Retrieved 21 July 2016.

Proffitt, Brian (18 June 2012). "SourceForge back-end code to be donated to Apache". ITWorld. IDG. Retrieved 21 July 2016.Pavlor (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, to allow time for new sources presented in the discussion to be considered. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sourceforge#History This has a claim of significance solely because of its association with Sourceforge. Sourceforge uses this as a backend code. They later decided to donate it to Apache as a means to keep the forge software open source. The sources available for this are significantly lower if I compare it to relevant software standards. I would say a redirect suffices here as much of the encyclopaedic information (Including the 2 sources above) are already there at the target article. A redirect is also a good option because (like with all software), there is a chance it may become notable on it's own in the future. In that case, we still have the article history. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 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 03:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Unveiled[edit]

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

A Batman fan movie. No reliable third-party references, Google didn't return anything useful (the majority of hits are "[Something related to Batman] unveiled"). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NF, WP:COI and WP:SELFPROMOTION are all in play here. Both refs are WP:USERGENERATED websites. I wonder how they are getting away with that poster as it looks like a copy of {at least} the 1989 film poster. MarnetteD|Talk 23:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free promotional platform where every YouTube video or fan film or student film project gets to have an article just because it exists — but there's no reliable source coverage here to confer notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really wish the creators well, but this film just doesn't pass notability guidelines. I'll leave a more in-depth explanation on their talk page, but I'd like to make sure that the film creators (who are most likely the people who created this article) know that this isn't personal - most films don't pass NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I think I might block them for their username (SeinfeldSaltyDischarge), which seems to run afoul of the username guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I'm one of the few people who haven't heard of that Seinfeld reference, apparently. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable fan movie. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 6 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 03:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drissa Diarrassouba[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined. However, the underlying notability concerns remain. Diarrassouba still has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:39, 31 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. Would advise against salting as the player is now at a club in a fully professional league, so may become notable soon. Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but don't salt. The subject is clearly not notable now, but has a good shot at becoming notable in the near future. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable footballer. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 6 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 03:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Degree Solar (company)[edit]

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

Frankly I consider this A7 material and I'm simply not finding anything else actually better than mere mentions including for working with Coca Cola, of which there's of course no inherited notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mixed on it, I originally created the article and did the initial research but agree that there isn't too much at the moment. The company was founded in 2012 and has under 11-50 employees according to LinkedIn. I'd be interested to know the total sales footprint and # of solar distributors in Kenya to get an idea of how big they actually are. I discovered the company on Keva, so they have a partnership there working on around 23 loans ($188,450). So maybe lacking notability by an order of magnitude, but I can see it as being potentially important as part of a series on solar energy in Kenya.

https://www.kiva.org/about/where-kiva-works/partners/276

Shaded0 (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really do any research, but a quick impression is that this is probably a typical non-notable startup, but I'm tempted to bend over backwards to counter our overwhelming bias towards anglo-european topics. Overall, my guess is a redirect to Renewable energy in Kenya and a short mention there might make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another attempt at pulling some resources on notability. I found a good number from the CEO Gaurav Manchanda's LinkedIn: "One Degree products have reached over 200,000 individuals to date. The company has investors, clients, and partnerships including Schneider Electric, Coca-Cola, IFC, and the United Nations Foundation, as well as press coverage in FastCompany and Al Jazeera."

https://www.linkedin.com/in/gauravman
youtu.be/TNTRLlHRH_M?t=1m37s (Al Jazeera video, skipping the intro)

I found another couple similar companies, but they aren't necessarily specific to Kenya:

SunnyMoney - Tanzania and Kenya, SolarAid and SunnyMoney have now sold over 1.7 million solar lights.

Orb Energy (Indian company)

https://www.lightingafrica.org/orb-energy-secures-funding-to-replicate-indian-business-model-in-kenya/

Off Grid Electric (Rwanda, Tanzania)

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Off-Grid-Electric-Raises-45M-in-Debt-For-African-Micro-Solar-Leasing-Platf

And an idea for a couple other solar related companies (if sources can be found)

A Ugandan company called SolarNow has a $200 low-voltage television set that runs on the direct current (DC) used by solar systems. A British-designed fridge called Sure Chill needs only a few hours of power a day to maintain a constant 4ºC. A company in South Africa has just launched solar-powered ATMs for rural areas with intermittent mains power.

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21639018-solar-giving-hundreds-millions-africans-access-electricity-first

Shaded0 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable just yet. Small company and sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 6 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. The weight of numbers is clearly on the delete side. More than that, the only two keep arguments 1) come from the article's creator, and 2) are based on the sources in the German wikipedia article, which didn't seem very convincing to the participants in the discussion.

Part of the problem seems to be that many of the sources are not in English. That's not a fundamental problem, but it does limit our ability to provide a good review to either those who read the source language, or the availability of good translations.

If somebody wants to take a shot a finding better sourcing, I wouldn't mind restoring this to draft space. But, as always, this is not carte-blanche to make some trivial changes are expect it will get moved back to mainspace. You will need to do some serious research to find sources which meet WP:RS and WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Bandžak[edit]

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

Basically nothing but YouTube links, no actual coverage and nothing actually convincing with both examinations at Czech Wiki and my own searches simply finding nothing better to suggest needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from author - I do not understand this upset, bad faith and application for deletion. The article is even very new, I have created only for a month but there exist 17 other interwikis and this is only the first version of this article. If you look at the editing version which is invisible (between invisible signals), you can see the longer text to format and I intend to expand this article but I haven't had enough time for extending it but I will improve it soon. Please Change the temlate "delation" to the template under construction

The proposer is not right, (s)he manipulates because you can see, there are lotsa serious sources for his life and carrier, journal articles, so I do not understand his/her intention because this act does not concern to the article but to the editor who has created it, therefor this is a personal insult and offence against me. I think this article is useful for English wikipedia I am a confirmed editor, so if an article I have created, is nominated to deletion, it is the biggest offense and insults for a useful and friendly editor and they are the biggest malicious proceedings what can happen to a benevolent editor.Borgatya (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:14, 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 02:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable opera singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not a convincing argument because there have been existing many, many less important articles for a long time which nobody cares. He's a young opera singer who 's worth being kept and there exist another 17 interwiki article in several languages? I don't understand why you are so strict. There is enough room in wikipedia, it fits into other articles.Borgatya (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several things I will note, Borgatya, you should mention other articles as examples as I can essily still delete those if they are in fact non-notable. The fact I have reviewed this one and found it non-notable says it at all. Please, mentioning other articles will not save yours. Also, with that said, please message me these other articles and I will examine. Other Wikis have different standards and English Wiki is one of the few selective ones that are not lenient about acceptable all subjects, that's also why nominated this. You honestly should not have labeled my nomination as "upset".... as it was not. Examining these sources found that none of these are the convincing needed sources and his career equally shows nothing convincing, having "particularly known" listed as a beginning sentence but still not having substantial sources, is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not a spy, so I do not deal with other editors' editing and I am not a trator, therefore I do not accuse anyone maliciously, and I do not make reports about another editor's works and actions, I am a freindly CONFIRMED editor who respects other editors' devoted and voluntary works, so if I find some mistakes, I try to correect them, but I never think of asking for delation of honest and fair editors' articles. Second, you are an unfair editor who wants to manipulate the proceeding because you are not right, although he is still not famous world-wide, but in Central (Germany, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia) and Eastern (Russia) Europe and in Asia (China) he is famous. I suppuse, you cannot read the articles in Chinese and Russian, and in other central European languages (Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, Polish) but his name is not unknown in many many countries. Please, be modest and do not judge unfairly. The Bible, Jesus condemns those who judge others before first judging themselves: "Judge not, that ye be not judged." and "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye". And are you perfect and unerring but old Romans said: Errare humanum est that is, to err is human.Borgatya (talk) 23:51, 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 21:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source. There are sources in the German version. I don't have time to translate right now, but he looks notable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, although there may be sources here and at Deutsch Wiki, there is still no noticeable signs of confirming hid own actual notability. I will note that the Deutsch Wiki actually lists his own website largely as a major source so that also makes things questionable. SwisterTwister talk 16:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to imitate the German's degree of detail which is sourced to his website. There are profiles from notable opera houses and festivals in different countries (Italian, Hungarian, among others), - telling me that he is notable enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References fail to indicate WP:N level of notability through coverage in reliable sources. I read the German article and it is similarly lacking in third-party sources, with the exception of this video posted by a local Prague magazine. A notable singer would have better coverage. Can be recreated if such coverage is found. Sandstein 08:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references in this article are not sufficient, reliable, widespread or independent enough to pass WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not understand this strictness. You are not right, this article owns reliable and independent sources, e.g. an interview with him in a Russian magazine in Russian, though I think, you do not know Russian language but there are lacks of your knowledge, please make sure of the facts and do make your decision with caution:
- F. Sh. (2014). "«...Как проявить музыкой слово» (How to show the word by music)". Objective (Журнал Oбъектив) (in Russian). 2 (7): 142–145.

There is an article about him in Spanish of his concerts in Lima on the hompage of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic:

- "El barítono checo Filip Bandžak efectuó diversos conciertos en Lima" (in Spanish). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Retrieved 2016-06-07.

Budapest Bartók Plus Opera Festival in Hungarian, Filip Bandžak et the end of the page with a picture

- "News" (in Hungarian). BartókPlus OperaFestival. Retrieved 2016-06-09.

An article in Tallinn In Estonian

- "OOPER RAEKOJAS Iveta Jiřiková, Filip Bandžak, Maria Bachmann" (in Estonian). Postimees Tallin. Retrieved 2016-08-07.

Filip Bandžak: recording Requiem by Juraj Filas in Prague 2013

- "Filip Bandžak: recording Requiem by Juraj Filas in Prague 2013". mashpedia. Retrieved 2016-08-07.

11th Peter Dvorský International Music Festival, August 1 – 15, 2009, Under the auspices of Václav Riedlbauch, Minister of Culture of the Czech Republic and Marek Maďarič, Minister of Culture of the Slovak Republic

- "11th Peter Dvorský International Music Festival". arskoncert.cz. Retrieved 2016-08-07.

All the sources are sufficient, reliable, widespread or independent enough to pass. If this article should be delated because of these unreliable and absurd and ridiculous arguments, the 90 percents of the Wikimedia articles should be delated because they lack the reliable sources. Filip Bandžak is a young, talented and notable artist who is worth keeping.Borgatya (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you care or not, you have made several claims that are not giving you good weight as a vote, saying that I "upset bad faith unfair manipulate" this and am somehow this or that, when you are not listening or understanding how things work here. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NPA, you basically said "I'm not a spy" when I asked you for those other non-notable people. SwisterTwister talk 16:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have looked at the 5 sources cited in the Ge wikiarticle, 1 is his own website, 2 is an opera agency, 3 i was unable to access (sorry), 4 a music festival site with what looks like a cv, 5 a news service, very short but states "the 29-year-old Filip Bandžak which is considered one of the most expressive talents of his generation."[10], so more needed ie. are there any reviews of this performances and/or recordings? Coolabahapple (talk) 20:17, 7 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 Top Gear (series 10)#ep96. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear (Series 10, Episode 5)[edit]

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

Notability of Article in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability, and Failure to Cite Sources for entirety of Article in accordance with WP:NOCITE GUtt01 (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Top Gear (series 10) unless someone can find some decent coverage--I was unable to find anything with a quick search, and I suspect that most episodes can be adequately represented in a list article. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: I disagree with merging this to the article you suggested - 1. The information in the article under proposal for deletion, is un-sourced. 2. The suggested article list the episodes for that series with a short sum, not a detailed overview of each episode. 3. Unless the episode consisted of a full-length, special film (i.e. Their trip across Botswana), or was a spin-off special made by Top Gear, there is hardly any need to detail out an episode from the show, when a simple Series overview article can provide a short, lightly detailed account of what the episode features (a short summary, in other words). GUtt01 (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If the show was a drama, sci-fi, or fantasy series, detailing an episode of it in terms of plot and cast, would be fine. But this is an episode of a magazine show, and doesn't justify having a separate article about it, unless it covers something unique. There are articles for specials of Top Gear regarding their polar race, and their race between 1940s vehicles, which have notability for being written, but not this episode. Any times set by celebrities and cars put through a "power lap" are noted under other articles, and this site should not be citing the opinions on others about products; if cars should have opinions by critics, it should be on their article pages.

I further, do not agree with merging this to the article that covers Series 10, because the article lists the episodes in that series with a brief overview of what happens in it. GUtt01 (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Top Gear (series 10). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Top Gear (series 10)#ep96. This is a more specific target. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirect is always preferred over deletion however in this case redirecting is pointless on all forms - If we have this as a redirect then we may aswell have every single episode for every single series created too, I genuinely see no point redirecting, Anyway we already have List of Top Gear episodes which is sufficient. –Davey2010^Talk 01:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non-notable episode. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 6 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 Ministry of Education and Science (Bulgaria). MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Az Buki[edit]

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

This article has been deprodded by Bussakendle with sources added; however, many of those sources are primary sources or otherwise unreliable. There are no reliable sources to establish notability per WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May be: many of, but not all. There are reliable sources e.g. from a government web site[11] and from European Commission[12]--c.w. (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: By the way, the most references show not a primary source (this would be e.g. the book or the magazine itself) but it shows the authors (or the publishing houses) description of. Thus, it is by definition a secondary source. --c.w. (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-1 More second sources added

-2 The criteria WP:Company are given, as this company has an unique positition in BG.

-3 The Talk-page is still empty!

-4 Be specific on otherwise unreliable, please.

bkb (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What new arguments do You expect?

GeoffreyT2000 having marked the article for deletion is the only one voting for deletion. Charly Whisky and me, both -neither the one nor the other beeing the author- vote for holding and also refuted the arguments given. bkb (talk) 06:41, 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 21:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to its parent organization Ministry of Education and Science (Bulgaria). While I definitely found enough sources referencing Az Buki to know it exists, there is very little information to build an actual encyclopedia entry from that is in reliable sources (i.e. not published by Az Buki). As is, I don't know if it could be expanded beyond the basic information on the page, which at large is more suitable for the Az Buki home website. I would quickly change my vote if some sources in Bulgarian magazines or newspapers were brought to the table. English google searches only get me so far, sometimes. Yvarta (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are independant sources cited, eg. LoC, or scientific cooperation. Bulgaria has about 7.1 Mio inhabitants at all - less than N.Y.City's 8.2 Mio. bkb (talk) 05:27, 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 Keep as I'll close this myself since the sources at least seem better (NAC) (note the social media still needs to be removed). SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mister X (band)[edit]

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

None of the sources are largely substantial significant coverage and my own searches have found nothing noticeably better. Unless better native sources can be found, I'm not seeing the acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia exists to help people find information about various topics. Deleting articles such as this kinda goes against the whole aim of this website, regardless of what excuses you find for it. Anyway, I thought these sources already in the article were enough: here, here and here (the third one is unfortunately broken at the moment, but it was a lengthy interview with the band's singer). Here are some more: interview, info about a past concert, where they are referred to as the most well-known Belarusian punk rock band, ditto, again, even older post about a 2007 gig, interview about Grodno punk scene where they are mentioned, interview with the band's vocalist. I could also dig up plenty of sources in Russian and maybe a few in Belarusian, but I think these will do. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When will this discussion be closed? I'm asking only to make sure that there is no expiry date that might end up getting the article deleted. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 11:02, 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 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given as to why the article should be deleted was "None of the sources are largely substantial significant coverage" and SwisterTwister asked for better ones, which I've provided. What else is there to discuss really? I understand how someone who doesn't speak Russian or Polish may find it more difficult to find information about this band, but I've already done that and no other reasons behind the proposal to delete the page were given. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the new sources to the article to show that they are relevant and appropriate. SwisterTwister, can we close this discussion now? I understand that it is your responsibility to select pages that may not be suitable for Wikipedia, but I have already addressed the issues you identified adequately (Belsat, Dziennik Polski, and Gazeta Krakowska are all fairly large and reputable news sources in Poland, Belsat in Belarus for its anti-censorship approach as well, whilst the other sources used - even if much less known - fit the requirements too), so I think it would be better to move on and look at other new articles that (or the plenty of older ones out there) that are much less appropriate. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, it has been almost two weeks, can you please respond? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkActuary and North America, what do you guys think of this? SwisterTwister has listed the Mister X page for deletion, but he does not seem at all interested in taking part in the discussion or at least closing it now that the issues have been resolved. I mean, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, however when looking at his contributions it is clear that he has been very active on Wikipedia for every single day since my initial response and so I don't know how he could not have noticed the 3 times that I linked his name here. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not sure why you're pinging the two other users as they have no interest with this article. As for this AfD, I was simply waiting for others to comment about this, because I still am not entirely satisfied. SwisterTwister talk 01:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Samotny, my only involvement with this nomination was to post it to the relevant noticeboards. But, I've now taken a closer look at the article and I can see why Swister is concerned about the quality of the sources. The Facebook and Bandcamp sources confer no notability whatsoever. And as for the others, they are largely the brief, routine press-release bios that normally accompany announcements of an upcoming show. The Silesia and Belsat sources only give passing mention to the band; the Dziennik Poland and Deadpress sources are interviews with the band's leader (and these can't be used to establish notability either). The only source that goes even a little beyond these routine or primary sources is the brief write-up in the Krakow Gazeta. But even here, the coverage isn't significant. Because I don't want to turn your ping into a "boomerang", I'll not weigh in with a specific recommendation. But I do think Swister had valid reasons for making this nomination, and I don't think your sources have addressed the concerns raised by the nomination. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkActuary, thanks very much for getting back to me and taking the time to look at this. The problem was that I had no idea whether SwisterTwister even cared about my response or the new sources because he didn't care to reply until I asked someone else to participate in the discussion. As for the sources: the facebook and bandcamp ones were used primarily for information rather than to establish notability. The Belsat source does mention the band only once, but the punk scene report pays more attention to them and is in my opinion adequate even if not perfect. Regarding the interviews, why can't they be used to establish notability? Isn't the fact you can find various interviews with this underground band's singer enough to show that they are extremely successful for a non-commercial hobbyist group that releases all of their songs for free? Especially considering the fact that they are from a country like Belarus, which tries its best to suppress people who oppose totalitarianism and makes it hard for them to leave the country to go on tours (yet they still do it and have garnered plenty of fans in internationally). And while the brief write-ups for gigs may not be the perfect sources, how numerous they are should be enough to demonstrate notability to at least some extent. Anyway, another source that is not within any of the categories you claimed are insufficient for notability is this short history of the band in Russian that I added - it describes them as "one of the leaders of the post-Soviet Oi! scene". Also here is another interview, this one is in Russian and with two of the band's members. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing worth mentioning is that they are the second most popular Belarusian punk band on last.fm judging by the number of listeners, which again is quite an accomplishment for an underground music group that has no intention of achieving worldwide fame. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: 1 - a review of one of their albums by a punk zine from Minsk. 2 - news piece about police brutality that occurred at one of Mister X's gigs in Ryazan back in 2013, when Putin's boys stopped the concert early on and used false accusations to harass the audience (if I remember correctly the band members were also detained back then, but this is not mentioned in this story). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here are two more sources about the same event. The first one is from the Komsomolskaya Pravda (Russia's top-selling newspaper in 2006) both added to the article now... SwisterTwister, how can all this info put together not count as enough significant coverage? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an open-and-shut case, assuming the refs are not lying, which I do assume. They are an internationally touring band ("they frequently tour other parts of Eastern Europe as well (Russia, Latvia and Lithuania, among other countries) and have played in Western Europe too") which just by itself satisfies WP:BAND. This is not even considering "the most well-known Belarusian punk rock band" (Belarus is a large country!) and so forth. And they have several records. Why are we even having this conversation? Keep. Herostratus (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can attest to the Polish and Russian language articles being predominantly RS and not small-time self-published blogs. Anglophone world media outlets of the same calibre would be accepted without the blink of an eye. Per Herostratus's argument, they meet with WP:N. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:16, 5 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samo Sound Boy[edit]

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

Fail WP:BIO; trivial coverage. Meets none of the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 12:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close the nomination per album reviews in Pitchfork and Resident Advisor, and also has been heavily covered and interviewed in The Fader, The Verge, Spin and Fact. All I had to do was use a simple google search to find this amount of significant coverage, and there are probably more out there. This is beyond a bullshit and disruptive nominaton. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes WP:MUSICBIO #1 per the references EditorE provided. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Virginia Legal Aid Society[edit]

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

This article is nothing but a promotional piece for a organization that fails WP:ORG with no reliable sources that have anything else than a brief mention of it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unambiguous advertising The Banner talk 21:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A notable non-profit organization funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia, with 27 inline citations. It does need copyediting, but that problem is not cause for deletion. Consider Legal Aid Society of Cleveland and Legal Aid Society of Louisville as like notable organizations elsewhere. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Dthomsen8: the article has substantially improved since the AFD was listed, but outside of the citations to their own website, not a single one of the rest of those 27 citations is about the organization itself. Those citations only mention Central Virginia Legal Aid Society when referring to a lawyer who currently (or formerly) works there or as a mere listing of legal resources. As far as other similar legal organizations? Those other two have some major notability issues themselves and may deserve their own AFDs. Besides, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Jauerback, 15:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing to work with here. This badly fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Yes, this organization is mentioned in passing by a variety of sources. That doesn't make it notable. Several of the sources cited do not even mention this organization. The only marginal claim to fame is this organization supposedly twice won the Harrison Tweed Award. The problem there is the citation used to support this claim is broken. This award is given by the American Bar Association. Looking at their site, I can find no reference at all to support this claim at least as far back as 1994 [13]. I am also troubled that a single purpose account, User:Mcwhitfield, is the prime author of the article. Is there conflict of interest violation here? One of the main reasons we need secondary sources to support content in an article is so that a balanced approach to a subject can be obtained. Secondary sources that do more than mention this organization are completely absent. Not surprisingly, several passages in this article treat the subject in superlative terms. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, because we have tended to keep larger LAS's and this one is pretty big and well-known. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up a bit. It's not so bad as to warrant WP:TNT -- normal editing can fix it. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:27, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Government Engineering College, Bhuj[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as their website here shows it's a degree-awarding school thus certainly notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is affiliated to Gujarat Technological University and is a degree awarding college per this and per this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete per ORG. (I say "reluctant" because I spent half an hour cleaning up this article before deciding how to vote. Ha ha.) At this point, all the information in the article is appropriately cited either to reliable sources or to permissible self-published sources, and there is some coverage, but it's not significant, so, per the notability guidelines and FAILN, the subject doesn't get its own article. (ORG, by the way, reaffirms what should be obvious: schools, like other organizations, must meet the notability guidelines' modest requirement for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the source and each other.) Rebb ing 01:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the addition of {{cite book}}s that verify the institution exist, cf. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that says: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long standing consensus on educational institutions of this type. Clearly passes WP:V. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously, as a degree awarding university. Anyone suggesting otherwise is adamantly applying ORG without a degree of the flexibiity our policies allow us to excercise.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:45, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seb Buddle[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. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Kosack (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:39, 31 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) 07:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for a footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable footballer. Should this perhaps have been PRODed? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 6 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 03:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of metropolitan areas in the Californias[edit]

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

The basis/criteria of inclusion for this list of metropolitan areas was the former The Californias (region) article, which was deleted per AFD earlier this year. Since that main article was deleted for not being sourced, non-notable synthesis, among other reasons, I do not see how this sub-article should still continue to exist. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with the deletion of The Californias (region) the list has no primary topic, failing WP:LISTCRITERIA at its most basic level. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails LISTCRITERIA and LISTN. No coverage found. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 06:04, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Ziaul Haque[edit]

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

No sources found or presented to show subject meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Books are self-published. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If anything this is worse than the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Ziaul Haque. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he appears to fail both WP:GNG as well as any additional SNG criteria. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:Author with self-published books. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 6 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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andie Case[edit]

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

PROD with the basis of adding sources but those are not actually making the article better as they are either only interviews (for events) or also trivial local mentions (also for events); simply still not enough substance. SwisterTwister talk 16:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Billboard coverage, a UK top 30 hit, more coverage: [14], [15], [16], [17]. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good coverage, rising star, sources meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig; meets WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 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 keep. Don't usually close on 2 !votes however sources have been found thus making the article meet AUTHOR & GNG and it seems BEFORE wasn't followed anyway but either way easy keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanil Sachar[edit]

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

My extensive and detailed PROD was removed with absolutely no explanations and thus I still confirm everything I said there. SwisterTwister talk 16:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The prod rationale suggested there were only local news sources. Coverage is from good sources from across India, e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21], plus those already cited. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment analyzing the listed sources - Here's the thing though, #4 is only a mainly interview, thus only 3 of those sources are acceptable, and I would have only been open to keeping had there either been larger amounts of sources or better ones of substance, thus this is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 6 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 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dilruba Sultan[edit]

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

There is no material to write a proper article on the subject. It seems that the only thing that appears in the sources is that Davud Pasha married a daughter of Mehmed III, about which not even the name is known; the article's content is invented or based on the matching character in the drama Muhteşem Yüzyıl (except when it concerns the husband or relatives of this obscure person. The external links have nothing to say about her, nor do RS dealing with harem topics. Phso2 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The whole thing seems to be driven by a Turkish TV programme, which is probably at best a case of fiction historical passing out fact. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- uncited and I'm not sure it's not a hoax / fiction as no RS can be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 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 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devolution index[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also, notability is not inherited from Devolution. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete The sources are almost from one author giving me the impression this is not subject to peer review of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:28, 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 16:08, 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 16:20, 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 redirect to List of law enforcement agencies in Tennessee. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesborough Police Department[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:ORGDEPTH. MSJapan (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of law enforcement agencies in Tennessee - I have seen an increasing number of AfDs for similar police/fire departments. As it fails WP:ORGDEPTH I would say redirecting it to the list articles would be a good solution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but the list is pretty much chock-full of redlinks, and I'm not sure what utility it's going to be, as it won't actually supply any information to the reader. MSJapan (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation continued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collierville Police Department --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 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 16:08, 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 16:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect as specified. We should probably addredirects for the others also, but individual town police 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ania Bas[edit]

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

not notable — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sources and references added to further corroborate influence of contemporary artist with exhibitions throughout Europe. user talk:genericxz —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since the nominator couldn't as much as string a sentence, let me help: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. ". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:09, 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 16:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all here ,such as collections. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No signs of coverage as per this search of British media -- and this search of art sites shows there was one event with Tim Knowles, not much commentary on her as an artist, or critical reviews. Maybe WP:TOOSOON?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:09, 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 List of law enforcement agencies in Tennessee. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collierville Police Department[edit]

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

Unsourced, Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. MSJapan (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of law enforcement agencies in Tennessee - I have seen an increasing number of AfDs for similar police/fire departments. As it fails WP:ORGDEPTH I would say redirecting it to the list articles would be a good solution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list is pretty much chock-full of redlinks, and it won't actually supply any information to the reader on the organization. MSJapan (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the same too. But since this article has existed for a while and there may be links from external websites, I just thought a redirect is a good compromise. Another thing is, while the current list is in a pretty bad state, there is a possibility that someone can improve it. For example, creating a table which lists the police departments by city and also providing information like date of establishment, number of personnel, area of jurisdiction, headquarter location etc. (The existing redlinks can simply be removed, but the current bluelinks can be redirected) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect is a bad idea. There are many articles which discuss the police force's of entire states in depth. Even if they fail WP:ORGDEPTH individually as a whole they are notable as agencies of the state government.--Savonneux (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 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 16:09, 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 16:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 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. Already deleted by MBisanz. Sandstein 08:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSZ CMS[edit]

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

Article about a new CMS. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. Possibly a CSD:A7 candidate. - Mr X 16:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - WP:G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Page was afd deleted on 20 July 2016. Still has no significant, independent RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:58, 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 16:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous nomination. I understand that G4 might not apply here since the previous nom didn't attract much discussion and could be viewed as a WP:SOFTDELETE. This second discussion should strengthen the outcome. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:12, 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 List of manga magazines. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Comics[edit]

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

Short run manga anthology magazine, only ran for 5 issues. No ja.wiki article. The Italian wiki page is just a translation of an older revision. A stub article should be capable of expanding into a Start or higher class, I don't see the possibility for that to happen and proving notability would be extremely difficult considering the short run. SephyTheThird (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of manga magazines. Would a redirect be okay, or should we remove the title altogether from the list? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 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 16:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage in either Japanese or English; searching for sources results mostly in false positives. Sadly, given its obscurity, I don't think this would be a viable redirect. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of manga magazines I wasn't able to find any book or scholarly sources discussing the magazine. Searching the kanji yields mostly blogs or retail sites. Unfortunate considering it published mangaka like Oshii and Otomo. Regarding the redirect situation, my understanding is that many non-notable topics can be mentioned in broader articles and it was a manga magazine despite its short run. I also don't see how obscurity plays a role since the entry in the list is sourced to MAD. Opencooper (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the article was nominated the table at List of manga magazines has been updated to include a section for comments about the individual titles (such as changes to publishing schedule). Although I don't see the need to withdraw the nomination seeing as the reasoning is still valid, I am prepared to perform a non-admin close as merge to the list if that is acceptable.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:43, 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 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adem Akyol[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that he meets WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 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 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Yorio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I've read the previous AfD. Notability notwithstanding, this is an unsourced BLP that, per the assertions on the talk page, seems to be the product of multiple single-purpose accounts. I'm having trouble finding adequate coverage in secondary sources to support the article properly. Ringbang (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a CEO of a non-notable company; most coverage seems to come from the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertorial, nothing convincing for substance and I frankly would've PRODed if not for the 1st AfD. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and yet another article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been attempting to police the SPAs in vain, would have done this myself if it wasn't for the first AfD. Brandon (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any references which contribute to notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable business exec.; reads like a press information release. Kierzek (talk) 19:50, 5 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 Non-admin closure. Nomination withdraw. Keep as per previous AFD. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leema Dhar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Does not pass WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR.~~ Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:37, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drawshooting[edit]

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

Not notable under WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent sources. Acalycine (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's taking photographs, for heaven's sake. Everything else is just soapbox. We could also redirect to Street photography but I'm not convinced the term merits one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Looks to be an attempt to legitimize a particular term/technique. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. The term has not found acceptance among specialists, and is not widely used. Mduvekot (talk) 22:06, 5 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'm calling this one now. Only one dissent, and it turns out the user was socking and has been indefinitely blocked. Clear consensus that the subject does not meet our notability standards, and he requested deletion on his Twitter account as noted below. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Mendelsohn[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG- no 'significant coverage' and such coverage as it has is solely WP:PRIMARY, and neither third-party nor independent. Specifically fails WP:JOURNALIST, as subject is neither widely cited or a creator. Non-notable individual. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Also appears to be a bit of a magnet for people with a grudge. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this now-stubbed attack piece. E Eng 13:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article appears to have been created as an attack page. The very first revision was by Tom Mendelsohn who contested the charge in the article, but was promptly reverted by the author. WP:CSD#G10 may be in order here. Bradv 13:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He contested sourced facts that he is proud to admit to his friends. Lord help us if we let every person do that '''tAD''' (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea that using sources that reflect that a journalist admitted to publishing race-bait troll pieces on a major British newspaper's website is "rumour" or "attack" is ridiculous. Funny how after the world gasped as a privileged white male had his sentence watered down, we now rush to protect another privileged, elite-schooled white boy from having publicly known facts (that he admitted himself! [22]) made public. Are articles on other similar people like Rod Liddle, Richard Littlejohn, Katie Hopkins and Milo Yiannopoulos "attack pages" for documenting their controversies? '''tAD''' (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It only has primary sources as the third-party one was deleted for documenting things that the subject regrets '''tAD''' (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (after (edit conflict)) Created as an unbalanced attack page, when stripped back there is no significant coverage in RS to justify a claim of notability. Subject has requested deletion at BLP/N and with such sparse coverage, this request should be respected. Also note that the article subject has edited it twice as an IP and then once as a registered editor and been threatened with a block for edit warring, so we have a BITE situation too, sadly. EdChem (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The only "attack" was to misconstrue him as the writer of that troll piece when he was just the self-confessed publisher who showed no contrition. And now this all gets treated as if he had absolutely nothing to do with it and I was accusing him of a part in the Kennedy assassination. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete noting a singular lack of notability, lack of wide coverage of the claim which one editor has edit-warred for, lack of compliance with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. Salt heavily. Collect (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The so-called edit war was removing COI edits and correcting "writer" to "publisher", which in any case is even more involvement. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My friends at the synagogue told me to protect the reputation of one of the chosen people. How dare a man have to live with the consequences of his actions! Yours, David Asher Solomonbergowitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr0p th3 pr3ssur3 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Dr0p th3 pr3ssur3 is a

Confirmed sock of The Almightey Drill.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about User:Edjeff? E Eng 06:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect EdJeff is the subject of the photo that was uploaded (going by the comments from the source). Given they both work/ed in the journalism sector, I think there is some off-wiki beef going on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sock puppet of whoever that is I'm just a fucking idiot.

Delete as an attack page. Marginal indications of notability selected principally to portray the article subject in a bad light. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only was the article created as an attack page, but it was a crude and unsophisticated attack. This journalist is simply not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 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 03:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gil rozenblatt[edit]

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

Despite the claim that he is the media director of Occupy Wall Street, as well as the creator of its Facebook page, searching for signifcant coverage in reliable sources returned at best brief mentions, and not much specificially about him. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. His one claim to fame seems to be to have created a Facebook page for the Occupy movement - but aside from the fact that that in itself does not confer notability, even that claim is not sourced to a reliable source but instead just an opinion column. I cannot find any other sources. Kolbasz (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Kolbasz said, we do not have a reliable source to establish that he created the Occupy Wall Street facebook page, and I am willing to go so far as to say we should have no articles on people whose closest claim to fame is creating a facebook page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 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 03:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Yong[edit]

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

fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've PRODed instead. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable, article created by WP:SPA, looks like a WP:AUTOBIO. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 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 03:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Me in the Ironbound[edit]

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

Non-notable short film, no significant coverage by third-party sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in the article to establish notability and nothing found in a Google search to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found some local coverage here (although this one isn't really a RS since anyone can write for the Patch) and here, but not anything else. This just doesn't seem to pass NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the movie was set in and filmed in Newark, and the article I used as a reference was a Newark magazine, the two were unrelated. The article wasn't written by the film makers. Also, the film is on YouTube to watch.Vincelord (talk) 14:27, 5 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 03:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Eagle Party[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for WP:A7 speedy deletion as "an article about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Indeed, the text the article reads "is an unregistered political party in United States".

Due diligence done, in my opinion this article should be deleted That is only my opinion, and I ask for other editor opinions.

Perhaps this article should be a WP:REDIRECT to Merlin Miller? Shirt58 (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I found some interesting articles about corporate American Eagle shindigs in LA, I think this political party might exist more in the minds of its member(s) than in any real viable form. I couldn't even find a trivial mention. Yvarta (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not merit a redirect to Merlin Miller, a fringe figure, since the only sources I could find [23] are 2 articles in the American Free Press, a fringe publication put out by the fringe American Freedom Party whose 2012 Presidential candidate Merlin was. Too closely related to be used for notability, and no RS sources found. None. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above reasons. Bulbajer (talk) 16:43, 5 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 as obvious hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Chained In[edit]

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

User:SethCooper20037 continues to add inappropriate pages and this one is no exception. Nickag989 (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and block the page creator for creating hoax articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Information was not found per G3 I think it is fake like hoax articles --Junior5a (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax and block creator.LM2000 (talk) 19:25, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caterpillar engines[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY#7 (simple listings without context information). It is an unsourced listing for that matter. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by not a directory. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 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 A7. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veselé plavkyně[edit]

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

not english Kabahaly (talk) 09:58, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Basque Country[edit]

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

Reason Dd1495 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC) This article presents a term of controversial nature and of very specific circulation as generaly accepted. To draw a humorous comparison, it is like discussing all features of a Sphinx without mentioning that Sphinx is an abstract concept. This article should be either deleted as totally misleading, thoroughly re-formatted or - also following major re-work - merged with other entries.[reply]

Please let me briefly review the usage of the term „Southern Basque Country”.

in Basque

Various grammatical and lexical versions of „Hegoalde” (literally „Southern zone”) existed in various spoken Basque dialects until the late 19th century, denoting areas of Basque realm in Spain. I do not know when the term was first introduced in writing, probably in the early 20th century. From that very moment it became part of the modern Basque Nationalist political discourse; those Basques who opposed the project refused to use the term as they refused to use „Euzkadi”. Suppressed during the Francoist era, since the mid-1970s „Hegoalde” is used in Basque-language media,^[1] also in non-political discourse, though it is usually flavored with politics and at times generates controversy also within the Basque realm.^[2] It is usually preferred to other terms in order to emphasize the Basque presence in Navarre, an in militant discourse in order to advance Basque political designs on Navarre.

Basque is the only language where vernacular version of „Southern Basque Country” is in circulation.

in Spanish

Since the fall of Francoism, it is during the last 40 years, the term „País Vasco peninsular” – listed in the entry as Spanish version of „Southern Basque Country” - has been used by ABC, one of the most popular Spanish dailies, only 3 times. Out of these 3 times, 2 occurences are about explaining what „País Vasco peninsular” actually means, ^[3] which is a proof that the term is not in circulation rather than that it is. The occurence left (from 1979) ^[4] discusses the Basque issue in France and the impact of developments in the Spanish part of the Basque country, which is a very specific usage as well.

Another allegedly Spanish-language version of „Southern Basque Country” is noted as „Helgoalde”. This term has not been used by ABC a single time since the fall of Franco.

One more allegedly Spanish-language version of „Southern Basque Country” is „País Vasco y Navarra”. This phrase – it can hardly be called „a term” - means simply „Basque Country and Navarre”, the same way as you can list together „Aragón y Navarra” or „Extremadura y Andalucia”. It is used against a variety of backgrounds – e.g. wine production, tourism, railway network, history or politics, indicating that the two regions had and have lots in common, but by no means advancing a concept of their unity in a „Southern Basque Country”. By the same token I could perhaps surprise you with the claim that there is a term „North-Western Britain”, which means „Scotland and Wales”.

The most popular Spanish-language term referring to Gipuzkoa, Vizcaya, Alava and Navarre as sort of a unit is „País Vasco-Navarro” (also in other orthographical variations), literally „Basque-Navarrese Country”. The term is not very popular, though it remains in discreet circulation, and is applied generally against historical and cultural background. However, the term can by no means be considered an equivalent of „Southern Basque Country”; it is rather its opposition: the former approaches Navarre as outside the Basque Country, the latter approaches Navarre as part of it.

in English

The term „Southern Basque Country” is generally not used in English, except by Basque authors, in Basque English-language publications^[5] or on Basque English-language sites. ^[6] If there is a need to point to the Basque-inhabited areas of Spain in distinction to those of France, the terms prevailing are „Spanish part of the Basque Country”, „Spanish Basque Provinces” or similar, denominations which usually either ignore the question of Navarre or implicitly exclude the province. ^[7] If an author adheres to the North-South rather than French-Spanish division line, there is a clear preference for „southern Basque Country” instead of „Southern Basque Country”. ^[8] If the term „Southern Basque Country” is used, it usually refers to the 3 provinces of Gipuzkoa, Vizcaya and Alava and excludes Navarre, hence it does not mean what is implied in the entry; ^[9] exceptions are cases when the meaning of a Basque term Hegoalde is explained. ^[10] Scholarly works discussing Basque question in the 4 provinces use the term „Hegoalde” instead of „South Basque Country”. ^[11] Occurences of colloquial usage of the „Southern Basque Country” term in English exist on exceptional basis and they do not bother with the question of Navarre at all. ^[12]

in politics

Since the early 1930s relations between Navarre on one part and Gipuzkoa, Vizcaya and Alava on the other remain somewhat thorny. In 1931 Navarre opted out of the Basque (or, as conceived at that time, Basque-Navarrese) autonomy scheme; during the Civil War most Navarrese joined the Nationalists while most Basques joined the Republicans, which resulted in heavy combat between the two in 1936-1937. In the early Francoist period there were some Navarrese territorial designs on Gipuzkoa so that the province could get access to the ocean and in general Navarre proudly boasted some separate legal establishments while those of Gipuzkoa and Vizcaya were scrapped. In the late 1970s the question of Navarre joining the Basque autonomy popped up again, with the same result as in the 1930s: the province did not join the autonomous Basque Country. This generated frustration among many Basques and some of their militant nationalist groupings keep claiming Navarre as part of the Basque Country; actually, in North-Western Navarre the Basque nationalism seems more militant than it is in the neighboring Gipuzkoa. On the other hand, the process gave rise to modern Navarrismo, a political current vehemently opposed to Basque designs on Navarre and bent on preserving separate Navarrese standing (somewhat similar phenomenon is Blaverismo, anti-Catalan current in the Valencian province).

All the above is background against which the „Southern Basque Country” term should be considered. By and large, it is generally part of the Basque Nationalist toolset; the strategy is to difuse the term as widely as possible in order to facilitate Basque claims on Navarre.

What next

The entry as it is now poses to discuss the term („is a term”), but in fact it does not. There is no information on its linguistic antecedents, origins, versions, first appearance in print, usage, denotations, acceptance levels, derivates and so on. Instead, the entry discusses the object supposedly denoted by the term, it is 4 provinces of Spain, advancing the concept of their unity. Also many links from other WP articles direct to this page as discussing not the term, but the area in question. The entry does not utter a single word on exclusive Basque usage of the term, confuses the reader by wrongly suggesting that the term exists also in Spanish and possibly English, ignores the controversies related and maintains silence on partisan usage of the term. By and large, it discusses the entity which does not exist, the term which (except Nationalist Basque) does not exist and presents Nationalist Basque perspective as impartial encyclopaedic article. It leads a reader to assume that there is a unit named „Southern Basque Country”, discussing its history, features, sub-divisions and so on. As such, it is unacceptable as entirely misleading.

The easiest way forward would be simply to delete the article, and this is the option I would recommend.
Another option is to merge it with one of the existing articles, either on Basque Nationalism or on Basque Country (greater region). This would require some work and will take time.
Perhaps the best option is to re-write the article entirely, so that it becomes what it pretends to be: discussion of the term. Such an entry should clearly state that the term is in circulation only in Basque, that it is politically-loaded, and that it is part of the Basque Nationalist toolset.

^ Aitor Etxarte Iruñeko Hegoalde ikastolako zuzendaria, Nafarroako Eskola Kontseiluko presidente, available here, Nafarroa hegoaldea laguntzeko Errigoraren udazkeneko kanpaina atarian gara available here
^ see a twitter exchange here
^ ABC 26.03.89, available here, ABC 04.07.79, available here, see also in the Sevilla version of the same day, ABC 04.07.79, available here
^ ABC 27.10.79, available http://hemeroteca.abc.es/nav/Navigate.exe/hemeroteca/madrid/abc/1979/10/27/018.html
^ Jasone Cenoz, Josu Perales, The Basque-speaking Communities, [in:] María Teresa Turell (ed.), Multilingualism in Spain, Bristol 2001, ISBN 1853594911, pp. 91-109, Jasone Cenoz, Teaching Through Basque, Bristol 2008, ISBN 9781847690708
^ see e.g. The Financial System of the Basque Country, available here, or The Southern Basque Country: A Really Legal and Legally Real Possibility, available here
^ Hans-Åke Persson, Bo Stråth, Reflections on Europe: Defining a Political Order in Time and Space, Brussels 2007, ISBN 9789052010656, Edward Keenan, Denis Paperno (eds.), Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language, Heidelberg 2012, ISBN 9789400726819, Elliott Robert Barkan, Immigrants in American History: Arrival, Adaptation, and Integration, New York 2013, ISBN 9781598842197, Paddy Woodworth, The Basque Country: A Cultural History, London 2012, ISBN 9781908493231, Wim Jansen, Beginner's Basque, New York 2007, ISBN 9780781812276
^ Gorka Aulestia, Improvisational Poetry from the Basque Country, Reno 1995, ISBN 9780874172010, Kelby Carr, Aquitaine, Bordeaux, Bayonne & France's Basque Country, Oxford 2014, ISBN 9781588437822, Maria Jose Sevilla, Life and Food in the Basque Country, New York - Oxford 1998, ISBN 9781461733133, Stuart Butler, The Basque Country and Navarre: France. Spain, Guilford 2016, ISBN 9781841624822, Renée DePalma, Diane Brook Napier, Willibroad Dze-Ngwa (eds.), Revitalizing Minority Voices: Language Issues in the New Millennium, Rotterdam - Boston 2015, ISBN 9789463001878, Gloria Pilar Totoricaguena, Identity, Culture, and Politics in the Basque Diaspora, Reno 2004, ISBN 9780874175479, Alan Roy King, The Basque Language: A Practical Introduction, Reno 1994, ISBN 9780874171556, Joshua A. Fishman, Can Threatened Languages be Saved?: Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: a 21st Century Perspective, Clevedon 2001, ISBN 9781853594922, Dana Facaros, Michael Pauls, Bilbao and the Basque Lands, Rotterdam - Boston 2008, ISBN 9781860114007, Gloria Pilar Totoricaguena, Basque Diaspora: Migration and Transnational Identity, Reno 2005, ISBN 9781877802454
^ Mikel Gómez Uranga, Basque Economy: From Industrialization to Globalization, Centre for Basque Studies, Reno 2003, ISBN 9781877802102, Durk Gorter, Victoria Zenotz, Jasone Cenoz, Minority Languages and Multilingual Education: Bridging the Local and the Global, Heidelberg 2013, ISBN 9789400773172
^ „the four regions within Spain form Hegoalde, or „Southern Basque Country”, Stuart Notholt, Fields of Fire: An Atlas of Ethnic Conflict, Leicester 2008, ISBN 9781906510473 p. 7.08
^ Jan Mansvelt Beck, Territory and Terror: Conflicting Nationalisms in the Basque Country, London 2005, ISBN 9781134276059
^ see e.g. a tourist blog, available here, or a yacht chartering website, available here

--Dd1495 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have as much time as Dd1495 usually does to elaborate on the topic or create what looks almost a research paper or report to advocate for the removal, so I will try to outline my case with the main points. There seems to be a recurrent insistence on several Spanish editors to mimick the politics in Spain towards the Basques, more so nowadays, by denying the existence of the Basques as living in a certain territory and bringing up that assumption to the WP. Furthermore, there is an increased attempt to assimilate the name ‘’Basque’’ to a Spanish nominalism, i.e. Provincias Vascongadas or Comunidad Autónoma Vasca (País Vasco) hence a Basque equals an inhabitant of those three provinces, a restrictive administrative approach, far away from its historic, ethnic meaning. In Basque, it is just euskalduna, no matter where they come from (Navarre, Gipuzkoa or any other district). In Basque, the original language of the Basques, the idea of a division of between 3 and 1 districts has been historically almost inexistent, referring to Nafarroa, Bizkaia, Araba and Gipuzkoa as equals, each with their own General Councils, and called Euskal Herria as a whole (including sometimes also the traditional provinces on the French side).

Navarre remained in 1936 the claimed core of the “Basque race”’s ‘’true traditionalist essence’’ for the rebels, opposing it to the fellow Basque provinces that had shifted towards progressive and Basque nationalist positions. However, as of the 90s, UPN’s ideological approach shifted to astonishing positions, like rejecting altogether the ‘’Basqueness’’ of Navarre (unlike a decade earlier).

It seems that the editor above tries his best to create a restrictive, anti-academic approach to the Basque collective (cultural, ethnic) reality, only accepting its existence if a equivalent administrative units exist. He has even created an article where the necessary reference to the Basque people’s territory in Spain is replaced with a link to a name in Spanish, see here, instead of the reality itself, as if it were something of a fantasy (sic). That procedure is not correct and should be fixed, since we are not talking about linguistics. Tellingly the proposal to create a statute for the Basque Country in 1931 is not even cited in that article. However, I should say, if the name is an issue, I am fine with a discussion on it.

It is most striking the outlook behind the idea of not collaborating on the improvement, but erasing altogether, detracting information from the reader instead of adding or improving it, removing the territory of a people with all its common features, such as history, language and law, that account also for 19 and 20th century critical events in Spain, like the Carlist wars. It really looks like WP:IJDLI. As in other articles, the preferred approach of the above editor seems to be the conversion of certain articles into personal pages. Contributions are welcome, this is the WP, a collaborative project!

By the way, by the same token, we might as well remove Kurdistan (called by the Turkish administration, the "south-eastern borderlands"), Lapland (Finland), or Swabia, since they have no administrative equivalent. Are they an invention as well? I see this removal proposal as an overt political statement, so I just should encourage editors to keep editing on the article in question contributing their best with accurate and reliable information. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is an absurd proposal. The geopolitics of the Basque country are complicated and having this article separate (alongside Basque Country (autonomous community) and [[24]]) allows writers and readers to deal with topics relevant to each sub-unit, without having to cover it all on the same page. It is no different than the different articles which exist on Catalonia (disambiguation). Akerbeltz (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A PS: this term incidentally (as südliches Baskenland) does appear in German, including academic writings (for example in Haase). Sure, it's not common either in German or English but not that many people write in either language about the geopolitics of the Basque Country, same as not many English authors cover Nushu.

Delete - As Dd1495 well explained, the term is clearly biased. It should be completely rewritten to define a Basque nationalist concept and not a neutral geographical one.--Raderich (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NPOV, it's not up to us what is or is not a real place, and it has been covered by reliable sources. The politics of the situation shouldn't play a role - it's not our place to decide. It might need to be rewritten, but AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the arguments stated above. Also, discussion has been on for more than 15 days, and it is not conclusive. WP:ADF directions are clear, discussion should be closed after 7 days (168 hours). The article could be improved and that is not a problem in this or any articles. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments given for deletion are actually arguments indicating that the term is notable enough to be kept. The article needs to be clear about alternative names. Thei nformation given in the nomination should help. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friedensrichter[edit]

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

Nonsense article, based on a news story that describes a situation in Germany, where Muslims rely a so-called "justice of the peace" who mediate between families.

The news source uses the term in inverted commas to refer to a self-appointed member of the community to highlight that some people in Germany avoid using the legal system. This is utterly misleading because the term " Friendensrichter" is used in some German states as a term for an official lay judge at a court of law, similar to magistrate in England. Source: https://www.justiz.sachsen.de/content/2053.htm Mootros (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously made up by somebody. It should be replaced by a translation of the proper article at [25]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is obviously not a German concept, so if those judges should have an article then under the title as they are known in English. Anyway Qadi exists. Agathoclea (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As pointed out, and further seen from this dab, the term Friedensrichter has traditional uses in certain German-speaking regions. The AfD and its German counterpart, however, is about usage in certain Muslim communities, and both are sourced in total by three news stories, using the term in passing with qualifications "so-called" and "self-designated" or inside quotations. Eperoton (talk) 17:27, 6 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 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manatee County Elected Officials[edit]

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

List of NN individuals. WP:NOTDIR applies. reddogsix (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete list of non notables. Imagine if we did such lists for the millions of towns in the world. LibStar (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability concerns, merging will cause undue weight. Prevan (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per the above concerns. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 02:44, 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 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hercy Miller[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Actually don't understand why the speedy was declined; HARDLY makes a claim of notability, is completely unsupported, only source is not one bit reliable and actually doesn't mention the subject. Fails WP:BIO on all fronts, delete. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 12:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess appareing in Family Empire is a claim to notability, but I see no reason it meets our notability requirements at all. The claim about being "one of the top 3 middle school basketball players in the US" to me seems total rubbish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 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 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon (Scottish band)[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to verify that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND, there are no RS available as the group appears to already have passed into oblivion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find several of the albums released under the band name Avalon. I couldn't find any coverage of Avalon or The Medium Wave Band or their work in reliable sources that would establish their notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:59, 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 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Deo[edit]

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

Proposing for deletion. Failed CSD: A7 and PROD; Notability is heavily contested and missing references to some key points that I wasn't able to locate. Dane2007 (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree that the references need improving, but think he is notable for representing Nepal at scientific conferences and also for winning scientific prizes so passing WP:Bio. Offline sources can hopefully be provided by Nepali editors. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not remotely meeting meeting WP:Prof on basis of scientific work with 12 cites for only one paper on GS. Does not pass WP:GNG. Far, far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SPA-created page lacking WP:RS on a young 20-something who has hardly any citations: "representing Nepal at scientific conferences" is not notable. Agricola44 (talk) 13:43, 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 merge to ProjeKcts. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masque (King Crimson album)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ProjeKcts if further coverage isn't found. If someone could dig up more sources it could be kept but a merge is probably best otherwise. --Michig (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Michig. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meger to ProjeKcts, I found no new reliable sources that added to notability. Gab4gab (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ProjeKcts, with no loss of information overall. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm (video game)[edit]

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

PROD removed with the basis that there's coverage for crowdfunding which is not actually convincing for notability and also then a "2016 release"; all of this is still not a convincing objection to my now-remoced PROD. SwisterTwister talk 01:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The sources listed - IGN, Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Engadget - are good, but I'm not sure if it is enough to establish notability. Perhaps it is a WP:TOOSOON situation? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources are good, but probably a bit below what is required for an unreleased game. Second choice is to draft space/userfy it and wait until release and see if it still gets coverage. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources seem to be fine. It has been covered by IGN, RPS and Engadget. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While there isn't a reliable sources discussing this, it still gets three from three different reliable publication, which I would say is great. It passes WP:GNG. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:49, 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 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean News Now[edit]

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

Article has only one source that reads like an advertisement on a non-english website, was created by an editor with a COI, and is not notable. Tarage (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Woodroar (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Wikipedia article is worded quite similar to an article in Rozenberg Quarterly. This might be coincidence, but still. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 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 03:12, 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 07:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I frankly consider this G11 material through and through, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation[edit]

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

An article about a company that has been around for 6 months but for which there are no references showing any notability. Searches yield very little which is perhaps not surprising when it was only constituted in 2015. Almost certainly too soon for a Wikipedia article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:45, 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 03:17, 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 07:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 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 03:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fruela Fuente[edit]

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

There is no indication that this is a notable person beyond a WP:BLP1E basically for his audition performance. I don't see any mention of him at The X Factor (UK series 11) so it's not like it's worth merging his information there. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:51, 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 03:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 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 07:05, 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 18:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ATrueChurch[edit]

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

Non-notable, self-sourced. Fails WP:ORG. Does not appear to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. WA Post 2005 article linked mentions it only in passing. Does not appear to meet WP:NONPROFIT either. -- Dual Freq (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hmm. This one is not as clearcut as the nom makes it seem. The Washington Post and ATrueCult references mean it's within spitting distance of the GNG, so I'm going to explore a bit more. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of this book, published by Thomas Nelson, which mentions Fish and A True Church. That plus the Washington Post article meet GNG. There are also at least a dozen other Christian Websites such as patheos which have critiques of the movement. It appears the article is substantially true and verifiable, even if the notability is borderline. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" would mean that Washington Post story would be about the church in question. That article is about Billy Graham[26] quoting Fish and mentioning ATrueChurch in passing, only to describe Fish. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I was going to vote to delete, but perhaps they are worth keeping as notorious schismatics. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 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 03:18, 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 07:05, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz (Frankenstein)[edit]

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

It's alive! It's alive!, but it doesn't deserve to be. It's just a character in one film version of Frankenstein, albeit the most famous one. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content already in Frankenstein (1931 film). -- Lyuflamb (talk) 09:49, 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 03:19, 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 07:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without sources to establish notability, there is no need for an article. TTN (talk) 18:18, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Bendfeld[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 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 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons stated above. --Parkfly20 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NHOCKEY and no substantial coverage. 13:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Lepricavark (talk) 14:37, 6 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 03:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Poet Laureate[edit]

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

Article, based mainly on primary sources, about a position created by a local LGBT organization, which is serving much more as a WP:COATRACK for a BLP of the incumbent titleholder than as an encyclopedic article about the title. Trudy Howson might be eligible for an article of her own — the few acceptable reliable sources here point toward the possibility of her being sufficiently notable as an individual (although they're not enough to slamdunk that by itself without some additional sources) — but nothing here supports or properly sources that the title is a notable one in its own right. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, and added a couple of projects to the article talkpage so this afd appears on their alert lists. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Trudy Howson and expand. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This a newly created award and a local one at that. We don't create articles on every local award. Fails GNG and WP:TOOSOON. The poet doesn't seem to be notable either to me, so it is a clear delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - award doesn't seem notable, apparently not a position appointed by a major national organisation. Blythwood (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete sourcing is just not out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable award dealing largely with a possibly notable poet. I suggest a possible rewrite along those lines if the creator feels that can be sourced out. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable award and insufficient coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 6 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 List of video games notable for speedrunning#Super Mario series. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards long jump glitch[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to List of Super Mario speedrunning records#Super Mario 64 could suffice but was reverted. czar 06:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's quickly look through what there is: Wired was kind enough to link us to a tutorial of how the technique works. That could be useful. Houston Press adds that a player named Xiah figured out how to use the glitch to beat the game without any stars. The line "tap A to make Mario repeatedly jump upon landing. Done right, this allows Mario to pass through walls" is a neat in-text description of the backwards long jump, btw. Lastly, geek, a source not currently used in the article, is sadly more of a minor mention. I feel like in reliable sources, there's just too little to go on. Perhaps a Wiktionary definition would be more use. Currently, the article is using some community-driven websites like sm64.com and TASVideo. Though it's great that these people are working so hard to learn everything there is to know about Super Mario 64, they're all primary sources at best. To see if a topic is notable, we need to see secondary sources talking about them in depth, whether it's in the form of news articles or whole books on the topic. Huh, I would love to read such a book.. Ahem, anyway, I'm afraid this article itself should be redirected to the Mario speedrunning page. ~Mable (chat) 07:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No independent notability outside of the redirect target (the game itself). There's not much more than a sentence or two worth of info when you remove the trivial and poorly sourced content. Better as a mention in the redirect target. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is a redirect to List of video games notable for speedrunning#Super Mario series where the glitch is mentioned.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, looks like I didn't read the whole nomination, which also suggested that. Yes, that would be a better redirect target. Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of video games notable for speedrunning#Super Mario series - The only two usable refs are already used over there where BLJ is mentioned. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A technique used in speedrunning without several, in-depth sources isn't notable for its own article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:03, 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 03:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Penn[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Provided sources are a profile piece in the Providence College newspaper, a YouTube video interview from a local radio station in connection with a glorified "Battle of the Bands" appearance, and the subject's own Facebook page. Collectively these fall well short of WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, and possibly don't even bring the article out of speedy deletion territory. --Finngall ^talk 16:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are college newspaper and social media. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:05, 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 keep. Withdrawn with no other rationales to deleted, defaulting to keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team NoA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

one of the top Counter-Strike clans for a few years, but there doesn't seem to be the coverage in reliable sources to be included on Wikipedia Prisencolin (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 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 06:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, I may have found some more sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:30, 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 redirect to Sparklehorse#EPs. MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chords I've Known[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 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 00:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage in RS. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sparklehorse#EPs. No coverage found but worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:39, 6 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 03:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Chettri[edit]

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

Still nothing confidently convincing of his own independent notability, searches have found news but it's all basically PR for the company itself, nothing convincing for herself. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 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 00:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 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 06:47, 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. Michig (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sachitanand Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN and the article is of a disastrous bad quality. The Banner talk 09:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC) And the original author already removed the AfD and two prods.[reply]
Delete He is the head for his political party in one of the 243 legislative districts of Bihar. I am not seeing any way that this would make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an unreferenced biography of a living person and was previously properly tagged for proposed deletion as an unsourced BLP. This tag was improperly removed without adding references. As an unsourced BLP, it certainly doesn't meet either general notability or political notability. The fact that the article is of bad quality isn't in itself reason to delete, but unsourced BLPs should be deleted even if of good quality. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Storme Whitby-Grubb[edit]

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

Still nothing actually suggestive of the needed substance for independent notability, searches and examinations have found nothing to the levels of convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 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 00:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what would be suggestive of the needed substance. There are numerous articles and interviews from multiple major publications on this woman's accomplishments and recognition in the music industry with many high profile bands and musicians, as a woman and as an entrepreneur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandadoyle543 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music manager.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 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 06:40, 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. blatant spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Princess kelechi oghene[edit]

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

Non-notable model, "socialite", and "ambassador" for a drug manufacturer. The one reference contains a description of her birthday party (with photos!). Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is a little unclear on what her real name is, but that's beside the point. I don't think it's WP:A7 eligible because it does make a few claims like "influential bespoke fashion designer", so I'm posting it here. Pianoman320 (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and no criteria in WP:NBIO are met. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable subject that fails WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, an administrator has deleted this article under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, have left a luvkitten message on their talkpage:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 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 03:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark O'Loughlin[edit]

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

Nothing here shows any evidence of notability. The refs are all internal or very niche. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I've deleted the article per author request, as the title was wrong and the author has recreated it elsewhere. I've transferred the AfD tag but the logs and deletion pages need moving still.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 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 06:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 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 08:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Fitzpatrick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Frankly I would've PRODed if not for the 2008 (completely outdated for Wikipedia currency) as there's still nothing actually convincing, his films have no articles and there's nothing else convincing listed at his IMDb, none of the listed sources are actual coverage and my own searches have found none. Notifying 1st AfD nominator Whpq. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. It's now a stub, but topic is notable per guideline and judged as suitably notable at the last AFD. Is it here again because WP:BEFORE was either overlooked, ignored, or forgotten? As the article now belongs to Wiki and fluff was removed, giving us a nice and well-sourced stub to meet WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. And with it being improoved, it can and should stay. My own quick look at Google News for "Blake Fitzpatrick" director, shows numerous articles about this young director... multiple in-depth and extensive coverage in reliable sources. He has the coverage. The notability is most definitely there through, at minimum, the Kansas City Star, and the Wichita Eagle, and lots of others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

I think that most of the concern comes from the fact that the coverage is largely local and the awards are from fairly minor film festivals - although the other issue is that it looks like there has been some definite undeclared COI and paid editing with the article and with Fitzpatrick related articles. In any case, I didn't really see much come up when I searched due to others with the same name. I'm not arguing delete yet, just saying that so far there isn't a lot out there as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 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 10:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's another Blake Fitzpatrick in the Documentary Media department at Ryerson. Most of the sources I'm seeing which I initially thought to be about this Fitzpatrick are actually about that one. I'm finding almost nothing about this subject (i.e. fails WP:BIO). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sourcing does not suggest sufficient coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 6 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 03:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eugen Radescu[edit]

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

Nothing here indicates encyclopedic notability. I'm sure the subject is an interesting guy, but nothing he's done seems to qualify him for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Moreover, there are no sources establishing any sort of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:15, 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 03:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable academic who comes no where near any notability criteria for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two cites on GS. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as I'm not finding anything at all actually convincing, started by an SPA in 2009. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment not clear to me that he is an academic, a philosopher, or politics-related. Looks like some sort of artist, WP:CREATIVE, because interviews like this: [27] also [28], and [29]. Looks as though he's been curtaor/director, or co-director of the Bucharest Biennale since it began; his Little magazine becomes the journal of the Biennale every other year (according to the link I put in this comment to the Biennale Foundation). I did add an article from Artforum to the article. I think someone who edits cutting edge art should take a look at this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Doesn't seem to meet the SNG for scholars. Journalists are notoriously hard to source out, not seeing sufficient career achievement to push an IAR case on that basis. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 6 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) Dane2007 (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Carhouse[edit]

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

This is a carhouse, a garage, operated by Toronto's public transportation system. Such things have no inherent notability, for good reason--they are highly utilitarian with little cultural or other value. Sourcing in the article, and sources on the internet, are primary, directory-style, or, at best, local and fairly trivial mentions. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is one of three very similar ones. See the other two, out of:

--do ncr am 22:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As fails WP:GEOFEAT; I wondered if, as Toronto's second-oldest, it might have notability due to "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance." But no third-party sourcing for this exists. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. At best, it can be merged with Toronto Transit Commission facilities. The Banner talk 19:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What the heck is a carhouse?? Is it another word for a garage or a car park? Anyway, there is no evidence of notability for this "carhouse". Fails GNG. Class455fan1 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Class455fan1 (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This article meets WP:GNG because at this time there are at least 13 sources listed in the article which contain significant coverage over several different source types which are WP:RS. Zpeopleheart (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC) - Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources here. If sources deemed inadequate for some reason, then "Merge" is obviously the better alternative than "Delete". (Copying my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Yard): It is legitimate material for larger article Toronto Transit Commission facilities, which has a short section about it. It's not too long that most of it could not be merged back to the larger article's section, leaving a redirect behind and hence leaving the page's edit history, which can be revived if more coverage turns up. However it is also okay that it is split out to a separate article, so that extra detail does not clog up the main article. There is not much to be gained by this AFD.

Further, it is an editing decision at Toronto Transit Commission facilities about when its material can/should be split out, so if this is deleted then I think it can be recreated at any time by editors there. I think this should have been a discussion at Talk:Toronto Transit Commission facilities instead of at AFD. --do ncr am 22:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. (1) It is a heritage structure. (2)Toronto Life identified it as one of the four most popular venues during the annual Doors Open Toronto. (3) It is an important part of the infrastructure that keeps Toronto running.
I was going to write that this is an "obvious" keep, except I realized that those who have asserted non-notability are also tacitly making claims of obviousness. So, clearly it isn't obvious to them.
What they are failing to recognize is that important infrastructure, like this carhouse, if of interest to others -- including the writers who have written about the carhouses. Sorry, but the delete arguments, the ignoring of the reliable references, is a classic instance of one of the arguments in the essay WP:Arguments to avoid -- namely, "I don't like it". Geo Swan (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to see what similar articles might exist for major cities and in NYC, I see that only Coney Island Yard Electric Motor Repair Shop has its own article, because it's a nationally designated historic site. Everything else is grouped in List of New York City Subway yards and I can't find any record of any of those yards ever having had their own articles. That said, Category:Railway workshops does contain some articles of similar notability or lack of -- both of course that's an OTHERSTUFF argument... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major permanent transit infrastructure has always been considered notable, though relatively fe people have written on the behind-the-scenes parts of it. I'm glad someone is beginning to at least work on them. The individual sections in the List of NYC yards could and should be expanded into full articles. This is major enough, and there are sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is large facility not just "garage". Important history for this too. Martin Morin (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As DGG says, we have consistently, and appropriately, treated major transportation infrastructure as notable. This one also has evidence of particular historical notability. The article is properly sourced and the level of detail already present here militates against merging to a more general article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eglinton LRT Carhouse: Unremarkable, routine piece of transport infrastructure, there's thousands of those and this one has nothing interesting to say about it, it's a local building and local people do local things in it, such as drive streetcars or have festivals. It's not "major infrastructure". The Gotthard Base Tunnel is major infrastructure. This here is a garage. Sources treat the topic superficially, or are of a local nature. Sandstein 22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein,

Aren't two of our core policies WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability? As per GNG, when reliable sources publish verifiable, authoritative coverage of a topic, isn't it notable, by definition?
Your "merely local" concern, why shouldn't the rest of us see this as just another way of rephrasing the most commonly uttered WP:Arguments to avoid -- "I don't like it". If we were to apply your "merely local" rule to all articles, what percentage of them would remain? Fifty percent? Ten percent? Why cover Manchester United, when we could merely cover every summer and winter Olympics? Are you aware of any wiki policy, or wiki guideline, that would bar covering a topic, that had good references, because someone argued the topic was "merely local"?
With regard to the Gotthard Tunnel -- which I had to look up, because, while it might be local to you in Europe, I'd forgotten about it. Are you sure you aren't setting the bar too high? For other North Americans, the recently completed Gotthard Tunnel is a record-setting railway tunnel under the Alps, the longest in the world. It cost over $10 billion USD -- about the same cost as Boston's Big Dig. I suggest that the Gotthard Tunnel, the Big Dig and the recently completed upgrade to the Panama Canal, are like the Napoleon, the Admiral Nelson, the Duke of Wellington of infrastructure projects. But we didn't stop at just covering Napoleon, Nelson, Wellington. We will cover the officers who commanded their divisions, and brigades -- when there are good reliable sources to flesh the articles on those lesser generals out. Similarly, the lesser generals who didn't serve directly under Napoleon, Nelson, Wellington? We will cover them, too, when good, reliable sources exist.
To your comment that these two articles cover "routine piece of transport infrastructure, there's thousands of those", I'd say: "Thousands? Then let's get cracking!"
You went on and added: "this one has nothing interesting to say about it", surely, after closing AFD for almost a decade, you must recognize that this phrase you used is merely rewording WP:IDONTLIKEIT?
Personally, I think a lot of new age stuff, like homeopathy, is dangerous nonsense. But, no matter how much I personally dislike the topic, I would defend anyone who tried to cover homeopathy, neutrally, and while citing good, reliable references. When I am willing to defend coverage of topics I hate, when it does comply with policy, how should I react when it seems your main argument boils down to finding the topic of these articles simply uninteresting? Geo Swan (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dislike this building or this topic. I've written one or two railway or building articles myself. But other than in exceptional cases, not apparently present here, this type of infrastructure is too commonplace to be the subject of any other than superficial coverage, and therefore unfit for an article. Sandstein 17:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulation! These look like fine articles -- today, particularly the one on the Stadler KISS commuter railway and the Zytglogge medieval guard tower.
  Let's look more closely at the Stadler KISS commuter railway, OK? Here is your first draft. Three references; two paragraphs; three sentences. One of those references is to an internal document -- does not establish notability.
  But I am supporting your younger self! Deletion is supposed to be based on the notability of the article's topic. A new commuter rail service, where the transit agency has committed to purchase 50 train-sets?
  This was a clearly notable topic.
  This was a clearly notable topic, even though the "project wasn't even complete yet!" as the other people voicing delete opinions claimed.
  This was a clearly notable topic, even though it was only three sentences long, even though it only cited two independent references.
  Can I call on the 2008 Sandstein to return? Geo Swan (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to reply with proper arguments en without personal attacks or comments? The Banner talk 09:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you genuinely think I personally attacked you, or someone else, please leave me a heads-up on my talk page. Please be specific. If you do so, and I agree with you, I'll do what I can to remedy that. But substantive, policy-based discussion is not a personal attack. Geo Swan (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above was not policy-based but just bashing. The Banner talk 22:09, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stitches (rapper)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm bringing this to AfD after declining a G4, as the article contains more content and sourcing than its prior incarnation had, plus he's released an album since then.

My concern here is that most of the sourcing in the article was written prior to the AfD in March 2015 and as such, would have been existent during the last AfD. Some of the sourcing seems to be mildly questionable as far as RS status goes and I'm also concerned that the majority of his coverage stems from potential BLP issues like allegations of supplying fans with drugs and getting into altercations, things that we typically don't include in articles unless there's an overwhelming amount of coverage. There is some mildly heavy coverage of these, but not really an overwhelming amount and even then, this isn't entirely the type of thing that we use to judge notability. This source is of dubious usability and it's also so short it's pretty much a WP:TRIVIAL source. The same issue can be said of this link to a degree as well - it's very short.

Now what could potentially support notability is that he's been covered by the New York Times, Miami New Times, Complex twice. However I don't know that this is enough to really show notability, especially as the other sources are questionable for the above reasons.

I don't really have a strong opinion either way, however I thought that this would warrant a second AfD given the additional sources and content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that when I searched I couldn't really find much out there. His stage name does make looking for more sourcing a bit difficult, admittedly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I just made an account to share my thoughts on this AfD because I don't want my IP to be seen. Most sources that mention him are semi-reliable and are usually a case of WP:NOTNEWS like citations #4, #5, and #7 on the article. Other sources that do mention him and are reliable are usually a cause of WP:TRIVIAL. He doesn't pass WP:GNG overall. Justforthisrightnow905 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been reported in the New York Times, Miami New Times (as recently as five months ago) [30] and Complex too many too count, altogether that means he's reported on in national newspapers, his state newspapers and his professions top magazines, how does that not pass WP:GNG even if barely? to me it's a clear pass and even though he may be a figure in disrepute unlike the above non policy based arguments he clearly is reported on, just click on the search news button up on this page. also how is a fully dedicated NYT article "trivial" coverage like the above admitted SPA claims? Like him or not he passes GNG more then quite a few BLPs on here. GuzzyG (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NY Times article shows signficance. BlackAmerican (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:53, 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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caritamo Foundation[edit]

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

No unaffiliated reliable sources, as required by the general notability guideline. All I saw searching were a few business registries (not much better than the phone book) before Google started suggesting items featuring similar results. No news results, no scholar results. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched on Google, Google news, Google scholar and DuckDuckGo. I found nothing other than the new Wikipedia article, a Facebook page and a business registry. Since there are few results even when a similar name is included, it does not take long to go through full search results. For an organization which allegedly began in 2003 (but was only "officially" founded in 2016 - however that can be), it has garnered no verifiable coverage showing notability that can be found on the search engines. Donner60 (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. This may be a WP:TOOSOON situation if the foundation was just created. shoy (reactions) 19:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a business directory on which every organization that exists at all gets an automatic inclusion pass; it's an encyclopedia, where an article is earned on the basis of sufficient reliable source coverage to get the topic over WP:ORG. But there's no RS coverage shown (or, per above commenters, even locatable) here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when sourceability improves. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. I can find no independent reliable sources that cover this group. Meters (talk) 05:44, 5 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. Michig (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BitNinja[edit]

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

Advertising article that fails WP:NSOFT. The only non-primary source I found is [31], which tends to support the idea of spamdvertisment on WP. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage - blogs are not typically sufficient to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:18, 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 11:28, 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 00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 03:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch yields only bitninja pages, facebook, and blogs, looks like WP:PROMO. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not widely used and could well be a scam/spam if this is correct. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:48, 5 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 03:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switchboard (company)[edit]

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

No reliable, independent sources of any substance, or a clear indication that it meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Two sources do not mention Switchboard, two are routine listings in app stores, one is a press release written by the company's CEO, and the remaining two are listings from local venture competitions which offer no depth. A search for better sources found nothing. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The local venture competition sources should be reviewed as the above statement is entirely subjective ("offer no depth"). DigiNative13 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One is a press release for the event issued by Simon Fraser University: Switchboard is the end-to-end freight management platform that allows shippers to find, track and pay pre-verified trucking companies. That is the only mention of the company on that page. The other source just mentions the company's name with a link to their website. My subjective opinion is that neither of those show enough depth to indicate notability. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You conveniently switched references when alluding to the press release, that's not the competition source. The "lack of depth" argument is, again, rather subjective. I can claim that about any source, does not make it accurate. DigiNative13 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "switched references"? The New Ventures site provides no information about Switchboard except that it has participated in the competition and made it to round three,[32] so I'm not clear on what you're saying. "Depth" has a specific meaning in this case, per WP:CORPDEPTH, but yes, this is somewhat subjective. That's why I said "my subjective opinion". It's subjective in the same way that all editing is somewhat subjective. Wikipedia has very few purely objective tests for this kind of thing. Even the simplest notability guidelines require context and interpretation, so dismissing something by labeling it subjective isn't all that persuasive by itself. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You originally made reference to two startup competition sources, then listed one of them as the press release which is an unrelated source. If you can't even keep track of your own indications, then that's rather telling. You can protest and claim that subjectivity is a fair basis all you want, it won't help your case or come off as remotely persuasive or intelligible for that matter. DigiNative13 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? There are two sources about two competitions, one of which is a press release... right? "The Coast Capital Savings Venture Prize competition is held annually by SFU's Venture Connection program and is open to all SFU students and recent alumni innovators." The press release was issued by the University which is closely linked to the competition. That's not an unrelated source. I'm baffled by why that is supposed to be a contradiction. Is there another source somewhere? Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Does not meet wp:corp. It's a bit hard to search for sources because the name is a generally used term, and the company web page does not have a press section (which is often a good way to find links, although possibly selected for positive remarks). In the article itself, there are no third-party sources that would support notability. To whit: #1 their own press release, #2-#3 download sites, #4 has no mention, #5-#6 shows that the company's software was nominated for prizes (but didn't win). I don't think the prizes are big enough that being an also-ran would confer notability. The only article I found independently was this and it appears to be a kind of directory. LaMona (talk) 17:12, 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 02:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:11, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Alert[edit]

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

10-year-old unencyclopaedic page that contained promo and possible copyvios (they might have been backwards copies but I'm not sure), along with conflicts of interest. Appears to have been created to promote the organisation. May or may not be notable, but perhaps this should be WP:TNT'd. Adam9007 (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. I'm not even sure how importance is asserted to avoid CSD#A7. Toddst1 (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable secretary generals and board members. Adam9007 (talk) 17:18, 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 02:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:11, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian Black Cats[edit]

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

There are barely sources about this "unit". The Belarusian Resistance, documentary by PartyzanFilm 2008 is a Belarusian nationalist propaganda movie and with safety not neutral. The other sources (Chodakiewicz, Dorril and Wilson) write each only one sentence about the Black Cats. In addition thirty persons are not a guerilla. In my opinion the verifiable content should be moved into the article of Michał Vituška. --Der Rationalist (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Oppose. I really don't like what I see happening here. Book references are being removed to provide a justification for the argument. Please follow Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion among other guidelines. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed content, that is based on the Belarusian Resistance documentary, because it is not a trustable source, but obviously a propaganda movie. The only book reference I have removed was I Won't Die Hungry: A Holocaust Survivor's Memoir by Alice Singer-Genis, because there are no indications that the same group is meant.--Der Rationalist (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are plenty of reliable sources on the Russian Wikipedia article. The article should be improved rather than deleted.--Catlemur (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 01:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "I removed content, that is based on the Belarusian Resistance documentary, because it is not a trustable source, but obviously a propaganda movie.", using gtranslate on the scribd source, it appears to be a Polish person's commentary of the documentary, that is why its not useable not that it is "obviously a propaganda movie", (warning sarcasm approaching), we may as well delete all BBC documentary sources from any articles about the English involvement in WWII as being propoganda, although they may have a certain bias., that said agree with nom that subject does not warrant a separate article so delete as subject is adequately covered in Michał Vituška. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you. The unit consisted of only thirty persons. Therefore it was not a real guerilla, but a small unit of the SS-Jagdverband Ost. The content is better of in the article of Michał Vituška.--Der Rationalist (talk) 11:58, 26 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, 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 02:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 03:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michał Vituška -- it seems this was a real group, but the material is already covered in the Vituška article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 5 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. Michig (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Dao[edit]

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

Winner of some kind of minor state beauty pageant distantly affiliated with the Miss America line. At this point the subject is an otherwise non-notable WP:BLP1E. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winners of teenaged beauty pageants at the state level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 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 03:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per reasons listed above. This is local news; it does not belong on an international encyclopedia. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete John Pack Lambert and Tigercompanion25 are right. Slu tsu (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, not enough sources, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 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. czar 05:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Press X To Not Die (video game)[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. The single source that was added while this article was deprodded is not reliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. A WP:VG/RS Google custom search turns up a few hits, but they're mostly about the meme. The Steam link proves that it exists, but we'd need reviews to demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is the unncessary (video game) disambiguator in the title? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:20, 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 04:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Werther Quest[edit]

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

Non-notable video game that has 0 results when using the WP:VG/S Custom Search. I can't find anything that proves notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable video game, possibly a promotional article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for notability, sources nothing but blogs and other self-published material. Prevan (talk) 02:32, 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 03:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Squirro[edit]

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

I frankly would've PRODed and this is nearly A7 if not the thin TechCrunch which is basically emphasizing it not being notable either ("Starting Companies to Watch" and my own searches have simply found press releases and mere mentions. AfD is likely best, however, since this was started before in January 2013. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Sources inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Beg to differ: The company is going for some years, the company has been discussed in (German speaking) media (NZZ, IT Markt, Netzwoche) over the years, and the folks behind the company have built other referenced products as well (Memonic) Dorianselz (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dorianselz, may I ask if you are at all related to this company? Because CrunchBase lists an officer with a very similar name. While having a conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, persons with a COI should 1) make a clear declaration (see the wiki page) and 2) refrain from !voting on deletions. For your convenience, I'll leave a longer explanation on your talk page. LaMona (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- promo article on a non notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 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 keep. AfD is not cleanup (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

End-Year Chart 2015 (Romania)[edit]

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

This article is based on a wrong source - http://www.mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2015s.aspx - which is for summer chart only, not "End-Year", and thus has wrong info. For End-Year chart the source is http://www.mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2015.aspx XXN, 19:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are correct, so... can't you just update the chart and the reference from the correct source, rather than delete the article? Richard3120 (talk) 15:21, 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 10:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. AfD is not cleanup and there is a source that the nominator believes is suitable for use in updating the page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:13, 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 03:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Han Fook Kwang[edit]

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

subject fails WP:INDY as it has not been discussed extensively in third-party sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for attention to this page. Based on your feedback, I have added external references from

Bloomberg Business Week Database.
Links from external sources where he serves.
A Published Book by World Scientific talking about the person. I linked to a Google Book version for better checking of the references.
Many other miscellaneous references from conferences, web etc

Hope this satisfies WP:INDY objections. -- KennethTan1971 —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 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 11:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newspaper and journal editors are not considered notable unless of particular achievement. Engleham (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are newspaper journalist considered Notable ? I note Journalist and Newspaper Editor has full sections on wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Asian_journalists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Singaporean_journalists

Han was the Editor of StraitsTimes for 10 years. It is the biggest newspaper in circulation in Singapore. KennethTan1971 (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue here is that there are not enough reliable sources independent of Straits Times and Singapore Press Holdings (where the subject works). I am aware that the subject served as editor: but that doesn't make it inherently notable. I have previously voted to delete journalists (even if they were the chief editor) because there were no independent sources. What we need is sources which address the subject in detail. These sources also need to be reliable (with a proven track record of editorial review), independent of the subject's affiliations and secondary (this excludes interviews). The book "100 Inspiring Rafflesians" for example is a secondary source although we generally don't use organisational alumni related books for notability. The links to conferences are not considered reliable sources (they are self published). I'm going to try and search some more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but I haven't really been able to find reliable secondary sources independent of the subject's affiliations. The interviews are primary, the mentions in the bloomberg/crunchbase do not help for notability. The conference references are not RS. Unfortunate delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:48, 6 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 09:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Roman Mysteries characters[edit]

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

This article lists the characters from this series. The series and some of the books may be notable, but notability is not inherited, and the characters are not notable per WP:GNG. This might also fall under WP:PLOT. Short descriptions of the four major characters could be added to The Roman Mysteries, but the minor ones should be deleted as non-notable. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 16:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: I understand that a list can be notable when the individual items are not, but the characters don't seem collectively notable either. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 19:51, 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 11:14, 22 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 Deleted as A7 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Grange Technologies[edit]

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

"Number of employees: 13" says it all - far WP:TOOSOON to be notable. No hit in internet searches except LinkedIn, press releases, etc. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:COMPANY. No significant coverage in third-party sources. --Drm310 (talk) 07:42, 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 11:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced WP:SPA article by User:CGTMarketing1 which makes no claim of notability. No evidence found that this is more than an unremarkable small firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC) AllyD (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 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 no consensus. Consensus not to delete, but keep or merge can still be discussed. Sandstein 08:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Water Drops algorithm[edit]

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

Yet another "nature-inspired" metaheuristic. This is a field of computer science where citation circles seem to be the norm rather than the exception, so the few references in the article do not convince me. Without a well-respected overview article or book mentioning this, this doesn't pass WP:GNG. —Ruud 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I love how every one of these "bio-inspired" algorithms claims to be a potential solution to the travelling salesman problem. Surprised they don't just claim they've solved P=NP by now. To others looking at the refs, note that the IEEE sources are not the IEEE journal itself, but spin-offs dedicated to incredibly specific disciplines tailor-made for this niche of computer science. Jergling (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for each of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm. For each of these there are multiple publications in academic journals over a period of years. That seems to establish WP:GNG. If these are to be deleted I would want a counterargument to the default assumption that the articles cited are not reliable. Peer reviewed academic research which addresses a topic by name is usually considered to meet WP:RS and establish WP:GNG. Why demand a higher standard in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 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 11:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Swarm intelligence. It seems like there is a bit of secondary citation/usage of the algorithm, but that doesn't seem to indicate standalone notability because the publications are only mentioning the algorithm rather than giving in-depth secondary coverage. For a potential merge, someone would need to look over the sources to find what they consider a decent secondary source summarizing the method such as from the lede, This algorithm contains a few essential elements of natural water drops and actions and reactions that occur between river's bed and the water drops that flow within. That itself may not be notable or need to be rewritten over at swarm intelligence too though. All the rest wouldn't be worth merging much less a standalone article per WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTJOURNAL. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination talks of "few references" when the page when nominated actually had 22 separate references and most of them used the subject title. I have made an independent source search and had no difficulty finding a respectable book source from the many choices available. Andrew D. (talk) 10:42, 6 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. Sandstein 08:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm[edit]

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

Yet another "nature-inspired" metaheuristic. This is a field of computer science where citation circles seem to be the norm rather than the exception, so the few references in the article do not convince me. Without a well-respected overview article or book mentioning this, this doesn't pass WP:GNG. —Ruud 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for each of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm. For each of these there are multiple publications in academic journals over a period of years. That seems to establish WP:GNG. If these are to be deleted I would want a counterargument to the default assumption that the articles cited are not reliable. Peer reviewed academic research which addresses a topic by name is usually considered to meet WP:RS and establish WP:GNG. Why demand a higher standard in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:50, 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 11:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This one seems weaker than the water drops and glow worm cases but there's something to it and so the worst case is that we merge up into a page like List of metaphor-inspired metaheuristics per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 11:20, 6 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. G11 and A7. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renderforest[edit]

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

Non-notable, advertising, hoax, misinformation, potential COI. Website has basically no reliable sources pointing to its notability, all refs are links to what looks like paid PR on blogspam sites. Information is not remotely accurate even to what is stated in the dubious articles, and the author's use of certain phrases mirrors those in "interviews" with the creator of the software. He deleted the CSD template yesterday. Author appears to be in good faith but is not responding to discussion, and continues to remove maintenance templates. Jergling (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: The editor placed a CSD tag on the page and then removed it 30 minutes later after I apologized for assuming bad faith. Then he put it back up as soon as I logged off for the weekend. He's attempted, and failed, to circumvent deletion nominations 3 times now and I honestly can't tell if he's doing it maliciously or out of total confusion. Most of my original points still stand. Jergling (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State transition algorithm[edit]

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

Based on work by single group of authors (WP:GNG). —Ruud 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

We have added the secondary or tertiary sources to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael X Zhou (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC) — Michael X Zhou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I presume you are referring to this edit, in which case, no you didn't. You are a coauthor on most of those sources, though you conveniently omitted your name from the bibliographic details here. Some of the remaining articles which don't bear your name appear in journals of dubious quality (TELKOMNIKA is pay-to-publish, and Inderscience journals are discommended by Beall). —Psychonaut (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is interesting for people in this filed to understand state transition algorithm(STA). It describes STA in a more clear way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.20.106.16 (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC) — 58.20.106.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Through this article, we have a better understanding of state transition algorithm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.130.110.183 (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC) — 133.130.110.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To find the global optimal solution is an intractable problem nowadays, the STA method makes a contribution to this unsolved problem in global optimization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.R.XIE (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) — J.R.XIE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The same as the classic approaches like EA and PSO, STA is also an stochastic algorithm for solving global optimization problem. However, STA has a much clearer mathematic explanation for the included operators if compared with EA and PSO. In this article, the operators in STA seem to be designed for dealing with challenges in global optimization such as the cheating of a local optimal and the slow convolution speed. The result in the references indicate that the four operators yield a pleased performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.91.81 (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC) — 203.10.91.81 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article gives a clear description and better understanding of the state transition algorithm and is very helpful for those researchers in the field of the global optimization.--Mark6666666 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC) — Mark6666666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The sources in the article are primary or else are of questionable scholarly merit. See my comment above in response to User:Michael X Zhou. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is difficult to understand what the sources in the article are primary or else are of questionable scholarly merit means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.76.28.42 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - All this is explained at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Psychonaut should give more suggestions to improve the article but not suggest to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.76.28.42 (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) — 218.76.28.42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - The article could be improved by the addition of multiple sources which are independent of the algorithm's authors, which are published in venues with a reputation for adequate peer review, and which discuss the algorithm in depth as opposed to citing it in passing. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious socking aside, this is pretty much identical to that string of circularly-cited "nature-inspired algorithms" articles. Every source is by the same authors with the order of the names changed, and the article is maintained by a user with a clear COI. There's no reason to believe this algorithm describes anything more than a random-walk iterative optimization, because it makes up its own language and isn't corroborated by any outside source. Jergling (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also new: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper-Spherical Search Algorithm. —Ruud 00:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 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 03:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks notability. Most references are 2016, i.e. not notable. The oldest references has mostly self-citations. Also COI problem + orphan: there is no "story line" in Wikipedia that would eventually direct someone here. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 23:16, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gee4[edit]

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

unremarkable musician who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I got from a Google search was download links to his songs. That does not translate to notability. Darreg (talk) 12:21, 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 21:50, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassia Harvey[edit]

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

None of the listed sources are actually convincing for her own notability and my searches have found nothing better, Worldcat only lists her at 10 libraries so there's certainly no notability as an author. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Massive publishing does not make someone notable, coverage of the work in reliable sources does, and we lack that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure which way to go on this, pending further research. The article definitely needs improvement, (and may have some copyvio issues, compare to her web site) But quality and notability are different things. Her works look to be pedagogy books (example), and so their quantity makes sense. And on that note (pun intended) the "only 10 libraries" is a poor guideline, libraries generally don't carry pedagogy books, so 10 is actually impressive... I found several pages showing groups she's played in (example: [33]), I acknowledge a lot of her books are self-published, but they are pedagogy, not novels... and her imprint appears to be listed with the relevant trade organization. Her web page mentions some orchestras with which she has played, not certain of their notability. This should be listed at the Musician list for people with expertise to assess. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:34, 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 11:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

libraries generally don't carry pedagogy books

Libraries are some of the only places that carry pedagogical books... especially libraries at teachers colleges, which would be included in WorldCat.

czar 05:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources do not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 6 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 03:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citibase[edit]

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

No signs of notability. A google search throws up property ads, PR material, nothing else. for (;;) (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a company page in the same style as Regus, Basepoint and WeWork. This is not advertising as it provides relevant information on a public UK company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.248.38.253 (talk) 08:43, 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 03:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Since the nomination, an IP editor has expanded the article with material on the company history: unsourced but presumably accurate. My searches are finding only passing mentions of this firm's offices and a Nov 2008 paragraph about an AIM flotation [34]: not sufficient substantial independent coverage to demonstrate notability. (The IP editor above should note that Wikipedia does not have pages for companies, only pages about companies where they are of encyclopaedic notability.) AllyD (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:48, 6 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. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Van Le Ngoc[edit]

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

tagged with notability for 8 years. He fails WP:GNG as he doesn't have enough reliable independent coverage. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't find any notability guidelines for dance or ballet, but I seems like this person has choreographed a number of high profile acts and has coverage in many secondary independent coverage like [35] [36] [37] [38]. Given a traditional medium like dance there are probably some print sources somewhere too.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:35, 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 12:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:04, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armadillo Enterprises[edit]

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

I can't find any references that show this company meets WP:NCORP. Some promotional articles, but nothing that substantiates industry influence; not listed on stock exchanges. Mikeblas (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE concur with nor. Mostlly a single location store with no notability. The article has no references and I could find none that qualify as significant reliable secondary coverage. MB 03:01, 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 03:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A short 2007 piece from Modern Drummer – via HighBeam (subscription required) provides some background on the firm, and a 2008 Music Trades item (also via Highbeam) discusses their sales results, but these are normal coverage of a firm going about its business. I am not seeing evidence of their notability. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 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 17:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complication (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs help but sources are avaliable to expand upon it. The song is highly experimental for its time and even appears on the Nuggets compilation, one of the most regarded compilations of all time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete this article fails gng. Get this off of wiki 2607:FB90:240B:70DE:AADA:FC8A:39C6:ED24 (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - IP is CrazyAces evading his block and harassing me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:05, 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 14:33, 22 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 17:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D'Ambrosio[edit]

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

IP editor from the subject's location keeps removing the notability tag, so editors glancing at the article may believe the sources are sufficient and since the article has been in this state for a few years now, without that tag it makes it unlikely that the sourcing is going to be improved to the point that it meets any notability guideline, and I have been unable to find any sources either that show sufficient notability for the article's subject.

The article's subject fails to meet any of the notability criteria of WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BIO. There are plenty of sources, and D'Ambrosio's name is mentioned in the third-party sources, but all of them are trivial mentions. There are sources reviewing books, but none of which mention D'Ambrosio aside from trivial mentions of being the author, and none of those sources meet WP:AUTHOR. Aoidh (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Journalists are hard enough to source out in the best of scenarios, this falls far short of that SNG. Nor does Author seem to be met. Nor GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I grant that this is a lousy article, but there are quite a lot of sourcing out there. Here:[39] is a search on "marvin Camel" + D'Ambrosio at google news, it brings up articles from which a bio can be sources, and book reviews to validate notability as a biographer. And this: After wrongfully convicted inmate freed, Missoula writer has cause to celebrate .[40]. This should simply be tagged for improvement, sourcing, style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 August 2016(UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Khaksari[edit]

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

Nothing at all to insinuate the needed convincing independent notability and the contents are not actually pertaining to this, the best there is, about his controversies and that's certainly not convincing; searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 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 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this time, this fails WP:GNG and the entire article is a violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE. For any activist, there will usually be significant coverage - at least in other countries if not the home country. I do not see any independent coverage - rather all the references cited are either written by the subject or are self published/unreliable. There is hardly anything online either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is obviously violation of notability criteria. It looks like the whole family have made Wikipedia pages for themselves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niarad (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth Beyond Wall Street[edit]

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

Still nothing suggestive of the needed independent notability and my own searches have found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:SwisterTwister I added this business "Wealth Beyond Wall Street" because of two things really:

1. The search "Wealth Beyond Wall Street" (And other longer tail searches combined with Free book etc) are searched 1800-2000 times more or less in Google every month.

2. The reason it is searched so much is, because this business is all over the radio, tv and other media (Not so much online mostly they are very "physical" sending postcards even from what I have heard from different people) this is happening all over the country it seems and people are interested in learning more about this company because of the economic times we live in.

Hence the high search volume.

I added into wikipedia so there is a neutral place for people to get information on the company because from what I see most reviews and such that are out there are mostly affiliates of theirs and this would be the one place that could be truly independent. Hopefully it won't get deleted. Clifffonte (talk) 12:38, 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 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. essentially a promotional article, with very borderlien notability DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by the fact that these guys are well known through out the country as an investment company and have their business searched for from all over thousands of times every month more then some celebrities. I don't see how this couldn't have enough notability. Clifffonte (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I search quite a bit, but the dept of coverage in reliable, independent and secondary sources was clearly lacking. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:55, 5 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benedikt Sebastian[edit]

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

Not all convincing for independent notability as the listed works were not significant characters and my searches noticeably found nothing actually better. Listed sources are not substantially convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He would have to scrape by on the actor notability guidelines if he could scrape by anywhere. However this is unlikely to happen. His role in the one film we have an article for does not look to have been all that significant, and even if it was, we would need another clearly notable film he appeared in, and we do not have that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 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 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a non notable actor. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 6 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teejay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tamil musician; I don't think that he meets the WP:MUSIC guideline. The article has a couple of references (he was interviewed on IBC Tamil; I note that 'Famous Birthdays' depends on user-supplied material) and lists 5 singles; I don't think this is enough. Google search didn't return much relevant information. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this article and i updated the content about his Discography, Career and updated the References. I think the article is under Wikipedia guidelines. Please review it again, Thank you. Aadhitharajan (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is too soon, move to userspace. A handful of songs as a playback artist does not qualify under Music criteria. The BBC Asian interview does show he has a developing career, but the other sources, such as cineulagam.com, only list a short profile. They do not indicate that he 'commercially successful' as the article currently claims. Karst (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 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 14:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G5 autobiography of Felixandrew26. for (;;) (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Felixandrew26 about the G5 request.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt. Thanks to Jo-Jo Eumerus for checking out the (lack of) similarity to the prior versions which involved puppetry. The subject is still not notable despite the 4 prior creations of the article. Switching G5 to del & salt. for (;;) (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also possibly eligible for G4... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teejay (singer). for (;;) (talk) 08:27, 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. Michig (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farm Fresh To You[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability for over 9 years. I haven't been able to establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this article is correct. Why would something be deleted if it is accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.15.58 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if it is accurate - it needs to be WP:NOTABLE. I could create an accurate article on myself, but it wouldn't meet the criteria for inclusion on an encyclopedia, because I'm not notable. Does this meet the relevant notability criteria, i.e. WP:ORG or WP:GNG? That is what decides if it is included in this encyclopedia. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage, no sense of notability beyond the local area and no proof of notability within it. Wikipedia is still not a web host. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this suggests notability. (If the USDA Secretary visits your premises, at least USDA knows about it, yes?) And this reports that it is the largest CSA in the United States, with 13,000 subscriptions. And yet another book mention, from 2008. I've added these to the article and done a little bit of cleanup. There are more out there, but I think these are enough for WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Casual mentions are never enough for the GNG: a subject has to have significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. There could be a name drop in the NYT and the Washington Post, and that still wouldn't count. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please have a new look at the article. I've found and added citations to additional reliable sources beyond those few I mentioned above. Not that it still can't be improved... Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources I've looked at have had either trivial mentions or they were local coverage. The exception is the book, California's New Green Revolution (2008 book mentioned above), which I can't see in full. It looks like it could contain in-depth coveage although it also contains quotes from the business owners. Gab4gab (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. both on the grounds of lack of notability and of clear promotionalism . If the Sec of Ag visits your facility it does not in the least prove notability,--thats an absurdly low criterion. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- reads like a company web site. Article sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request Looks like the consensus is heading toward 'Delete.' Assuming that to be the ultimate result, I request that the closing admin userfy to my userspace, to a new page: User:Glane23/Drafts of Articles/Farm Fresh To You. I'll take some time with it there to see if I can move it away from having a tone like an advert toward an encyclopedia article and I'll have also have a bit more time and elbow room to look for and add some more sources. Thank you very much in advance. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:29, 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 no consensus. Three weeks in and we have no consensus either way. No prejudice against another AfD but if everyone could stick to discussing notability and leave out the accusations the discussion would likely be more useful. Michig (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort Keepers[edit]

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

Frankly I consider this G11 material and I would've tagged as such, but it may be removed so here we are; my searches have found nothing at all actually convincing regarding actual substantial and convincing coverage and overall there's nothing minimally suggesting better. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Leaning Keep – Comes across as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Some sources are paywalled, so cannot gauge the depth of coverage for these. The minor promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Levingston, Chelsey (July 11, 2016). "Comfort Keepers franchise extends reach to Cincinnati market". Dayton Daily News. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
Historic Shawnee County. p. 90.
The Spokesman-Review
Englehart, Laura (February 10, 2012). "New services boost Comfort Keepers". Dayton Business Journal. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
The Sun. (subscription required)
Northeast Pennsylvania Business Journal. (subscription required)
Press of Atlantic City. (subscription required)
The Virginian-Pilot. (subscription required)
Journal of Business. (subscription required)
The Washington Times. (subscription required)
Daily Herald. (subscription required)
Knight Ridder/Tribune. (subscription required)
The Beacon News. (subscription required)
Knight Ridder/Tribune. (subscription required)
Knight Ridder/Tribune. (subscription required)
Knight Ridder/Tribune. (subscription required)
Knight Ridder/Tribune. (subscription required)
Knight Ridder/Tribune. (subscription required)
Press of Atlantic City. (subscription required)
"Comfort Keepers franchise here sees rebound in demand". Journal of Business. (subscription required)
Wiesentha, Nicole (February 1, 2016). "Comfort Keepers staff step up to help co-worker whose house burned down". The Gainesville Sun. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
"A Closer Look at Franchised Home Care". Aspen Publishers. ISSN: 1084-8223. (subscription required). Quote: "... Australia, and Ireland providing caregivers to help seniors stay in their homes. Comfort Keepers In 1997, Kristina Clum was employed by Mercy Medical Home Health Care. ... Comfort Keepers fulfills those needs. Comfort Keepers was founded in March 1998. ..."
"Comfort Keepers to open 10 Irish offices". RTÉ News. (short article)

Comment - Analyzing these sources once again, not only found simply local news sources talking about their own local businesses, but these have such blatant passing mentions such as for franchising and how someone apparently opened a store. Even the listed awards at the article's section suggests, that while it may be somewhat known to local people, there's still not the levels of substance needed for an actually convincing article. Any "improvements" to the article's advert tone would basically remove everything because everything is still advert-toned beyond fixing. As a note, the current sources themselves show nothing actually substantial regarding coverage, they simply consist of either primary, sources, PR or other trivial links. As shown, the article equally also focuses with franchising.... SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't think the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that the articles I posted above are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. How can you discern that all of the paywalled sources only provide supposed "passing mentions"? I find the notion of the article being "advert-toned beyond fixing" to be a gross, almost humorous over-exaggeration; it could easily be copy edited, which would take me about five minutes. However, I will wait, because what's the point in copy editing an article that may end up being deleted? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I may not be able to see all of the listed locked contents, everything listed as is gives enough to show it's simply local coverage including about local owners and franchises; regardless of whether the source is bylined news and the staff authors, that's still not any better coverage than what it is currently, local coverage about local businesses. By advert-toned beyond fixing, I mean that there's still no actual better substance aside from everything I have said and noted. Anything that is simply local news beginning with information about local owners and franchises is unlikely going to be largely about in-depth company coverage especially if it's only a local newspaper, which has no particular interest with largely in-depth coverage, instead simply local information for local news watchers. Simply to note also, the Gainesville local news article is exactly that, about a local event and how it involved the company; also, the Irish news source is simply about opening local offices overseas which can be said about any other company with overseas employees and offices; it shows it's not largely in-depth coverage the fact it's only a few mere sentences and paragraphs. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are more reliable sources that provides significant coverage. More sources in addition to these are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment - Those listed sources are again about local owners and franchises, not actual substantial in-depth coverage needed for a better convincing article (note the Spokane Journal even goes to talk about costs, clientele and pricing, which again, like the others, are only things local people and likely customers would want to know). Also then note the Daily Globe is not actually about the company but simply largely about 2 local owners and their careers. With that said, the Wall Street Journal is then only saying "Next Big Thing" basically meaning not yet notable. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I made several edits to the article to remove the marketing messaging and improve leadership information. It is a legetmate company and feel it has a place on the wiki. --Anevelos (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every one of the sources provided are testimonials, not in depth coverage. These are at best informational to give these local Francoise owners publicity, and I imagine there might even be a human interest aspect to these testimonials. It is simply publicity, there is no journalism happening here. The only source in each story are the franchise owners, which WP:CORPDEPTH warns against as a measure for notability. This is not news reporting.

Also, in general, it benefits the business community of each local area to have their business promoted, of which a news organization is or is a part of. It is good business for a local news organization to promote local businesses in an analogue of a news article so it may receive local business advertising dollars later.

Furthermore, a revealing detail is how each story is basically the same, it is just the owners of each local franchise that is different. To me this shows an engineered PR campaign by the parent company. There is no downside presented about any franchise in any story. There is only, "we started with two employees, now we have sixty". And each story is identical - just fill in the blanks for franchise owners and number of employees - and oh yeah! -- please include the inspiring circumstance that led to them to start the franchise. This is not news reporting. Finally, the Wikipedia article is little better than a blank page due to its total lack of information that would determine notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is using Wikipedia as a promotional platform.----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asking DGG for his analysis here. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer: This comes across as canvassing because DGG tends to be for deletion of company- and brand-related articles. For examples, see the user's AfD Stats. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, what's concerning, Northamerica1000 is that I've repeatedly asked you multiple times (both at your talk page and my own) to stay away from me because of your continued hounding, see WP: HOUNDING. DGG and I have repeatedly made comments about this so it basically seems like a case of hounding and WP:IDHT. As it is, I've been patient and civil with you yet noting seems to make this hounding end. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have every right to contribute and comment in AfD discussions. I contribute a great deal to AfD discussions, I'm not going to skip over your nominations, and there is no "hounding" whatsoever. Please try to accept genuine concerns and constructive criticism for what it is, rather than taking matters personally. You don't WP:OWN AfD discussions you create, and all users are welcome to contribute. You also contribute a lot to AfD, so you should expect other users who also participate heavily as likely contributors. Inre my comment above, why do you need DGG's advice regarding this topic? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, again, I have repeatedly asked you civil and patiently to still stay away from me and yet you continue. When you continue despite my repeated comments and you go out of your way to comment against me, that's hounding. Please, kindly stay away from me. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer: I have adjusted the indentation of my comment above and added addended it to read "Comment to closer", because it is a general comment. It appears that my genuine concern will not be addressed here. I have already contributed to this discussion by !voting and providing sources, yet I am being ordered to not further contribute. This is quite inappropriate. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Repeated edit conflicts) No, again, I have repeatedly asked you civil and patiently to still stay away from me and yet you continue. When you continue despite my repeated comments and you go out of your way to comment against me, that's hounding. As an equal bride, I've even invited you to AfDs in the past where you would comment but you would only either speak against me or criticize me, neither of which is civil, so I honestly am not sure what would resolve this (even when I've kindly asked for you to distance yourself). Please, kindly stay away from me. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of being "ordered", you still have not acknowledged the fact you will drive by my PRODs and nominations even nearly seconds after I click save, that would also be considered hounding if you're only interested to follow me. the bottom line is that I've actually you to limit and distance your constant following of me. When it starts causing me distress and overall uncomfortable state, you should honestly consider whether you are following me too closely and avidly. SwisterTwister talk

I patrol the prod log routinely. You propose a lot of articles for deletion, so it's natural that I will happen upon some of yours. I estimate that the prod category was recently populated with around 60% of nominations you initiated. I will avoid communication with you if you'd like, but you have no right to order me to not contribute to AfD discussions you create whatsoever. You do not own AfD discussions, and my contributions are not toward any specific user. For example, I routinely perform deletion sorting, relistings, various commentary, !voting and discussion closures. My intent is never to make anyone uncomfortable, so I do take this to heart and will keep this in mind. However, the fact remains that you have strongly supported deletion only within this discussion, yet you are asking another user for their opinion after the fact. Sorry, but this does come across as a potentially unnecessary notification relative to the user's stance regarding many company- and brand-related articles per WP:CANVASS, that's all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe simply cutting all interaction including removing or otherwise significantly changing any of my contribs would be best considering there has still been no changes at all regarding your hounding of me, thus my asking to stay away altogether. For example, DGG and I are both willing to delete articles of which are only sources by PR and trivial mentions nd coverage....such as this article. I've also mentioned that it has seemed apparent you against my deletions simply because of the exact fact I'm a deletionist.... It is not relevant to mention who and why a delete happens if it speaks for itself. Thisbhas been said before multiple times by both of us, (but I'll say it again since it seems the message isn't getting through (WP:IDHT)), I notify DGG because he has a long history with these subjects and he has specifically asked. As mentioned earlier, I've previously invited you before but, considering everything, it seems obvious you and I cannot function together, thus my asking to stay away altogether. Note that you're the one who iniated this conversation despite it ending you would take these comments to mind, and also he only one pursuing a subject and matter I have clearly and firmly asked to end (WP:Canvass itself states that users who are willing to notifications, are welcome, and in this case, there are no concerns). Simply to note your claims that you routinely patrol PRODS, the logs show you have only removed my own nominations

.... Also, why is it that, meanwhile you're going against everything I'm saying here, you're accepting 2 articles sources by fubdingnand trivial coverage? (This needs no answer, please, it's simply a notation). SwisterTwister talk

Comment Yes, ST is notifying me at my request. I used to watch every AfD, and comment on many of them, but I now have time only for selected ones because of other commitments, including rescuing AfCs on notable academics and instructing new and incompetent NPPatrolers. I am interested in deleting articles with primarily promotional content, not articles on brands and companies. I have rewritten and rescued dozens of articles on companies and their executives this year, as I do every year. It's true that in my early years here I would tend to rescue every possible promotional article where there was even a little underlying notability, but for the last 2 years or so I have increasingly realized the danger form promotionalism --once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. So I only !vote keep on a promotional article if it's really notable. But I do not always agree with ST--I estimate I agree about half the time; for others I make no comment or make a different !vote. I think everyone knows that when I'm asked for a comment I look at things from the start, my own way. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment to closer only: I will decline to respond to the nominator at this point, because I don't want to cause them to feel any frustration whatsoever. This is never my intention. I have stated my concerns herein about the potential for canvassing and hopefully they will be considered. I have no personal qualms about the user above, and they are taking the discussion quite personally, which is not my intention at all. This is a discussion, my concerns are genuine, and my comments are not harassing whatsoever. Also note that I do appreciate having received the eventual reply above regarding my concerns.

I will add that it's concerning for DGG to have been pinged here, and then the explanation provided later by the nominator (in part) consists of, "For example, DGG and I are both willing to delete articles of which are only sources by PR and trivial mentions nd coverage". The nominator states that DGG is willing to delete these types of articles, and has requested for DGG to visit the discussion, which comes across as a potentially biased notification based upon of the nominator's and DGG's shared views. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Thank you for your reply. What is your opinion about my concerns regarding this specific notification to you that has occurred here (e.g. see my comment above). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Steve Quinn's analysis shows the problem. There is perhaps some notability here, but it's lost in the promotionalism. And I don't give a damn who asked me to look at an article--I look at every article or discussion anyone asks me to, though I may decide not to say anything. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to closer) – I have changed my !vote above to "leaning keep". I find this to be a bit of a borderline situation in terms of notability, and contributors to the discussion have made some salient points herein. Regarding additional commentary above, I would have raised objections regardless of the specific user that performed the aforementioned pinging in the manner it has occurred herein. It's nothing personal, it was just a concern. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is a lot of debate for an article that consists of three paragraph. As no better sourcing has been offered during AfD, I vote delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The parent company is Sodexo Their site and while the initial entry was way too promotional, the fluff has been removed. Maybe we put this as a stub. --Anevelos (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if trimmed, where is the actual notability and convincing, aside from anything simply local which also includes local advertising? SwisterTwister talk 15:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The parent company Sodexo is covered at investing.businessweek.com, which in my experience has been a good indicator of wp:notability, in this case for the parent company. Since this topic already has WP:DUE weight in the encyclopedia at Sodexo, there is no theoretical case for a WP:DEL8 deletion. We also know from the large number of reliable sources found that the topic passes WP:GNG. There is a theme in the AfD of the potential of this article to be used for WP:NOTPROMOTION, but no WP:NOT policies are mentioned in the nomination except what we can guess was intended by the reference to WP:G11, but G11 has been mentioned to say that it is not applicable. Some exact words from the nomination are, "substantial...coverage", which looks like it could be related to the words "significant coverage" in WP:GNG, which would make it a WP:Notability argument. WP:Notability, to rise to the level of WP:Deletion Policy, must rise to the level of WP:DEL8, which as already stated is not a valid deletion criteria for this topic. There remains the issue of WP:NOTPROMOTION raised by others, and I am aware of the long-term potential for moneyed interests to undermine a volunteer organization over the long term, but at the same time it is not actually practical to write an encyclopedia article without making it useful to readers, which in this case includes those who want to sell franchises. At an absolute worst case, WP:DEL14 here, just as with WP:DEL8 here, does not allow deletion of the topic itself from the encyclopedia, so what is left is that WP:NOTPROMOTION must be dealt with as a content issue, not a deletion issue. Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I comment for historical purposes) - I have no plans to interact with this user above. Aside from the obvious politics commented exactly above me, I will note (for the AfD history) that this vote above is not considering how this article is still essentially an advertisement. Why keep something that is not actually convincing of anything acceptable since the listed sources are, still, again, local coverage about local businesses and their owners (I still stand by my first analysis comments), local PR including exact and full PR sources themselves and then also local business activities such as opening local offices. Since it's mentioned at that other company and this is still an advertisement (once we start accepting advertisements, this is not an encyclopedia), there's no need to keep this. I will note from the above "I am aware of the long-term potential for moneyed interests to undermine a volunteer organization over the long term, but at the same time it is not actually practical to write an encyclopedia article without making it useful to readers" which itself is acknowledging the fact this is in fact an advertisement. if this comment above is also going to mention there being enough "significance", where, in this advert article, are the actually convincing claims of notability, aside from another other company? SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 6 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 ClassPass. MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Payal Kadakia[edit]

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

All trivial press, not sign of notability beyond her company, which already has a page. Put this stuff there if anywhere. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to ClassPass. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-trivial coverage in Fortune, Forbes, Business Insider. A database search on EBSCO shows her covered by Crain's New York Business, Dance Magazine, Cosmopolitan and Health. She is also covered over time, passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. See source examples above and those in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also fine with a merge to ClassPass. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 1 August 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]

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]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. The page just needs to be rewritten. CerealKillerYum (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ClassPass (and merge any information) I do see coverage about her, but at this point this is a BLP1E. The subject is solely known as a founder of ClassPass. Every single source about the subject discussed her in the context of the company which also has its own article. I decided to have a look at some of the decent coverage. This Fortune article talks more about the company, even though the title indicates otherwise. The Forbes article gives more details, but still mentions her in the same vein. Similar for this businessinsider source. Most coverage mention her involvement in the history of the company. Merging this information into the article ClassPass is a good compromise here as it can help document the history of ClassPass as well as the subject's involvement in it. This improves the target article and properly documents the founder's role. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also favour a merge and redirect as it preserves the history and there is a possibility that in a few years, the subject may be in the news for a different company. In such a case, the merge can be easily undone and we can create a substantial article about the subject. At the moment though, this is a BLP1E and we should cover it in the context of the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is as far as I will go, I would even suggest also deleting as there's no inherited notability for his own article and there's simply nothing else from there. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Both the keep and redirect !votes are strong. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ClassPass: subject non notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 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 03:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best Performing Stocks of 2015[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a stock listing. Fbdave (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't what Wikipedia is for. Should have been speedied as common sense. Prevan (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not a directory is right. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7 Ps (military adage)[edit]

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

Listed as unsourced since 2012. Though there are many online references to this saying, I have been unable to find any reliable sources for its origin. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extensive search for reliable sources comes up empty for not just origin but for conceptual analysis or any other encyclopedic aspect. At this point, it would at most be a WP:NOT dictionary term, not an encyclopedic concept. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on FeatherPluma's research and rationale. I did a quick look for sources, and also found nothing more than trivial explanations or mentions. If a source can be found, it might be worth redirecting this or a form of it to Military_humor. Yvarta (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article deals with a trivial matter that cannot be properly sourced.TH1980 (talk) 23:29, 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. The "keep" opinions are mostly based on the article existing for a long time, which is not a valid argument in the face of a failure to meet WP:N, which nobody really contests. Sandstein 08:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William A Mobley[edit]

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

fails wp:n CerealKillerYum (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability sufficient to pass WP:N. While there are sources, they are somewhat low-quality and, much more importantly, they don't really focus on Mobley himself. As an aside, note that this page has been edited by one of the paid users referenced in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carriearchdale; though this page's age means it is unlikely to have been created by that particular user, it was created by someone who created this page and nothing else, despite showing significant knowledge of how the wiki works. This, in combination with its promotional tone, suggests that it may have been created by an earlier iteration of paid editors for promotional purposes. --Aquillion (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but re-write I guess the page is old and was actually created on 5 August 2009. According to this Wiki policy Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, : "Biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, without any sources (reliable or unreliable) or links to support the claims made in the article may be proposed for deletion and will be deleted unless at least one reliable source is added." Since this page is created in 2009, I believe the issue raised in the quoted policy doesn't apply to it. Having said that, I suggest, the page should be kept and possibility re-written" to suit the current wiki guidelines. Deletion in this case should be a last resort per WP:FAILN. Kmoulder (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is arguing that WP:BLPPROD applies here. There are sources, so even if it was a newer article, it wouldn't apply. The relevant policies here are WP:GNG and WP:BIO. clpo13_(talk) 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that User:Kmoulder has 12 edits, 8 of them are on the William A Mobley page or this AfD. CerealKillerYum (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as both nothing suggestive of independent notability and it's also advertising. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleting would be a hasty decision as the article is old. However, obsolete/redundant/irrelevant references need to be removed and the content re-written accordingly by introducing relevant links.Split25 (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article has been on Wikipedia for awhile doesn't mean it should stay on Wikipedia. That's why it's being considered for deletion. It'll have to meet WP:GNG from WP:RS to merit a wikipedia page. So far, there's been no counter arguments about how the subject is notable. As User:Aquillion said, the subject hired someone to write the page and that person knows how Wikipedia works. It is very probably that the same person is here sockpuppeting. The individuals who vote keep have a very similar edit history. If they were different users, they would edit different sections of the encyclopedia (ie one would spend more time editing music pages and the other would spend more time editing tech pages). Please take this into consideration when closing the debate reviewing Admin. Also, it should be noted that AfD is won by popularity. It is won by the best argument. Using more sock puppet accounts will be a waste of your time sockpuppeter/William A Mobley.CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without doubt this page looks like a CV, however, it doesn't mean it cannot be rectified. Deleting at this point would be a little harsh considering the duration it has been up here: well before March 18, 2010 as pointed out by Kmoulder. I think the content and references can be improved. Curlzon (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the sources are really about Mobley himself. The companies he's worked for & founded may be notable, but that doesn't make him notable. Blythwood (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but someone at least have to remove the dead reference links and the non-notable ones. Slu tsu (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rewrite Instead of deleting, this article need cleaning up to meet wikipedia guidelines for biographies. Promotional tone needs to be neutralized. Hampai 15 (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There;s iothing notable enough to rewrite. He's worked at or founded a large number of non-notable companies. I really do not se anything else. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not enough independent coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails GNG. The sources are hardly what I would call reliable sources. Simply being associated with a bunch of companies doesn't mean someone is notable. If the subject was really notable, there would be profiles in reliable newspapers. But I don't see any of them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, using undisclosed paid editors to vote keep is not cool. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:56, 7 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 Electro-industrial#Aggrotech. Consensus that a standalone article is not merited. Sufficient consensus for a redirect, which is also a reasonable compromise between the other views expressed, but given that both Aggrotech and Hellektro already redirect there I'm going to delete this as redundant. Should anyone want any of the content for merging, please let me know. Michig (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aggrotech / Hellektro[edit]

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

Non-notable music genre with no major reliable coverage - it gets a significant mention on Electro-industrial#Aggrotech but not enough to merit it's own article -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator. Non-notable, lacking sourcing, etc. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found enough coverage to at least show that the genre exists. Phoenix New Times. That alone doesn't show notability, of course, so for now ~~delete.~~ Perhaps if better sourced, it could be merged to a related electronica page. Yvarta (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to weak keep. I found more sources that reference it as a genre, enough to show me there's a good chance the topic could be notable with some work. It seems a great number of sources are in German, although I am not as familiar with German publications. [41], [42], [43], [44] Yvarta (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Electro-industrial#Aggrotech - First of all, we don't do "slash titles". Second of all, there's no way to say enough about it such that it would merit its own article, as is obvious - when the main gets big enough to warrant it, that's a different story. Just as an FYI, I don't know that the differentiator is all that noticeable - I've heard or seen several of the bigger cited acts in the "real" article, and I don't really consider them too much different than regular industrial. MSJapan (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electro-industrial#Aggrotech I am seriously unable to find enough RS for an article. I think at the moment, the redirect target seems apt and covering it in the larger article is better. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:02, 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. clear consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Tawil Empire[edit]

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

Contested PROD so here we are. There are no sources given or available for this micronation. Fails WP:GNG which is the relevant guideline here. shoy (reactions) 12:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is unreferenced & even less notable than Kingdom of North Sudan. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and very few search engine hits, virtually none of which suggest that this satisfies GNG. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does WP:NOTMADEUP also apply? The lack of non-user-generated Glinks makes me wonder... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 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 Keep. No views in favour of deletion bar the nominator. Sufficient consensus to keep. Michig (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family Mosaic[edit]

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

PROD apparently with the basis of adding three sources but these sources are nowhere near convincing of substance and significance as they are simply local news stories; I still confirm everything from my PROD. Regardless, any additional coverage is only going to be for local news stories and events. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I were able to find quite the number of articles about the association, mostly negative criticism: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] and so on. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, comparing this along with he article's current sources, it's all simply trivial of even it's all local coverage or local events and such; it's a considerably thin article if all we have are stories like these. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you define thinness, but if I get these articles to vomit their innards onto the controversies section; it'll be meaty alright. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Also meets WP:AUD per non-local coverage, such as in BBC News and The Guardian. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Lunn, Emma (October 3, 2014). "Housing association residents 'cut off from heating five months of the year'". The Guardian. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
"'Ignored' Family Mosaic tenant hurt in ceiling collapse". BBC News. March 30, 2015. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
Bartholomew, Emma (March 31, 2015). "Family Mosaic accused of 'breaching values'". Hackney Gazette. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
McKay, Jessica (March 14, 2015). "Housing company makes support workers homeless". Hackney Post. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
"Rat infestation causes misery for housing association tenants". Times. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
"Care company transfers contract after two years". Bexhill Observer. March 18, 2016. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
Hopps, Kat (June 8, 2016). "Stratford families 'annoyed' with housing association employees for taking their parking bays". Newham Recorder. Retrieved July 30, 2016.

Again, all of those links are trivial coverage for trivial events only people at those communities would care about; for example, the BBC is only for a roof collapse, that's not substance for Wikipedia and then, the Guardian is only for troubles with the local heating. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per a review of the sources and further addition of a few {{Cite book}}s: subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH. The claim that all of those links are trivial coverage is untrue, cf. Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I myself am simply still not seeing anything actually better. I would like to hear DGG's analysis as I trust his insight. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain There's several interesting questions: 1/, whether the coverage of local events in a national news source published in that city or emphasizing that city is local or national coverage--I cannot see an absolute rule either way. 2/ And the BBC reference is not BBC-England, but BBC-London, a specifically local edition. It is very common for BBC refs in WP that are using the local or regional editions not to specify, and that's misleading. (this is true for other national services also), 3/ whether extensive local coverage might overcome the fact that the coverage is only local.4/ It is also not quite reasonable to expect an organization of this sort to get coverage outside of its home city. In some types of institutions we often accept this, in some types of institutions not. 5/ The effect of the POV problems from not including the negative information, but we do have a policy of not going into details about customer complaints, because they just count as anecdotes--news services customarily use anecdotes in writing stories, but encyclopedias do not. 6/ Whether we should take into account the size of the organization or the number of people served. I'd have no hesitation saying "delete" if it had been a single block of flats, not a system. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – For more evidence of meeting WP:AUD, below is an additional source from The Guardian, a national newspaper, that provides 4 ¶ of content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ivory, Mark (October 14, 2015). "Housing associations bid to ease the pressure on the NHS". the Guardian. Retrieved July 31, 2016.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Aitor Etxarte Iruñeko Hegoalde ikastolako zuzendaria, Nafarroako Eskola Kontseiluko presidente, available here, Nafarroa hegoaldea laguntzeko Errigoraren udazkeneko kanpaina atarian gara available here

[2] see a twitter exchange here

[3] ABC 26.03.89, available here, ABC 04.07.79, available here, see also in the Sevilla version of the same day, ABC 04.07.79, available here

[4] ABC 27.10.79, available http://hemeroteca.abc.es/nav/Navigate.exe/hemeroteca/madrid/abc/1979/10/27/018.html

[5] Jasone Cenoz, Josu Perales, The Basque-speaking Communities, [in:] María Teresa Turell (ed.), Multilingualism in Spain, Bristol 2001, ISBN 1853594911, pp. 91-109, Jasone Cenoz, Teaching Through Basque, Bristol 2008, ISBN 9781847690708

[6] see e.g. The Financial System of the Basque Country, available here, or The Southern Basque Country: A Really Legal and Legally Real Possibility, available here

[7] Hans-Åke Persson, Bo Stråth, Reflections on Europe: Defining a Political Order in Time and Space, Brussels 2007, ISBN 9789052010656, Edward Keenan, Denis Paperno (eds.), Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language, Heidelberg 2012, ISBN 9789400726819, Elliott Robert Barkan, Immigrants in American History: Arrival, Adaptation, and Integration, New York 2013, ISBN 9781598842197, Paddy Woodworth, The Basque Country: A Cultural History, London 2012, ISBN 9781908493231, Wim Jansen, Beginner's Basque, New York 2007, ISBN 9780781812276

[8] Gorka Aulestia, Improvisational Poetry from the Basque Country, Reno 1995, ISBN 9780874172010, Kelby Carr, Aquitaine, Bordeaux, Bayonne & France's Basque Country, Oxford 2014, ISBN 9781588437822, Maria Jose Sevilla, Life and Food in the Basque Country, New York - Oxford 1998, ISBN 9781461733133, Stuart Butler, The Basque Country and Navarre: France. Spain, Guilford 2016, ISBN 9781841624822, Renée DePalma, Diane Brook Napier, Willibroad Dze-Ngwa (eds.), Revitalizing Minority Voices: Language Issues in the New Millennium, Rotterdam - Boston 2015, ISBN 9789463001878, Gloria Pilar Totoricaguena, Identity, Culture, and Politics in the Basque Diaspora, Reno 2004, ISBN 9780874175479, Alan Roy King, The Basque Language: A Practical Introduction, Reno 1994, ISBN 9780874171556, Joshua A. Fishman, Can Threatened Languages be Saved?: Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: a 21st Century Perspective, Clevedon 2001, ISBN 9781853594922, Dana Facaros, Michael Pauls, Bilbao and the Basque Lands, Rotterdam - Boston 2008, ISBN 9781860114007, Gloria Pilar Totoricaguena, Basque Diaspora: Migration and Transnational Identity, Reno 2005, ISBN 9781877802454

[9] Mikel Gómez Uranga, Basque Economy: From Industrialization to Globalization, Centre for Basque Studies, Reno 2003, ISBN 9781877802102, Durk Gorter, Victoria Zenotz, Jasone Cenoz, Minority Languages and Multilingual Education: Bridging the Local and the Global, Heidelberg 2013, ISBN 9789400773172

[10] „the four regions within Spain form Hegoalde, or „Southern Basque Country”, Stuart Notholt, Fields of Fire: An Atlas of Ethnic Conflict, Leicester 2008, ISBN 9781906510473 p. 7.08

[11] Jan Mansvelt Beck, Territory and Terror: Conflicting Nationalisms in the Basque Country, London 2005, ISBN 9781134276059

[12] see e.g. a tourist blog, available here, or a yacht chartering website, available here

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]