The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RockYou#History. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TirNua[edit]

TirNua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to RockYou#History. I can't see where this company has received coverage outside of RockYou acquiring the property. It's already briefly mentioned in the company's article, so there's no need to merge any information over. At most this could be a redirect, but even that doesn't entirely seem like it'd be necessary. Still, redirects are WP:CHEAP, so... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - all the coverage seems to be related to RockYou's acquisition. If it's still an active game then I can see people searching for info about it, so a redirect seems fine to me. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - per Wikimandia above. There's sources out there, but they don't really cover the topic very well, they mostly just cover the acquisition by RockYou. There's some sources out there, and its a plausible search term, so I think a redirect is more appropriate than a delete. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I found a few sites that may be useful for updating in the future. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] --☣Anarchyte☣ 10:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your source list does not designate signifcant coverage on the subject. To review:

1. Good source, but largely about the act of the acquisition, which, as noted before, is good, but there's not enough relevant content to write an article around the content centered around the game itself.
2. Almost entirely covers the acquisition, almost zero content actually about Tirnua the game.
3. This sources is primarily covering RockYou acquiring "Playdemic". There's only 2 sentences actually about Tirnua, which are essentially saying "RockYou acquired Tirnua". Nothing about the game itself.
4. This source is primarily covering RockYou acquiring "Loot Drop". Only one passing sentence is about Tirnua, which essentially states that "RockYou acquired Tirnua". Nothing about the game itself.
5. This source is primarily covering RockYou doing layoffs, and only makes a passing mention about acquiring Tirnua in the past. Nothing about the game itself.
6. This is about an unrelated company, Zio Studios, getting money to start up a company. It makes a passing mention in one single sentence about RockYou acquiring Tirnua" being somewhat similar.

• So in short, 2-6 are passing mentions, and 1 just covers the acquisition. There's not enough to build an article around. A redirect makes much more sense. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arizona Wildcats football College Football Playoff rankings and Poll history[edit]

List of Arizona Wildcats football College Football Playoff rankings and Poll history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is a copy/paste of List of LSU Tigers football College Football Playoff rankings and Poll history. Even if properly modified to accurately pertain to Arizona Wildcats football, that information could be adequately covered at List of Arizona Wildcats football seasons. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, or alternatively, redirect to List of Arizona Wildcats football seasons. Cbl62 (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator Jweiss11's rationale: unsourced, no evidence of notability, and better incorporated into the list of seasons article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Better handled at List of Arizona Wildcats football seasons. Even if one were to argue that this topic is notable, WP:GNG says there is no "guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." The name is too implausible of a search term to bother redirecting.—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment - this page is just the media ranking/polling numbers, not actual results like in the list of seasons article, so the topic is different. If this topic does not meet GNG, shouldn't List of LSU Tigers football College Football Playoff rankings and Poll history also be tagged for deletion? These are the only two of these articles I could find, but conceivably every major college team could have these. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia, the topic here is a subset of the topic covered by the list of seasons article, not a different topic. The LSU article should be tagged for deletion as well, but List of LSU Tigers football seasons does not yet exist, so I thought I'd tackle the Arizona one first, especially because it's just a copy/paste job of the LSU article. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11, oops, I should have looked closer. I see the Coaches and AP poll columns now in the "list of seasons" article. Thanks! —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Pearce[edit]

Randall Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a political/PR consultant, relying on minimal reliable sourcing and reading far more like the kind of biographical PR blurb, shading toward prosified résumé, that one might read on the subject's own website than like a genuinely substantive encyclopedia article. While there are certainly statements in here that might get him over a notability hump if they could be expanded and sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, nothing here satisfies any of Wikipedia's "automatically eligible for inclusion because X, Y or Z" tests. I'm willing to revisit this if the sourcing can be substantively improved, but there's not enough of it here in the article's current state to get him over the bar — even the two sources which are present in the article merely namecheck his existence rather than being about him in any meaningful way. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no indication of notability. Local politician with no significant media coverage; nothing regarding his scientific endeavours found via Google Scholar. The best source I found indicates he merely featured amont the "also ran", getting 17% of the vote in some election. [7] Huon (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, No significant coverage in the news. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Sock comment struck. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
• delete fails WP:BIO. Yes he's worked for notable people but that doesn't make you notable yourself. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, like Nom, I cannot find anything like sufficient sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete. (This should have been speedily deleted, and no doubt would have been if the speedy deletion tag had not been removed, without any explanation.)

TradeTec[edit]

TradeTec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Speedy deletion contested. Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete WP:NCORP, so WP:A7 applies. CSD removed by new user (not author) without valid justification.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't find any sources —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Author agrees to deletion - see below. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azealia Banks controversies[edit]

List of Azealia Banks controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTE. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In what respects does it fail mentioned policies? You're being a little vague. (I'm the creator of nommed article) Azealia911 _talk 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Creating an entire article discussing Banks' feuds and controversies gives this part of her life and career undue weight. The subjects is also not notable enough to have its own article. This topic should be contained to a small section in Banks' biographical article. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's never been seen as an issue with the multiple other pages revolving around a musicians controversies, especially considering those pages are based on less controversial artists (Jay-Z, Eminem, Drake) and I'm not sure how much you know about Banks, but in almost every instance on the internet in which she is mentioned, there's talk of her controversies. The article was initially made due to a massive 7,000 bytes of her bio article being taken up by these feuds, 2/3 as big as her "Life and career" section, and when I tried to be remove selective chunks, was met with editors telling me I was trying to improve her poor public image. As a compromise I created the article. I agree that some of the musicians listed in the article are throwaway sections, but I'd be happy with a selected merge as Davey2010 suggested, on the basis that we agreed on what to transfer with consensus to avoid further hassle. Azealia911 _talk 22:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Jay-Z/Nas feud was a major event in the history of hip-hop but I don't think the Eminem and Drake lists are notable either. I would also support a selective merge. Which feuds do you think are the most noteworthy? I've only heard of her feuds with Iggy Azalea and A$AP Rocky. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Iggy Azalea, and possibly James DeWolf Perry. The A$AP Rocky event was very minor, she just alluded to the fact that he was gay, he never responded to her. There was also a note on an older version summing up all of the minor feuds she had with other artists that read: "Banks has been known for her public disputes with other artists on social networks; she has had minor online disputes with Kreayshawn, Dominique Young Unique, Lil' Kim, Nicki Minaj, Jim Jones, Angel Haze, Baauer, Diplo, Rita Ora, ASAP Rocky, Lily Allen, Lady Gaga, and Pharrell. <ref name="BeefList1">Diep, Eric; Ortiz, Edwin (June 19, 2014). "A History of Azealia Banks' Twitter Beefs". Complex. Archived from the original on March 11, 2015.</ref>" which I think would be useful to re-add upon merge. Azealia911 _talk 22:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Iggy Azalea, James DeWolf Perry and that sentence would be fine. Littlecarmen (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done, you have the green flag from me to delete. Azealia911 _talk 23:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge in to Azealia Banks - Some of this can be shoved in her article so not really seeing any reason to have it as a separate article.... –Davey2010^Talk 22:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tarc - I'm a complete fucking idiot for not properly reading it!, It's all just Twitter bollocks which doesn't belong anywhere on this site!, –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or more pointedly, nuke the fucking thing from orbit. My god, most of it is is a ranting list of Twitter fights. Twitter! An encyclopedia is not TMZ or perezhilton.com, this is not the place for this idiocy, and for precedent we have deleted this nonsense before, e.g. Dave Mustaine and Axl Rose. Seriously, just say no. Tarc (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, it's clearly been civilly decided to merge the more-important, relevant info, please calm down. Azealia911 _talk 00:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tarc; the language is a little rough but yes, even cut down to the most 'civil', this is pretty much 'artist hates everyone and everything and acts like a younger and female Archie Bunker...bring on the pageclicks!' that doesn't need wiki-classification for each incident. A merge shouldn't even be considered because what's in this article would pretty much make the main article so unbalanced it could be used as a catapult. Nate • (chatter) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The merge proposal wasn't for the entire article to be copy/pasted into the main article, it was to add the main snippets in as little text as possible, I've pretty much added what I think's appropriately keep-worthy. As far as I'm concerned, delete away. What's all this talk of the article becoming unbalanced? I'm aware of the main policies on NPOV but I don't see how adding a select one or two majorly-reported controversial events surrounding a person is swaying any perception of the article one way or the other... Azealia911 _talk 02:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - Azealia911, since you've endorsed the deletion, I've added the speedy deletion template so this does not need to stay open a full seven days and have people unnecessarily rip on the article when it's already been decided to delete it. If people have a problem with anything included in the Azealia Banks article then it should be discussed on the talk page, not here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G7 (one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originals (Cozi Zuehlsdorff EP)[edit]

Originals (Cozi Zuehlsdorff EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Neither me nor the article's author could find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in my reply to the conversation on my talk page, I think this is ridiculous, as since when the heck has it been required to have significant coverage of an albums release date? That's just silly. Kamran Mackey (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the article to my personal sandbox, so can this discussion be closed please? Kamran Mackey (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modern-Expo[edit]

Modern-Expo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nonnotable furniture business. The only claim to fame is to manufacture one of "100 best productis in Ukraine in 2007" - I doubt it is big enough. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Such a nice surprise when someone beats me to AfDing spam. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly not notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Woodbine Supply fire. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Magno[edit]

John Magno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Adrian Roks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Standalone WP:BLPs of two people notable exclusively for having been convicted of a relatively obscure crime. They were previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Magno in 2008, in a discussion which closed on a consensus to merge them into a single article about the event rather than standalone BLPs of them as people — but while that article got created at Woodbine Supply fire, the BLPs never actually got redirected to it, but simply stuck around as standalone WP:BLP1Es despite the AFD consensus. They still don't warrant their own separate articles independently of the main one on the event itself — but since it's been seven years, I feel it's necessary to establish a new consensus to either redirect or delete them, rather than simply relying on the original discussion as enough support for an arbitrary action. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: I've modified my wording here slightly, because I don't want to give the impression that I'm accusing anybody of deliberately ignoring the prior AFD consensus — I fully accept and understand that this was an accidental oversight rather than an intentional flout, so I've reworded the parts that could potentially be perceived as implying malfeasance.] Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per WP:SINGLEEVENT. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (and delete). This seems to have just been an oversight of the original decision. LaMona (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Woodbine Supply fire. I created the event article independently some time after the discussions mentioned by Bearcat and wasn't aware that they took place until I came across this thread today. When I created the fire article I kept the sections on those two deliberately short because they already had their own articles, but I agree that both are primarily notable just for their involvement in the fire, so expanding those sections in the fire article is better. However, the history of the two bios would be required for attribution, and history-merging doesn't make sense. As for the fire itself, it is notable for being one of the largest fires (according to sources) in Toronto's history, for being a fatal insurance fraud, and for Magno and Roks having been charged under an unusual part of the Criminal Code (all as indicated by sources). Ivanvector (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Woodbine Supply fire as per User:Ivanvector. Heaven preserve us from greed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Film Critics[edit]

Iowa Film Critics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No assertion of significance or notability, one primary source cited, and few if any secondary sources are to be found anywhere; the two here are a small local Iowa paper and a non-notable website without a Wikipedia article. Virtually the only non-primary-source mentions on Google are some boilerplate notices of its award list. Like the recently deleted North Carolina Film Critics Association and Oklahoma Film Critics Circle, this is a non-notable local group that exists primarily as an awards-mill and gets its most widespread exposure from this Wikipedia article itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see substantial coverage of the organization itself. It's difficult to find who founded it and when, and the only real lead I found was someone's LinkedIn profile. If anyone's curious, the name that came up was Steve Sullivan of the Ames Tribune, so maybe that will help someone else locate more sources. I give up. If it's this hard to find sources, then it's probably not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORGDEPTH. I could not find in-depth coverage about this organization. The results I found were just routine reports of the awards and nominations, but nothing substantial. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MarnetteD|Talk 14:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Mehltretter[edit]

1968 Mehltretter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:DWMP: unable to establish notability; insufficient reliable sources available. Praemonitus (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, it is not notable. Spumuq (talq) 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Davewild (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1880 McCrosky[edit]

1880 McCrosky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:DWMP: unable to establish notability; insufficient reliable sources available. Praemonitus (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1656 Suomi[edit]

1656 Suomi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is a developed stub using 10 references and is the 9th largest Mars-crossing asteroid with a known diameter. -- Kheider (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination It has been improved dramatically since nomination, and now clearly meets notability. Well done to everyone who contributed. Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the main notability guideline. If anyone wants the article userfying let me know. Davewild (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer John Cabangon[edit]

Eliezer John Cabangon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD was removed with a rather lengthy reason, so just look at the history. The gist was "all references are legit". All but one reference is reliable. The others seem to be websites of galleries that showcase his work, so they fail WP:PRIMARY. The only truly legit reference is the Manila Times article but it is rather short and is just one, failing multiple reliable sources that are required. –HTD 07:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG, no sources found —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.- I added other related references and content about the artist with three google books, please reconsider this article not to be deletedAnthonyAguila24 (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These "books" are either associated with this person, or is written by himself so they're all WP:PRIMARY sources which aren't allowed. –HTD 09:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can you reconsider some of the reference links on the article as Secondary Source? such as the links where EJ Cabangon was featured in an online newspaper, like in the businessworld online (businessworld published the article about their exhibit last April 7, 2015)? Another is websites that did a review on his past solo exhibitionss? please reconsider HTD :( AnthonyAguila24 (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the entire snippet about this person from BusinessWorld:

    "Cabangon takes on cartoonish images and morphs them into “abducted” pieces."

  • The Philippine Star has quite a longer discussion:

    Cabangon takes on cartoonish images and morphs them into “abducted” pieces of liquefying constructs that can be viewed as metaphors for loss of innocence or a world turning into a playground of misfit melting toys. The strategy of “abducting” can be seen as something politically charged (the perils of living in a third world country) or something entirely existential and universal.

  • It's almost certain that these fail WP:BASIC. All others fail WP:RS. –HTD 11:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If that's the case is it okay if i just place links that are not qualified as a reference to Related Links to prevent the article to be deleted? thank you thank you so much for guiding and criticizing my article HTD :D I just really want to show everyone on the web how amazing EJ Cabangon is as an artist AnthonyAguila24 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you can't place links that are "unqualified" to another section. You'd need links that pass Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia isn't for promotion. You should try Wikipilipinas instead. –HTD 11:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well if the prevention of the deletion can't be reconsidered tomorrow i'd like to request for this article "Eliezer John Cabangon" to be moved to the Draft Namespace in order for me to look for more references that are qualified with wikipedia's rules and regulation about primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The reason i am doing this article about EJ Cabangon is not for his promotion, i'm doing this for the Filipino painters who aren't familiar with a painter like EJ Cabangon who is one of the sought after painters in the Philippine art scene. Please HTD, allow me to research more on his works and related sources to his article and develop the article so that it can be placed in the live space of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyAguila24 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: -- fails GNG. Quis separabit? 03:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - This article needs to be greatly revised as it does not follow WP style for the most part. First, the long list of shows should be reduced to a short mention of a few key shows. (We don't list full bibliographies of articles for professors or journalists, and we should not produce a long list of shows for an artist.) Next, the actual text of the article needs references that back up the facts there. Finally, adding a list of every mention found on the web actually detracts from the article -- for external resources, the artist's own site should be sufficient. The Manila Times article [8] is one good RS and can be used to reference some of the facts in the article. A few more such sources are needed to reach general notability. LaMona (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, that lone Manila Times article does not suffice to establish notability, there's nothing else out there, and the article is largely unsourced in violation of WP:BLP. Huon (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Tour[edit]

Jackie Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Concert tour fails to meet notability standards for a concert tour by a recording artist. Sourcing Pitchfork Media, Twitter and another website whose creditability I am unfamiliar of is not enough to qualify for its own article on Wikipedia, and a stub at the Jackie album topic would suffice more. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The tour has been covered by webites like Billboard, Rap-up, That Grape Juice, etc..., more info can be added from Billboard: http://www.billboard.com/articles/review/6554099/ciara-jackie-tour-first-tour-six-years-nyc-review It has a review and synopsis. I suggest, putting that this article is a stub so it can be added; she;s also confirmed there will be another leg --MobFlash (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)))[reply]

• Delete - seems to be a routine tour, does not meet WP:GNG; it would be useful if there were a tour guideline —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--- She's visiting venues throughout the United States, so it's a concert tour with reviews. Not a routine album promo - stop by stop --MobFlash (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's an ACTUAL tour with several dates through the US. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 10:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the tour has received significant coverage, e.g.

• "Ciara's First Tour in Six Years Is a 'Body Party' to Be Reckoned With: Live Review" Billboard.
• "Ciara Wows During 'Jackie Tour,' Performs Michael Jackson Tribute". Music Times.
• "Ciara Kicked Off her “Jackie” Tour At Chicago’s House of Blue’s". Sister 2 Sister.

And more. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:NTOUR: [9], [10], [11]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep [12] Not sure why this would be deleted. Dam!ta (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hammer (actor)[edit]

Jack Hammer (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:PORNBIO. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note There was a previous discussion years ago at WP:Articles for deletion/Jack Hammer (porn actor) that resulted in no consensus. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nonnotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No real claim for passing PORNBIO. Fails GNG without significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Adult Video News has coverage for this performer's numerous run-ins with the law, but that's not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO (all I found for this performer was a single AVN Award nomination for "Most Outrageous Sex Scene" in 2002) and fails WP:GNG (as Gene93k mentioned above, only coverage of the subject documents his run-ins with the law). WP:BLP courtesy deletion might also apply (sort of) in this case, since he wrote a letter to AVN in 2012 in which he complained about his Wikipedia article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rebecca1990. Finnegas (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kempthorne Docklands[edit]

Kempthorne Docklands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Possible hoax or at least highly promotional. The article contains no reliable sources - they are all either deadlinks or adverts. An internet search reveals no sources either. Whil there is a Kempthorne Street in the area and the area might be the subject of redevelopment, it is nothing to the extent of what is claimed here, which even if genuine is nothing more thatn a non-notable housing development. Nthep (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. Problem history from the article creator. Mis-use of refs that don't support this article, or this title. At the most, this seems to be a non-notable local area that just about exists, but isn't the subject of the redevelopment efforts claimed. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete References are a local newspaper being very bias to the properties. That ref in particular does not even support the information. This article is not notable enough to support an article, especially with the references used. Wrightie99 (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Some other edits of the contributor hint WP:NOTHERE. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete This article appears to be a hoax or just a piece of promotional fluff. I earlier removed a reference that was certainly not what it claimed to be (instead it just pointed to an advert in a local paper). I suggest this and similarly created articles are scrutinised for further bogus or completely non-notable subjects.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and send to the list of hoaxes - I did a search on Google Maps and it appears this place doesn't exist. There is no place called "Kempthorne Docklands" matched, though Google Maps marks a red area which would be the location of the place. A search for sources only finds sources that are either unreliable or mirror Wikipedia. --TL22 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Case[edit]

Stevie Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hindsight is always 20/20, and looking back on this article, it appears to violate NOTINHERITED and NTEMP. As best as I can tell, the article can be summed up thus: the subject beat John Romero at Quake once in 1999 (thus becoming a "girl gamer"), started dating John Romero, did an unpublished shoot for Playboy, broke up with Romero in 2003, and dropped off the face of the Earth. The four year period she was involved with Romero is the only period of time that she has any sort of coverage - everything before 1999 and after 2003 is cobbled together from LinkedIn, or it's meaningless career fluff. A Google search brings up nothing substantial that is not related to John Romero. Therefore, it seems that the subject had a limited timespan of notability simply by being associated with a particular person - once that association ended, so did her notability. MSJapan (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary. This LA Times headline is: "She's Winning a Place in the Cyber History Books" [13] The Playboy stuff is not unpublished, just published online. --Pmsyyz (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my point, though - you're saying it's not temporary, and the article is exactly in the problem area and doing the same things. Headline clickbait aside, she's "making history", and they ask all of five questions? Where's the substantial coverage in that? However, I don't want to nitpick on a source-by-source basis; I'd rather illustrate that the issues in the nom are prevalent here as well, evidenced by this quote:"KillCreek broke the mold, says editor John Davison, when she got so good at Quake (the world's most popular e-game) that she actually won a death match over John Romero, the fellow who designed and invented the game." This is the crux of the nom - without Romero being involved, she is not notable on her own, meaning this is textbook NOTINHERITED. Every article and every mention goes back to and is based on "beat John Romero at Quake". There's nothing else indicating her notability at all outside of that. No tournament records, no gaming industry work, no nothing. Once he's no longer associated with her, she disappears. That's pretty temporary, and since notability is not temporary, she cannot be notable. MSJapan (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is not temporary. There are many interviews and write-ups out there, and it doesn't matter if the majority of them are from a five year period or whatever. Once notable, always notable. As an early celebrity gamer and female gamer, she has been written about rather extensively in reliable sources. One example that I pulled up quickly is this book. As far as continuing coverage after Ion Storm, it does exist. For example, this article and this article. It doesn't matter if she never makes a comeback, because she doesn't need to. Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, not whether the coverage was warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article's in a sorry state, but a cursory video game reliable sources custom Google search shows that the subject easily passes the general notability guideline as the subject of the following articles from reliable (vetted) sources:

Including the other sources mentioned above my comment, the video game industry has followed her career and has released enough articles to show that there is lasting interest in Case's life independent of Romero and Quake, though that did start her career. It doesn't fit WP's definition of "inheritance" if her coverage is of her own accord. If the bulk of the coverage is from the early 2000s, so be it. I get your point, but there's more than enough vetted content to write a dedicated article for Case. This subject meets the minimum significant coverage for the general notability guideline. – czar 20:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep It didn't take long for editors to come up with persuasive sources. Notability established. Now, if only someone was in the mood to add them to the page...E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Savill Court, Bishopsgate[edit]

Savill Court, Bishopsgate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article contains no plausible assertion of the notability of this building: indeed it contains nothing of interest about it, concentrating on the not particularly remarkable inhabitants.TheLongTone (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is not a listed building (checked via http://list.historicengland.org.uk/mapsearch.aspx) and is not mentioned in the Surrey volume of Pevsner's Buildings of England series, which from a notability point of view is not encouraging for a building of the early 19th century. For info, the Bishopsgate in question is a hamlet in the parish of Englefield Green.Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now, until someone can come up with evidence that the building is of note. It is evidently big and possibly 200 years old, but neither of these things are criteria for notability. There is this brief review of the current hotel in a national newspaper, but that's it. 90% of the article is not about the house, but poorly sourced (and largely off topic) biogs of alleged inhabitants, with heavy doses of WP:OR. I can only guess the article was written by someone connected to the hotel. Because it is largely not about the building, I don't believe this article will be missed. Sionk (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG; the entire article is about the people who lived there. There is nothing about the building except the mention that there was remodeling in 1910 and that it's a hotel now (Savill Court Hotel and Spa). Hotel doesn't meet GNG either. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SYN of material which is not directly about the subject.--Antigng (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A recent release which has not much coverage yet, but charted already. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Color Is Your Sky[edit]

What Color Is Your Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject concerned does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria for albums. In particular, there is no independent, non-trivial coverage from the sources provided. - Andrew Y _talk 15:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep references such as [14] and [15] mention this album by name. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Billboard Country charting counts for something, as do these links: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] which may need to be added to the article Dennisthemonkeychild, (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I created the page so longtime Jason Michael Carroll fans can see that he has a new album out. Plus, all of Carroll's other releases are on Wikipedia, what would be wrong with this one? It NEEDS to stay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruteforce7700 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Horwitz[edit]

David Horwitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:RLN Appable (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced BLP, no assertion of notability, and not passing WP:GNG. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Horwitz has played for New South Wales Country Eagles in the National Rugby Championship, "Australia's national professional rugby union football competition". SMH states "After McIntyre added the extras, Toby White compounded Va'aulu's effort when he charged down a David Horwitz kick and beat the covering defender to score." duffbeerforme (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, the only third-party coverage of Horwitz I could find beyont routine games coverage was this article, and I don't think one source is enough to write a decent article about him. Huon (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Noor Muhammad Khan[edit]

Khan Noor Muhammad Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find anything related to this name, although there are several Noor Muhammad Khans, without the first name. There are no usable references, at the very least we need to establish that this guy existed/has the right name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unreferenced, unverifiabe, without prejudice against recreation when sources found. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree, didn't find any sources. Unless author provide reliable sources, has to be deleted. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:-per nom. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm posting the comment from the nominator, Alibilal9999 here. It was removed because it awas in the wrong place, but he's entitled to post here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Khan Noor Muhammad Khan was a well known personality in education circles of Punjab Pakistan who not only served regular education in Punjab in different capacities like Inspector of schools Lahore division and then Director of education Punjab but also initiated department of special education in Punjab before him there was no such department in Punjab and he was the first director of special education Punjab who set up a large net work of vocational institutes and schools for blind and mentally retarded people in the province. there are many other services for general public and government of Punjab under his belt. the city government of Faisalabad has named a busy avenue in the city in his name as "Khan noor Muhammad khan Avenue" in recognition of his services for the country. I hope this humble introduction of him will not stand him in the deletion list of Wikipedia. you will agree here with me that references of www.youtube.com or any other social website are self generated but the services of a man speak by itself))[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted G3 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George pieter fourie[edit]

George pieter fourie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No secondary source included to support the notability of subject concerned. - Andrew Y _talk 14:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Tagged as such. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep = a snowstorm. Le petit fromage (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy McMullen[edit]

Jeremy McMullen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable guy. founds no source about him. Truley non-notable. Beerest 2 Talk page 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, with a full obituary in a leading UK newpsaper. Edwardx (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In this case, the obituary drew attention to an individual that would have passed WP:GNG, but did not yet have an article on here. I have added a few references to this article as well. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes GNG. The Guardian called him "the leading expert of his generation on employment law" and he is mentioned in 56 articles in The Times according to my search of their archive. I would think there are numerous references to him in The Telegraph and legal publications too, but I haven't checked those yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Philafrenzy. That's an astonishing number of references in The Times in my opinion, clearly a notable barrister of his time. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A quick Google Scholar and Google Book search turned up numerous citations not referenced in this article. The subject is notable due to reliable sources already included as references. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is misconceived. Can we have a Snow Keep please? Philafrenzy (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An obit in The Guardian is perfectly sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Steel[edit]

Leo Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable web game lacking significant coverage from reliable sources. The1337gamer (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any coverage in valid sources from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, just MobyGames. It claims to have been unique in its simple controls: I'm not sure it was unique even in 2004, but if it is verifiably a groundbreaking game or ancestor of the current crop of endless running games (Temple Run, etc) that might be a claim to notability. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable video game (in the continued absence of references to the contrary) Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sign of notability. --☣Anarchyte☣ 10:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Longecity[edit]

Longecity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It appears to me that this organization fails WP:ORG. I do not see the requisite third-party sourcing available that would enable us to be able to write a neutral article on this subject. All of the sourcing is either directly connected to the organization or is part of the walled garden of "life-extension" advocates. jps (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the article fails to establish notability by reference to reliable independent sources. Also it sucks. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot seem to find the name of the organization in the only reference that seems like it might be a WP:RS ([21] asserted to be on pg 48 but not found) Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was unable to find any mention of this organization in reliable mainstream sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent sources that I can find, it's sourced in what looks like a cluster of cross-referencing organizations of dubious reliability and no independence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J Webb[edit]

Daniel J Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN - a Liberal Democrats member who has not yet stood for local council, let alone an actual seat in Parliament. There is some local news coverage, so I couldn't hand on heart delete it per WP:CSD#A7, so I'll bring discussion here instead Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I originally nominated this for speedy deletion, but Ritchie333 was right to bring it here, since there is a weak claim of notability. That said, the claim of purely local notability is based on sources from the local newspaper the subject worked for. After removing some BLP violations there's not a lot left apart from a somewhat promotional tone. Acroterion (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Run-of-the-mill CV of an individual who's not notable in any field (photographer, businessman, or politician). Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria: just a little local press, much of which isn't primarily about Webb (he works in PR so if he didn't get any press coverage that would be more notable). Colapeninsula (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have seen far "notable on paper" articles be deleted for notability concerns, often citing WP:NOTNOW. In this case, does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for being encyclopedic. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN, not notable as a politician, photographer or journalist. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This individaul is not even close to passing notablity for a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not yet notable as a politician, press agent, or photographer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Notability appears clear (Non-Admin closure).

Rakhee Kapoor Tandon[edit]

Rakhee Kapoor Tandon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This news article pretty much sums up her notability. The page was proposed for deletion (with a detailed rationale) by Arthistorian1977 and de-prodded by another user with the edit summary "Bad faith nomination!”. So bringing it here for discussion. - NQ (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. If we were to talk about her personal achievement, the news links mention her being featured on India's Top 25 Most Influential Woman. She has also launched several campaigns with the hierarchical partnership with Yes Bank. Thus, she has got a fair coverage of leading news papers, authentic online media and other resources. All the links from the major newspapers have been duly mentioned. Thus, I support to keep this page-Tanishq (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She is notable enough as one of India’s 25 Most Influential Women. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo-Jay: Normally I would agree, except for the fact that she is not named in a significant annual list or anything of that sort. It's just a slideshow on a website. [22] - NQ (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NQ please do also review http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/raakhe-kapoor-yes-she-can/1/228140.html WordSeventeen (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, IndiaToday is a leading website held by a brand named India Today Group, which is one of the most notable functioning body. Tanishq (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep As per Tanishq. WP:N Notability has been achieved by her inclusion in one of India’s 25 Most Influential Women found here [23] and here [24]. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. She appears to be sufficiently celebrated, howsoever both her article and her dad's one need to be ameliorated. -- ^♕JenniTheEmpress  15:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is notable enough.1.39.61.82 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep She is highly notable. And the correct spelling of her first name seems to be "Raakhe". So the article has to be renamed as "Raakhe Kapoor Tandon". 117.216.145.202 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. Davewild (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavya Gandhi[edit]

Bhavya Gandhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable Indian child actor Jim Carter 11:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He plays a major role in a popular Indian TV show Rahul^{Text me} 19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Obviously, moving this to the show's article is the best option as he has not established independent notability and is best known for one show with one movie aside from that. The awards are also for the show and searches including this show there is not significant and in-depth coverage about him. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah as he's been in that programme since 2006, I can't find any evidence of notability and unfortunately just 'cos you've been in a tv programme doesn't mean you get a free pass to an article. –Davey2010^Talk 14:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If we go purely by the numbers, this would be no-consensus. However the "Keep" votes are just bare assertions that this person is notable, while the "Delete" ones actually go into policy. I note the comment there that there may be sources in Urdu, but we can't keep a BLP around on the off chance there might be unlocatable sources. If such sources are discovered the article can be restored easily enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Wasi shah is one of the most young poets and he currently hosts many shows .he is very famous and i would request u to undelete his wikipedia page (plz answer back) Thank u 14FEB2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.73.187 (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Wasi Shah[edit]

Syed Wasi Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per the rule, "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The subject does not establish the notability. None of the cited sources are reliable. The creator of the article removed the proposed deletion tag without telling the reasons that why he is removing the tag. Justice007 (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this the same person as http://viaf.org/viaf/56055456/ ? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, if go into details, there are also various similar names! Justice007 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not seeing coverage of this person in RS. It would be nice if the editor removing the PROD had offered an explanation for doing so. NickCT (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the biography is notable enough. Though this poet is in covered by any reliable references yet he has done alot of work in his field. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While "Syed" sometimes seems to be used as a personal name in Pakistan, it also gets used as an honorific, and in this case one definitely gets better results by omitting it - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). The GNews results I get seem to be passing mentions but strongly suggest a level of recognition within Pakistan that implies definite Wikipedia notability - the trouble is that, as the subject writes in Urdu, most of the reliable sources are almost certainly also in Urdu. Unless an Urdu-speaker can get hold of these, though, or someone can come up with at least one English-language reliable source more substantial than the ones I have seen, this may be an unavoidable case of WP:BIAS - though I would urge leaving this AfD open for at least another week to try to avoid this. PWilkinson (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umais Bin Sajjad, how do you support the subject that has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable. I have checked English and Urdu sources before nominating for deletion, I did not find. If anyone can?. Justice007 (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree with Umais. He is a much popular Urdu poet. Faizan (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:BASIC, if he was popular, he would be covered in many (I'm talking 50-100+) reliable publications. Esquivalience ^t 00:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The balance of arguments, analysis of available sources, and consensus on the status of bullpen catchers favor deletion. For the record, unless there is evidence that a specific AfD was started in bad faith, a nominator being blocked for other reasons after starting an AfD is not really relevant. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Burgess[edit]

Pat Burgess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - search revealed nothing except there are a lot of people named Pat Burgess. Previous AfD discussion claimed he was a coach, but he's not listed at this roster. Article also does not claim he was ever a coach. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per the previous AfD, since notability isn't temporary. It oughtn't be a huge surprise that a guy listed on a coaches' list last fall isn't a season later. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The standard is GNG. If someone really was a major league coach in the 2010s (and this guy wasn't, your opinion notwithstanding), there really ought to be enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither your opinion or mine's at stake. The Colorado Rockies thought he was a coach, and theirs is the only opinion that matters worth a damn. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• G.N.G. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NukeThePukes I looked at the archived version of the staff page from last October. Pat Burgess is not listed as a coach: his title is "Major League Operations Assistant/Bullpen Catcher." Claiming that he is a coach because he's in that table or because the page is titled "Coaching staff" is seriously sketch. Using that criteria, you could also claim that Vinny Castilla, special assistant, is a coach. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny you should say that: using that column for a guide (the one labeled "MANAGERS AND COACHES"), I'd claim exactly that. See, if the team didn't consider him so, he'd be in the next column down, the one labeled "Staff." He isn't. (Interestingly enough, the team's strength/conditioning coach IS.) Honestly, it really doesn't matter what your opinion is or how sketchy you think it: the Colorado Rockies disagree with you. Given the choice between who a Major League Baseball team thinks ought to be called a coach and who a handful of Wikipedia editors think ought to be called one, I'll go with the MLB team ten times out of ten. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a consensus that bullpen catchers don't qualify for the presumption of notability that more traditional coaches get. So if there are sources to support notability, those should be added (or at least demonstrated). Rlendog (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as non-notable; fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 11:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Burgess and in the article: this article^WebCite from MLB.com and this article^WebCite from The Denver Post. The former article provides substantial coverage of the subject, while the latter provides nontrivial coverage about him.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pat Burgess to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, does MLB.com count as an independent source when it comes to GNG or is it considered a primary source? Rlendog do you have a consensus? (I'm not saying it shouldn't count for this article, but I would like to know for future info). —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of a discussion, although others may know better. Certainly mlb.com has been used at times, as has similar sites such as nhl.com for hockey. My personal view is that it depends. If the article is discussing a prospect, or other non-major leaguer, then I think it is independent. If it is discussing a major leaguer, then I don't think it is fully independent, although personally I would give some "credit" for a substantial mlb.com article in a close case, since there is a probably significant gap between the institution of Major League Baseball and some marginally notable person associated with MLB. But I would expect some other significant fully independent sources in such a case. On the other hand, if a fully independent source picked up on the MLB article, then I would give full "credit." Rlendog (talk)

OK, thanks Rlendog. It probably hasn't come up because people associated with these pro leagues typically already meet GNG through some other way. I think (like in the case of Burgess) if you need to rely on league-generated news to prove GNG, notability is pretty thin. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, we don't usually treat MLB.com, NBA.com, NFL.com, NHL.com, NCAA.com, team websites, college sports conferences, sports governing bodies such as AAU, FIBA, FIFA, FINA, IAAF, college newspapers, or any other source associated with a team, affiliated universities, conferences or league as "independent" for purposes of establishing notability. As mentioned by Rlendog, if a third-party independent media source re-publishes an MLB.com article, then I would then treat it as "independent"; that happens all the time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1, I agree, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to get that solidified into a guideline for sports notability. The pro league and university articles are a treasure trove of info, and are reliable sources to reference information, but they're not truly independent sources. They churn out mass amounts of content related to their people, that is always going to be favorable to the institution and their interests, and anything negative is going to be absent or minimized. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per above. Alex (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete dubious claims based on flaky sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - League websites are not independent of the subject (in fact, they're extremely promotional in nature), and stats websites such as Baseball-Reference.com, are not treated as significant coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I disagreee about your interpretation of mlb.com. The majority of the feature articles (as opposed to the press releases) are written by beat reporters covering the teams and the articles all contain a disclaimer that specificaly states that "This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs." I would say the articles are reliable and independent and useable for this purpse. Spanneraol (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - @Spanneraol: Who employs the MLB.com "beat reporters?" Do they work for third-party publications, and MLB.com simply re-publishes their work? Otherwise, if they are paid by MLB or one of its affiliates, I have a very big problem counting any MLB.com articles as "independent" for purposes of establishing notability. There are two relevant points about the "independence" of sources; first, we want them to be editorially independent from the subject matter as a matter of objectivity and reliability; second, we want them to be organizationally and financially unrelated to the subject matter as a proxy for how much significant coverage the subject receives in mainstream media. When we rely on stories published exclusively on NCAA.com, NBA.com, NFL.com, NHL.com, etc., those are not really third-party sources; the parent organizations have a very obvious interest in promoting the sport, and that includes the players and teams. Without that vested financial interest in the subject matter, obviously most of the MLB.com stories would never see the light of day because most of them would not be published -- there is only so much the mainstream news and sports media will publish, and those are the real measures of the depth of coverage. Not sponsored baseball journalism by MLB.com. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with Span here. Strictly, as he clarifies, with regard to non-press releases written by beat reporters that contain a disclaimer that specifically states that "This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs." Epeefleche (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They are paid by MLB Advanced Media who managed the websites and web content for MLB (as well as several different organizaions) but MLB is supposed to not have any editorial control over the writers. This doesnt directly affect this discussion which I haven't actually voted in just my opinion that those articles shouldn't be summarily dismissed because they are listed on team websites. You can collapse this side discussion if you want as well. Spanneraol (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to hat this "digression," Spanner. It's very relevant to the present discussion, and American professional sports AfD discussions generally. Our problem is this: MLB, or its subsidiary/affiliate MLB Advanced Media, has hired 30 beat reporters to cover the MLB teams. Presumably, they're salaried, and at least part-time employees, if not full-time. Let's assume that they're being paid at least $30 k per reporter for their work: that's approximately $1 million per year in beat reporter pay. Now, add that to the several million dollars that MLB has undoubtedly invested in the web of MLB team wesbites they have created as a delivery mechanism for their MLB.com "news" articles. Whether the reporters have editorial "independence" isn't really the point; MLB, acting through MLB.com, has just generated several million dollars in media coverage for players, coaches and support staff -- like bullpen catcher Pat Burgess -- many of whom would never have received significant coverage in truly independent media like The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Denver Post, The New York Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, The Washington Post, The Sporting News or Sports Illustrated. It's not that MLB.com is somehow a bad source of information; in fact, it's a pretty good factual source. But it's not independent coverage that would exist if MLB did not invest several million dollars of its own money every year to generate that coverage. The Steinbrenner family does not have to pay Newsday and The New York Times to cover the Yankees; they cover the Yankees because it sells newspapers and advertising. MLB.com is a very different model; something entirely different, in fact. In the end analysis, MLB.com is a very expensive and very sophisticated form of vanity publishing, and because its coverage is bought and paid for by MLB, its coverage of players, coaches and other staff cannot be said to be independent. That's it in a nutshell. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Spanneraol pointed out above, they are independent in that they are not dictating content. That is key. Advertisers have a financial relationship with publications -- but don't dictate content, so we don't have an independence concern. Same analysis here, and same approach here. Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG and independent search does not find sources which would do it. I don't know why people are being tricked by these non-sources, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Cilladi was the rarest of AfDs, a Keep where I voted Delete. Edited to add, oh, i did not see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Cilladi (2nd nomination), glad to know my close to 100% record is keeping up.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with the close of the prior AfD, six months ago, which was a Keep. And the above Keep !votes that focus on GNG. I believe there is sufficient coverage here to meet GNG. I don't see these sources as "flaky." I also agree with Span's analysis of mlb.com as an RS that counts towards notability, in those circumstances indicated. I believe we now have an even split of the Wikipedians !voting in this discussion, but believe that the Keep !votes are more in line with wp principles. I am not counting the nom, Mellowed, as he has been blocked indef and is not a Wikipedian, and as stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "Articles for deletion ... is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." I recognize that there is room to squabble over mlb.com, but believe the better view is that it counts under the circumstances delineated above. Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a supremo inclusionist, recently brought to ANI for summoning asteroids to collide into Earth, but this is pretty weak stuff. The prior AFD has people simply thinking he's a coach so he's notable, not really catching that bullpen catchers don't normally meet WP:GNG as can be reasonably assumed for a main coach. Find us two profiles on Mr. Burgess in reliable newspapers, and he's in, in my book. Even if he played one MLB game in St. Louis in 1879, he's in under policy though its a stretch in those cases under GNG. I don't see either here. I will summon asteroids to save him if you find the goods.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable source vs. independent source: not the same thing - @Epeefleche: Your argument regarding MLB.com being a "reliable source" per WP:RS misses the point entirely: the argument is not whether MLB.com is reliable, the argument is whether MLB.com coverage of MLB-related topics is "independent" per WP:GNG (see also Wikipedia:Independent sources). MLB, acting through its affiliates MLB.com and MLB Advanced Media, is spending several millions of dollars per year to generate and publish articles on MLB-related topics such as MLB teams, players, coaches and other staff like Pat Burgess. That MLB.com coverage is not independent of the MLB-related subject. MLB, either directly or indirectly, owns and/or controls MLB.com and MLB and MLB Advanced Media. Pat Burgess is employed by a MLB baseball team. The MLB affiliates, MLB.com and MLB Advanced Media, exist solely to generate coverage of MLB-related topics, and their coverage of MLB-related topics would not exist but for MLB's investment of millions of dollars in generating such coverage of MLB-related topics. Bottom line: MLB.com coverage is not independent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing administrator: please note the hatted discussion above regarding Epeefleche's demand that nominator Mellowed Fillmore's !vote be disregarded because Mellowed Fillmore is blocked for reasons unrelated to this AfD; please see ANI discussion here: [29]; and blocking admin's notation in the block log here: [30]. Please note that Epeefleche's demand is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dirtlawyer. I see no reason the nominator's vote shouldn't count, since there's no evidence of bad faith. If someone votes in good faith and then dies, his vote isn't struck. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I may disagree with the nomination, but there's no reason to believe that the nominator acted in poor faith, or that the nomination itself (the merits thereof aside) was in violation of policy. In any event, Dirtlawyer is right, and there's no policy automatically revoking a vote or nomination made by someone who's subsequently blocked. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant here whether the !vote is by a "bad faith" Wikipedian. He is not a Wikipedian. If someone dies, he is still a Wikipedian. If he is indef blocked, he is no longer a Wikipedian. We don't give weight in closes to good-faith non-Wikipedian sentiments. Just like if you contract to sell me a house, in good faith, and at closing we find you don't have title ... well, you can't sell me the house because you are not in the class (person with title) who can sell me the house. Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If someone dies, he is still a Wikipedian"? That's one of the silliest things I've ever read. Also, "We don't give weight in closes to good-faith non-Wikipedian sentiments"? What is that supposed to mean? Are non-Wikipedians sending in their AfD opinions via telepathy or something? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just plain nonsense, and frankly a good bit of Wikilawyering to boot. The nom had a temporary block which was made permanent at the nom's request: not because he'd done anything warranting an indef. Beyond that, I don't give a good goddamn whether or not someone who posts at AfD's been around for ten years or ten minutes -- the only thing that does and SHOULD matter is whether such an editor's posts are in accordance with policy and make sense. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nom had an indef blocked, followed by a reduction based on the guess that nom's vandalism may have been inadvertent, followed by an indef block supported by nom and his admission that his 200+ instances of vandalism were intentional and were vandalism. He is not a Wikipedian, and will not be a Wikipedian at the time that !votes of Wikipedians are counted. And we count !votes of Wikipedians -- as wp:AfD states. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. And the discussion awhile back (linked in this discussion) concluded that bullpen catchers did not meet WP:NBASEBALL as assistant coaches. And even if it did he'd still need to meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Till We Meet Again (2015 film)[edit]

Till We Meet Again (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:NOTFILM as is a non-notable independent film which has yet to be released (aside from a handful of film festivals). Per WP:NFF, an unreleased film is not notable unless the production itself is notable per WP:N. There is limited third-party coverage of the film and most of it is through film festivals. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unfortunately this is a very common term and is the name of several movies, but I just can't find any coverage of this one. Nothing against indie films, but there should be some coverage of them to support notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice toward a return when it gets some commentary and coverage, and as it HAS won some awards,[31][32] possible coverage is a reasonable expectation. And nominator, a festival release counts as release... television or theater is not a mandate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and when a film title is a common phrase, we refine our searches to eliminate false positives.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has gotten further recognition and have been updated with stronger sources and news articles as well as an additional award at another festival. As *Dream of Horses mentioned "a festival release counts as release..." and I agree. This film has also notably relevance since the producer Johan Matton is an article that links to the film as for help to further information. It would be beneficial to keep the film considering it's relevance, notability and also since it's not an 'Orphan' article. Changingfilm22 (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)ChangingFilm22[reply]

• Keep (duplicate !vote struck lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC))The Artice is onces again updated with additional media attention from 3 sources:[reply]

Co-Producer and Lead actres Linnea Larsdotter is interview regarding the films sucess and regarding her part in it.

Article regarding Till We Meet Again in LT, Producer and Writer Johan Matton is interviewed regarding the process of producing the film.

Producer and Writer Johan Matton is interviewed by Brian DeCicco on the Pod Cast 'Boat Over Mountains' regarding producing his movie regarding funding the film and the process of filming Till We Meet Again abroad in Thailand. Soures found at Till We Meet Again (2015 film) - Changingfilm22 (talk)

Changingfilm22, we don't list references in this way in an article. While it's acceptable here (at Articles for Deletion) to write that the actress gave an interview and the producer gave an interview, in the article you must use these sources to write the article. Also I've added COI tag as your username indicates you are affiliated with Changing Film Productions that produced this film. Please read about WP:COI. Thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Johan_Matton#Filmography. Right now the film just isn't notable enough for an entry. It's shown at film festivals and won some prizes, but none that would really give notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. For example,the LAIFF Awards give away 50 awards per month (600 per year), which doesn't make it discerning enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Most film festival awards aren't notable enough to give even partial notability, let alone complete notability. As far as the interviews go, the podcasts are pretty much self-published sources, meaning that they undergoes little to no editorial oversight that Wikipedia could verify. Most things of this nature (blogs, podcasts, etc) are self-published and unusable. The Stagepool source initially looked like it could've been usable, but a quick check on the website shows that the site is also an employment board. A quick look at the article with GT shows that Mikkelä has used the page to advertise herself as an actress, which makes the article a WP:PRIMARY source at best. It's well within the site's best interests to interview an actress that has successfully gotten work, since they can use it to show other actors that they can use the site to get work as well. The only usable source looks to be the LT source but even then that's a pretty short article. Since none of the awards are the type that would merit a keep on that basis alone (and the usability of them to establish any notability is in doubt) and there's only one usable source, the only options here are to either delete the article or redirect it to Matton's article. I'd prefer redirecting since this would leave the article's history intact for if/when the film gains more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alts

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

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

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

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

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

• KEEP or REDIRECT: I agree somewhat with Tokyogirl79, although I would keep or redirect to Johan_Matton#Filmography. I do believe some articles are week and some of the awards are not of notable interest. The film holds some interest regarding it's production but most sources here are from IMDb and the Pod Cast interview alone. I find the article helpful for information regarding the film but would need further help regarding what is reasonable to keep on Wikipedia. The film is an American Independent film with awards and notable cast but no major news regarding the film has been released. Damon.S.H.Journalist (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Damon.S.H.Journalist — Damon.S.H.Journalist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Non notable at this time, no significant independent coverage --_nonsense ferret 23:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toitures Du St Laurent[edit]

Toitures Du St Laurent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be part of some paid editing operation. First, though the article states that the company was founded in 2008, it has been operating for "more than 20 years" which is clearly impossible. Next, though there are a lot of references giving this article an appearance of credibility, most of the references either don't support claims made in the article or are self-published sources. Third, I'm a little amazed that a seemingly new user knew how to use stub templates. Finally, this article seems to be entirely positive in tone, which set off my red flags. Gparyani (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gparyani. Thanks for your comment. i was improved the content and please check the corporation got natble references from many resources. i found it on search engine and i think it should not be delete. thanks. --Bayu Antasari (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the numbers have been edited to be more plausible. The other concerns have still not yet been resolved, though. Gparyani (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak speedy delete per A7 (and/or G11). However, the revenue numbers do constitute a credible claim of significance, despite their being unverified and unsourced. Gparyani (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I agree with Gparyani. I nominated the article for speedy under A7 and G11. I did not take into account revenue as a claim of notability, since revenue numbers are not included in the criteria for WP:CORP If that criteria is added in the future, I think 1.2M would most likely be under the encyclopedic threshold.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per several source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete thoroughly nn minor business.Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The 'references' are mainly directory entries, and the remaining one is YouTube. Turnover is irrelevant here - it may be significant at CSD - and is unsupported anyway. No notable projects mentioned. The quality of the English used is not something I'm taking into account here, but I would advise the author to improve it if they are planning any more articles on the English language Wikipedia. I am intrigued that apparently the company was founded with "hundred of employees" but now seems to manage with "ten expert employees", and what "In typical siding and roofing contractor, it has 3-6 employees more slightly than other company that employ with ten peoples" means is beyond me. Peridon (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems like another paid editor recreated this at Toitures. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bayu Antasari. Gparyani (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails corporate notability guideline.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly even speedy. So they're a company, no claim of notability, clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rupinderpal Singh Dhillon[edit]

Rupinderpal Singh Dhillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm wary of nominating authors/books because they have weird guidelines. Nonetheless, this looks unlikely to meet any notability guideline and to be mere promo. The most recent books in the list seem likely to be self-published affairs - see Blurb, Inc. Sitush (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no references at all, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE..Indian novels are only published by vanity press..you will find all publishers in India charge authors, so that is normal..this page has merely cited the western editions which are by companies such as Blurb, because Indian languages are not published by western publishers.

Also there were many sources including newspapers and other such links. Look at previous versions. Seems people including the author have been on this page and revised many things off it. Plan to link the sources section to all of these over next 2 weeks if allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.105.155 (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Woah, yes. There is this, this and this. The first of these looks to be a little disingenuous - "Went to University at Oxford, where Hotel Management was studied" is not the University of Oxford (the twice-disgraced lobbyist Derek Draper did a similar thing re: Berkeley). I regret to say that it was me who removed these links, ages ago when they were stuck in the External links section.

  I am not, however, convinced that all Indian novels are vanity press publications and I remain wary about the notability of this chap. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent time looking at this guy. 2 things I can confirm are 1) He went to Oxford Brookes University not Oxford, but looking at earlier entries it does say that. He was there from 1992 to 1995 when he graduated with a Hotel and Management Degree. 2) I looked into the vanity press thing. In India they do not use the phase vanity press. All local based publishing companies expect authors to have their books printed and there are no royalties except for the exceptionally famous or best sellers. So this is genuine, especially re non english language books. The guy is well known in the literary circles of Punjabi Writers in the UK. What I have done previously is delete the BLURB and other western book entries and replace with references only to the books available via the well known Punjabi publishing houses. In my view if these are the reasons to question this article they no longer stand. I have also had confirmation from Venus TV that he was interviewed as did Desi radio and the BBC Asian Network. If you want to change and update his Oxford entry fine. But I would not change or add anymore now to the changes I have made. I find as with many non european and american persons their sources materials dod not always follow our text books and sources and for example I cam across a guy who lived outside the pyramids and knew the exact size of one which was contradicted by an entry which made reference to a western published book, so he had his change deleted. Afterwards the BBC confirmed he was right. For that reason I tend to be asked to double check the non english world entries.

As I said I see no reason now to add or take away any other detail from this. Leave it to you if your want to explicitly change to Oxford Brookes. I suggest of now we accept that this is genuine.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Namgi Park[edit]

Namgi Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Ignoring the vanity scam awards (which should be removed from the article regardless of outcome) I'm not convinced that being president of a small teaching college with a one-line unreferenced article is enough for WP:PROF#C6: it's a highest level academic post but not at a major academic institution. And that's the only criterion he seems to come close to. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:- Subject of the article clearly meet WP:PROF#C6. University world News confirmed him as former President of Gwangju National University of Education, a recognized and accredited university of education. I sourced the article and did some cleanup. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Created by subject himself, this is essentially a bibliography/CV. These kinds of lists of publications are not favored as WP pages. I do not see anything that rises to the notability requirements of WP:PROF. The university has a WP page that is a stub. I found little about it online, but it appears to be what in the US we call a "teacher's college" -- and if so, it affords little prestige to its president. LaMona (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:As per User:Wikicology, Park seems to me to pass our WP:Prof. His former presidency of an acredited Korean university ([33]). This seems to me to meet WP:Prof 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. The notes to which say a significant accredited college or university. National teaching training colleges with both UGs (1500) and PG (700) students would seem to me to fall into what is wanted here. Also his publications include the highly cited (GS 293) Mauch, J., & Park, N. (2003). Guide to the successful thesis and dissertation: A handbook for students and faculty (Vol. 62). CRC Press. So this might help with establishing notability by pulications. Also his role in the World Council for Comparative Education Societies [[34]] seems to me indicative of notability. Editing to remove excessive publications and over promotional tone is all that seems to me to be needed. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Comment on article improvement: The list of awards has been removed and I have also removed most of his many publications (both english and all the Korean ones - am not sure if this last thing was the right thing to do). Have also added a review in a peer reviewed journal to one of his books and evidence of the Uni he was president of being an acredited national univeristy in the Korean system. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

PS: Interested (and patient - as it is slow downloading) editors can see a picture of Namgi Park with Prime Minister Han Seung-soo on the Office for the Prime Minister's Sectretariat's website in Oct 2008 at the ceremony of appointment to his post as president of a national university. [35]. (Text for picture Korean: 081023_한승수총리_박남기_광주교육대학총장_임명장수여 English: 2008 23rd Oct Prime Minister Han Seung-soo and Park Namgi Awarded Appointment of President of Gwangju National University of Education.) (Msrasnw (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources found. MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SWRP[edit]

SWRP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable Internet community, no coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 23:51, 8 May 2015 (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)).

• Coverage with further reliable sources to come in due course with further editing. I believe this article to be in accordance with Wikipedia's guidance policy. Please make every effort to Keep this article. Duffsam (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Duffsam (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

• Text would could possibly by interpreted as an advertisement has been removed Duffsam (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is that there is no reliable sourcing that covers this subject directly (see this guideline). If there are reliable sources, then prove it by linking to them. Esquivalience ^t 02:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found two scholarly articles about the community: Living in the Hutt Space, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.006, in Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 28, Issue 5, September 2012, Pages 1681–1691; and, by the same author "The immersive impact of meta-media in a virtual world" doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.016 Computers in Human Behavior Volume 28, Issue 2, March 2012, Pages 450–455. That they are by the same author makes it a bit weak. The community gets mentioned in other studies of Second Life (which is where it seems to take place) such as [36], and this book chapter [37], and there are others if you do a search in Google Scholar. Now, this scholarly information needs to be added to the article, and there should be links between the Second life article and this one. LaMona (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]