The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no sources, promotional tone, not notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Airahuobhor[edit]

Andrew Airahuobhor (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)

Not notable enough. Peter Sam Fan 23:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rai Hamilton[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. My original rationale was as follows: "Having removed a lot of serious WP:BLP violations, I simply think that the sources (tabloids) fail to establish notability. This provides the most coverage, but it's simply a gossip piece about the couple's legal troubles. And all the coverage seems to be centered around his wife, not the man himself." The previous versions of the article said he's an author, but this was unsourced.

Since then, a lot of unsourced material was removed, yet the article in itself does not establish Rai Hamilton's own notability (i.e. the article focuses mainly on his wife, and in a very unfavorable manner). Furthermore, the two sources provided hardly mention Mr. Hamilton at all; both are rather breathless tabloids, to boot. The first article mentions him twice, giving little information besides his very brief statement on a man's death. The second is almost totally about his wife; it says Rai is a financier who bought a castle and is involved in a lot of dramah regarding the property, legal issues, and his marriage. Another source I found ([1]) tells you all you really need to know: Rai Hamilton is rich and involved in personal drama, but mere mentions in the tabloids is just not enough to establish true notability. The biggest issue seems to be his legal concerns, but this perhaps puts it into WP:BLP1E territory. GAB^Hello! 22:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Only sources are from one tabloid, and doesn't seem inherently notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a biography of this man, who is not notable. The article is a coatrack for an attack on his former wife, which violates BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only an attack on his ex-wife, but also an attack on him. See the article history, where an editor included an unsourced rape accusation. This needs to get WP:SNOWy fast. ~ Rob^Talk 23:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Article, in its present form, does not make a credible claim of significance. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of the Dying[edit]

The Last of the Dying (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)

NN self-published book failing all 5 criteria of WP:BK. Failed ((prod)) nomination by @NawlinWiki: when contested by obvious COI IP editor. Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Per nom. Self-Published, and seems like a promotion for the author. Not every minor book is notable.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an unreferenced promotional article about a non-notable, self published novel. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I like the idea of this, but I can't find anything to show that it's ultimately notable enough for its own article. Most self-published and indie books fail NBOOK and while it'd be nice if we could include everyone, this just isn't feasible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable, only bookseller and some blog sites. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could not establish the notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Mhhossein (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dinah Project[edit]

The Dinah Project (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)

Website of questionable notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources is neither cited nor apparent in a Google search. As is to be expected, the article reads vaguely promotional (I cleaned the lead up somewhat) and as a part of the website's advocacy of its issues. Also, the website seems to be dead, so future coverage is unlikely.  Sandstein  21:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable website. I didn't find any reliable sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE. A simple Google scholar search found several good sources. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A similar Google books search, and one Highbeam search, found some of the same sources. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced sourced like "https://www.amazon.ca/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=9781608994373" constitute something related to this organization. They seem like two distinct uses of 'The Dinah Project'. I haven't read in details, so I can't say for sure, but a simple google search does not seem to distinguish between the two, if the two are indeed distinct. There's lots of thing that seems to be related to Monica Coleman, an American theologian, and very little on the UK-based initiative. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After reviewing sources, none (or very little, well below the treshhold to meet WP:N) seem to pertain to the (dead/inactive!) UK-based initiative called 'The Dinah Project', which instead seem to be about a book/personal project/church/something related to Monica Coleman. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing for the noticeable signs of necessary notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:WEBCRIT. The book by Monica Coleman and this website look to just share a name. The Dinah Project book doesn't look to mention this website and instead points to Coleman's own website. Likewise the Dinah Project website doesn't mention Coleman. @Bearian: I think the sources you're seeing are for the book, not the subject of this article. Am I missing something? After deleting, we could probably Redirect to Monica Coleman as it's fairly standard to redirect from book titles to authors. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Monica Coleman. No reliable, notable coverage of the website but the book is notable enough for a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Folan[edit]

Christopher Folan (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)

Delete: non-notable. No derivation of notability solely by dint of victimhood. Quis separabit? 01:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable WP:VICTIM.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This incident was a major event in Galway City at the height of the Irish War of Independence in 1921. It generated outrage in Galway, and received much attention at the time in both regional and national newspapers, and has been included in several history books about the period. The killing of 18 year old Folan created similar outrage to the killing of 18 year old Kevin Barry in Dublin. Michael Collins the Chief of Staff of the Irish Army ordered an investigation into the death. It was an infamous episode carried out by the Black and Tans and was one of a number of incidents which proved to LLoyd George and Winston Churchill that elements of their own forces were out of control and that a Military solution to the conflict was not possible. This occurred in May 1921, the truce between the Irish led by Michael Collins and the British was agreed in July 1921. Thanks. • Galwaybuck (talk) 17:57, 02 April2016 (UTC)

@• Galwaybuck -- please spare us the history lessons and partisan rhetoric. What is notable in Galway is no more universally notable than what is notable in Brooklyn, New York or Helena, Montana or Quintana Roo, Mexico or Ulaan Bator, Mongolia, which is to say usually not enough to merit a standalone article on Wikipedia or in any encyclopaedia, although it all depends on the facts and the circumstances. The unfortunate Mr Folan doesn't qualify. Quis separabit? 01:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies sorry if I sounded like I was giving a history lecture or trying to be partisan, I was just trying to explain why I thought this was a notable incident, and to put the incident in a historical context. I was trying to say that the incident attracted national and international attention as evidenced by its inclusions in national newspapers and it was brought up in the House of Commons, and a street was named after him. . Thanks • Galwaybuck (talk) 17:35, 03 April2016 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:CRIME and WP:1E, as well as WP:GNG. This person does not appear to be a notable victim that sparked significant national attention, nor did it directly lead to a major historical event or change. I also don't believe that this person meets WP:GNG, as I'm not finding a significant amount of reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of this person. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seems slightly notable, maybe it could be put in a list, but probably not much more. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge elsewhere as per WP:VICTIM, I also cannot find many quality sources to pass WP:GNG. I cannot really see the individual significance of this sad incident, even though the killings as a whole apparently were historically significant. GAB^Hello! 22:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as simply still nothing to suggest a independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cantagalo Esporte Clube (Paraná)[edit]

Cantagalo Esporte Clube (Paraná) (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)

• Delete - Seems like one of them pub league teams. Thursby16 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Association football sports club that briefly existed, but played at far too low a level to be considered notable. Safiel (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - low-level team, no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN no indication the team has particiapted in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - small team and really poor article. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all to suggest better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fail WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fenix down. WP:GNG not met. C679 08:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G6) by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh (pashto)[edit]

Josh (pashto) (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:NFILM, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No links to sources, half of the cast doesn't have an article about them. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: JOSH movie Arbaaz Khan Muzaffar Khan Babrak Shah Jahangir Khan Jani Asif Khan

• Delete for (apparently) failing WP:NF. That a cast member does not have an article simply means it has not yet been written, and with Pakistani films such is endemic. That said, and after looking, I found sources for a 2000 Indian film by the same name, but not for this (possibly 2015?) Pakistani one If they come forward, let me know So I might reconsider. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is another unsourced article the author started with no other necessary improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cornwell[edit]

Steve Cornwell (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 person notable only as a local district attorney. This is not a claim of notability that automatically gets a person into Wikipedia just because he exists, per either WP:LAWYERS or WP:NPOL -- he'd be eligible for an article if he passed WP:GNG, but of the three sources here two are primary (staff profile on the county's own website, a table of raw election results) and the only one that counts as reliable source coverage is barely longer than a blurb. This is not good enough sourcing to make him more notable than the norm. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Borderline promotional. Does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN AusLondonder (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sufficiently notable. Every local D.A. is the subject of articles comparable to those referenced herein, simply by virtue of position in the community and the fact that district attorneys tend to do things that are of more interest to the average local news reader than, say, heads of irrigation districts. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Casino Royale (2006 film). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Obanno[edit]

Steven Obanno (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)

In-universe biography of a fictional character in a single film, with no real-world context or reliable sourcing to suggest a reason why he would qualify for a standalone article. Delete, or redirect to Casino Royale (2006 film). Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Casino Royale (2006 film), where there should be a characters section already set up. Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Casino Royale (2006 film). I could find nothing more than passing mentions of this character in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While this article is very well sourced, it lacks the significant coverage that our notability guideline requires. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Idato[edit]

Michael Idato (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:BIO, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG -- no independent RS found. GAB^Hello! 22:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is the senior entertainment journalist for one of the biggest papers in the biggest city in Australia. It's very hard to find refs on journalists, as google is overwhelmed by articles that they wrote, not articles about them. But I've found him described as "arguably Australia’s foremost television critic" and a story about his relocation. Both independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Draft instead as the article is still questionable for better immediate notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to a lack of reliable sources and notability. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 05:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete almost all the coverage is about his reports not him as a subject thus fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per sources found by The-Pope. I recognize that this is borderline in terms of WP:SIGCOV but I'm comfortable going with borderline in light of The-Pope's comments on sourcing and the many incoming links to this article indicating potential notability and definite usefulness to Wikipedia readers. ~Kvng (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep it is borderline and it is a BLP. But sources are (just) over the bar IMO and as noted, finding significant coverage of journalists can be tricky. Hobit (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oru Muthassi Gada[edit]

Oru Muthassi Gada (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)

Film has not begun principal filming. Per WP:NFF, "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles . . . ."  Rebbing  18:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

expanded WP:BEFORE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Oru Muthassi Gada Oru Muthassi Gadha Jude Anthany Joseph Vineeth Srinivasan Aju Varghese Renji Panicker E4 Entertainment

• Draftify temporarily. Film's production has coverage to meet WP:GNG, BUT filming has not yet commenced. As soon as we do have confirmation of filmimg, it can come back and be expanded and improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still not suggesting anything for a better notable article, too soon for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify temporarily per MichaelQSchmidt's rationale and per WP:NFF. The film has received coverage, but it does not appear that filming has commenced yet. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. It has been demonstrated that content in the source presented was likely copied from the Wikipedia article, and no other rationale for deletion exists in the nomination. Viewing this link for the "No comments" link on the page further demonstrates that the source is from this time period. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Džejla Glavović[edit]

Džejla Glavović (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)

looks like copyvio of [2] (Duplication Detector) The Banner talk 10:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep. WP:CP is thataway. However, I can tell you right now that it is NOT a copyvio of that, since that blog is from March 2015, and our article is basically unchanged since 2010 [3], and shows a normal development cycle before that. No opinion on merits of pageant articles otherwise. No such user (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Closing per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and per WP:SK#1 because nobody other than the blocked nominator has opined for deletion. WP:NPASR by a non-sock user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle Festival[edit]

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

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

There are many festivals named "Freestyle Festival" which is coming in news search results. This festival is in California. Greek Legend (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of major beauty pageants[edit]

Timeline of major beauty pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promo vehicle only based on related sources (not conform WP:RS) The Banner talk 09:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The whole article was copied from pageantcenter.com. Also, the website is not WP:RS. --Richie Campbell (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a notable topic and is this copyvio? Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not quite a copyvio, but is replicating the style and some of the information. We really need another source to show this presentation amounts to a notable topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Adi Kapyare Kootamani#Sequel. The keep arguments don't cite any policy-based reasons to keep. There's a majority arguing to delete or redirect; not such a big majority that I would normally feel comfortable declaring a consensus, but the weakness of the keep arguments pushes it over the line. If/when sources appear which meet our notability requirements for films, it's easy enough to undo the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Kapyare Kootamani 2[edit]

Adi Kapyare Kootamani 2 (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)

Film does not appear to have begun principal filming; under WP:NFF, "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles . . . ."  Rebbing  18:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The film is not yet announced or pre-production is not yet started. JackTracker (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

expanded WP:BEFORE:

abbreviated:(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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Adi Kapyare Kootamani 2 AKK-2 John Varghese Dhyan Sreenivasan Namitha Pramod Aju Varghese Popcorn Entertainments Vijay Babu

• Redirect for now to the sourced mention in Adi Kapyare Kootamani#Sequel for it was announced in December 2015 that the project was to begin filming in March 2016, and in January 2016 the sequel was again spoken of. A boiler-plated nomination statement does not address reasonable alternatives. We can WP:REFUND this one when filming is confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no need for my nomination to address WP:ATD: alternatives to deletion are for pages that are notable but have significant issues like poor writing, verifiability or NPOV issues, or ongoing content disputes.  Rebbing  15:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense, but You are reaching an incorrect conclusion as ATDs are possible options for any sourcable topics (notable or not) that have any sort of issue... and this one simply being TOO SOON is definitely an addressable issue. What exists here is a topic that is sourcable-yet-premature, and sorry... but a repeatedly boiler-plating nomination statements implies a knee-jerk response and possible lack of BEFORE, specially as policy states "sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect" as doing so as a reasonable alternative would have prevented this AFD in the first place. As the article is currently unsuitable, in your "Before" did you ever even find or consider Adi Kapyare Kootamani#Sequel as a logical and reasonable redirect target for this sourcable topic-not-yet-ready? Yes? No? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I considered redirecting to Adi Kapyare Kootamani § Sequel, but AfD seemed the better course of action as I believed (and believe) this to be both too soon and not likely to be notable once released. In retrospect, redirection would have been simpler. Also, there's no need to apologize: your remarks are perfectly civil, and, as I chose to bring this nomination, I am responsible to stand for whatever criticism it may deserve.  Rebbing  22:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again no offense, but your prediction that a film by and starring Indian notables which is already receiving coverage as "not likely to be notable once released" is unfounded and completely unhelpful to an AFD discussion... but then again, my own thoughts may themselves be influenced by my being an Admin or by my 8 years on board and 60,000 edits or by my being a coordinator of project film... so no need to take my own experience or advice into consideration. Your own courtesy is much appreciated. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : The makers of the film had already announced about the release and the cast of the film and its too said that it is the sequel of Adi Kapyare Kootamani. More reference , on Times Of India --Aleena Ahmed (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Film is clearly notable. I have added 3 more reliable references, they are from Malayala Manorama English online, another from International Business Times india and already existing one from The Times of India. Nicky mathew (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This film has no sources saying that the production is under way or any other "new" news about the pre-production. If you observe the available sources here and here, both dated 28 December 2015, they are just follow-ups to the apparent success of the original film. The film has only been announced, which does not make it notable for Wikipedia as per WP:NF. Cheers, Nairspecht (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nairspecht: Yes, not notable enough "yet" for a separate article, but multiple sources speaking about the topic of this planned film have those plans meet WP:GNG and even though occasion rare exceptions are sometimes allowed, a redirect is quite suitable and supported by guideline and policy. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• MichaelQSchmidt So what do we do? Keep the article or delete it, for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairspecht (talk • contribs) 13:42, 9 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

• @Nairspecht: I believe a redirect to Adi Kapyare Kootamani#Sequel will preserve its history until a recreation is merited and will send readers to the one place where for now it makes sense for plans of a sequel to be spoken about in context to the parent film. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article for now.--Aleena Ahmed (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC) (struck second keep vote)[reply]

@Aleena Ahmed: Sorry, but filming has not yet been confirmed, and I had to strike the preceding as we allow only one keep per editor.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the film is clearly notable and can stand on and as a single solid article.--Helper V1 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Adi_Kapyare_Kootamani#Sequel per WP:NFF until reliable sources indicate that production has begun. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Money (builder)[edit]

John Money (builder) (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, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the article is still questionable for acceptable notability, current information is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable person. QueenCake (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - honestly, not even close to notable. Unlikely we'll be able to source this 19th c. builder. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five-Domain Model of Self-Regulation[edit]

Five-Domain Model of Self-Regulation (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)

Some guy named Stuart Shanker has created this concept. I am not getting what the article is about or whether it passes WP:GNG. Greek Legend (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Written as a bordeline essay, and of no real value in its current state. Possible recreation in future if notability can be properly established. QueenCake (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing within the article is worth saving and a search doesn't find replacement content. Completely fails WP:GNG. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stitches Split[edit]

Stitches Split (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:AFD WP:GNG. There was already another AFD, but no one joined. I'm getting less than 2000 hits on Google, most of them are retail websites and Split stitches. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 07:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not even a claim to notability here, nevermind WP:GNG. There are a few more sources if you look for other names (like the bands plus "split"). It seems better known as the Le Shok/The Stitches split 7". This is the most substantial source I could find, but not a very good source. Regardless, it's basically a 7" single, with one song on each side. Highly unlikely to get a whole lot of attention. The standard outcome would be to redirect to the artist page, but it's hard to say which of the two. My inclination is to say delete and I'm indifferent if someone wants to redirect to one or the other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article already deleted at 22:38 on 7 April 2016 by DGG (talk · contribs) "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11" (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Arora[edit]

Neeraj Arora (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)

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a person whose only discernible claim of notability is as a creator of instructional YouTube videos -- which, as always, only becomes a claim of notability if and when reliable sources, namely media, start writing about his work as a creator of YouTube videos. But nothing like that has been shown here. A prior speedy for lacking a basic claim of notability was removed, with a source listed in the edit summary rather than being added to the article, but that source is actually about a different person who merely happens to have the same name as the subject of this article. Delete, without prejudice against creation of a new article about the other, potentially more notable, Neeraj Arora. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Quite clearly wikipedia being used as a brand building tool for business. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of OECD countries by road network size[edit]

List of OECD countries by road network size (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 seems a rather arbitrary list. We already have List of countries by road network size, but I don't see why there should be a list specific to 34 countries that are part of an organization not related to road works. Seems a rather indiscriminate list, to me. kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—per nom. I agree, it does seem rather indiscriminate. Imzadi 1979 → 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's rationale. This appears to be an unnecessary subset of the main list. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Nomination. Seems rather pointless. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom. Would likely set a bad precedent for other arbitrary lists for things in international organisation member states, so best avoided. QueenCake (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. 1. Troll, 2. No valid reason has really been presented (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ji Joo-yeon[edit]

Ji Joo-yeon (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. Donottroll (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is main actress in the TV series You Are the Only One (TV series). -- Kanghuitari (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to the TV series if needed as this is simply overall questionable for that independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nom does not even make a pretense of refuting the claim of satisfying NACTOR as a lead in a notable TV series. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for leading role in notable series, the article has three references to press coverage and there is more available, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Park Bloods[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ORG. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Another non-notable set of another criminal street gang Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable; fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG (as nominated). - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See Mozzy, who claims to be a part of this gang. 1. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source there said "a reported member of Oak Park rapper Mozzy’s crew." No mention of Bloods, let alone "Oak Park Bloods".[4] - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if he was a member, coverage of him isn't coverage of the gang, so I'm not sure why you brought this up Maile. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Notability is not asserted in the article. An initial search for RS coverage yields passing mentions. The most substantial mention here names the subject as one of Sacramento's oldest and most violent street gangs. Not much to work with. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with additional comment. I did not realize the article previously was a copyvio from a blog. The press coverage cited by the blog post does not even mention the gang. Further searches for RS coverage came up with U.S. DoJ press releases. Fails WP:ORG. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable criminal organization. Smartyllama (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Klarna[edit]

Klarna (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)

Plain advertising with COI-editors. The Banner talk 17:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth: earlier removed twice. The Banner talk 18:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Notable company well-covered in business news (a few English-language articles are already referenced in the article, but these are the hits from just one Swedish business magazine). --Hegvald (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The article does not have a promotional tone. It does not contain weasel words or adjectives and phrases saying how great the company is or extolling it's virtues. It's actually quite neutrally-worded, and presents an unbiased overview of the company. It would benefit from some copy editing to reduce the manner in which it reads as a news release in some areas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I have copy edited the article a bit to address the latter part of my comment above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Swedens best known e-commerce company. BabbaQ (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are enough independent sources. For years the company has been more known in Sweden than many of the banks and they have expanded to other countries as well most notably the US. Tweak and copy edit the article rather than delete. w.carter-Talk 18:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus shifted this way due to improvements to the article during the course of this discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McNaught[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:BIO notability. Of the sources listed, the first few are primary sources and only mention the subject in passing. The only source that obviously meets WP:RS, Bloomberg, is nothing but a single quote from McNaught. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please look at the references and notability of this individual. Resource have been added from Newspapers, Universities, and respected unbiased newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrrfunding (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of that sourcing is good enough, no. Of the references that have actually been properly used as footnotes for specific content in the article, four of the six are primary or unreliable sources that cannot support notability at all — and one of the two that does count for something just namechecks his existence a single time as a soundbite-giver, while not being about him. Literally the only one of those that even starts to count for anything at all is the Cornell University Archives page — but that can support biographical details, while not being enough to get him over WP:GNG by itself as the article's only good source. And the sources you've contextlessly added under the footnotes don't contribute anything either: one is his own website, which is a valid external link but cannot confer notability as anyone can start a website about themselves; one is a repetition of one of the footnotes; one is another invalid primary source; and while one of them is an actual newspaper article, it's not a very long one and doesn't really add anything new to the article besides reverification that he exists. So no, the references haven't shown that notability is there. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a potentially valid claim of notability here, but the references aren't good enough to support it: right across the board, it's almost all primary and unreliable sources. A writer does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify in primary sources that he exists — he gets an article when reliable source coverage about (not just mentioning) him in media can be shown which verifies a WP:CREATIVE pass. The guy's been active for long enough that a better class of sourceability might be possible in databases that I don't have access to, but we don't keep an article just because the quality of sourcing needed to make an article keepable might exist, if the article isn't making a slam-dunk notability claim on the order of winning a Pulitzer — we keep an article only if and when the necessary volume and quality of sourcing can be shown to definitely exist. So I'm willing to revisit this if much more solid sourcing can actually be shown, but the sourcing that's present here now doesn't cut it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for newspaper references and credible resources and they were supplied. Is this because the author stands for Gay rights and you have an issue with a gay author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrrfunding (talk • contribs) 17:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided enough newspaper references, and most of your other sources don't count as credible ones. And you clearly need to spend a lot more time around here if you think it has anything to do with him being gay — I'm an out gay man who was the original creator of probably more of our articles about LGBT writers than any other individual editor. But being LGBT doesn't entitle a person to an exemption from having to pass WP:GNG, either — even an LGBT writer still has to be properly sourceable as passing WP:AUTHOR. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources are not there to demonstrate notability. The opening lines would need much better sources to establish their grandiose claims that he is widely known.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - a truly horrible article. To User:Jrrfunding, adding puffery like a gigantic, unsourced list of clients and unsourced claims ("was the first to" etc) is counter-productive. It makes people see your article as more inappropriate for Wikipedia. And no, Bearcat's concerns are legitimate expectations of an article. However, Mr. McNaught does indeed seem to be a go-to expert on the topic - I found sources like Bloomberg, HRC and CNN using him as an expert on diversity and sensitivity training. To Jrrfunding, I will vote to keep if you are prepared to take the time to cut the article heavily and remove any and all information that there isn't a third-party source for, one not written by Mr. McNaught. Blythwood (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is a bit too promotional, but I found two rather in-depth stories in reliable sources: [5] in the Sun-Sentinel and [6] in the National Catholic Reporter. Besides that, there are a few more: [7] and [8] in The Advocate; [9], [10], and [11] (book reviews) in Publishers Weekly; and [12] in The New York Times, which seems to be the source of the "godfather of gay diversity" line comes from. The NYT source is a trivial mention, but it can be used to source the line. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Of note is that the clientele list was removed from the article (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC and point #3 of WP:AUTHOR, because his works have received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Sources used to confirm this are those listed above by NinjaRobotPirate: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. There's also this article from NPR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article has sufficient reliable sources to deserve an article, and the subject of the article passes WP:AUTHOR. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NinjaRobotPirate and Northamerica1000. I added some of those additional sources in a "Further reading" section of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article has been improved since nom and now indicates notability. Smartyllama (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 True Aviation An-26 crash[edit]

2016 True Aviation An-26 crash (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 details a small cargo aircraft crash with only three fatalities (sorry to use the word "only" there). This is WP:NOTNEWS and, at least for now, doesn't seem to warrant its own article unless the investigation turns up something that has industry-wide repercussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly Speedy delete The sources do not support notability WP:GNG. Also, the first two sentences are identical, except two words, to [20], creating a possible copyright violation WP:COPYVIO I'm not experienced enough to know if that short a snippet is too much. Chris vLS (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on - The article is sourced from Aviation -safety.net? then surely it meets GNG. Someone is applying double standards here!! OK the article needs work, but it meets all criteria other than workmanship. So instead of carping, get on and fix!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not !voting at the moment, but Aviation-safety.net is a database of air crashes and hijackings and therefore tries to document all crashes, however scant the details may be. It alone does not necessarily provide the required in-depth coverage to meet the GNG. YSSYguy (talk)

• Keep - False rationale given for deletion. The An-26 is not a small aircraft. It has a maximum take-off weight of ~24,000kg/53,000lb. The three deaths represents 75% fatalities. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Per Mjroots. This is not a small aircraft or a routine event.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Cargo crashes happen all the time and they are mostly not notable. This flight was carrying shrimp of all things....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Per Mjroots sources ok. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In all, a crash like this doesn't warrant itself as a article alone. I would propose a merge to the Antonov An-26#Accidents and incidents, but its already there. The article, for now, is written like a news article which warrants itself as WP:NOTNEWS and seems like any other cargo crash. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - fairly major plane crash covered by several major sources. However, it should be rewritten somewhat per WP:NOTNEWS. Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only two people looking to keep presented dubious arguments. Neither provided any sources, and one admitted they weren't notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EFax[edit]

EFax (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 does not pass WP:CORP. By looking at 5 random references that are given they don't meet the threshold for achieving notability. The first one is a homepage about the product which is a primary source. The second one is a PRNews Wire article that is not WP:RS. The third one is an announcement about a deal signed with a notable company HP. The fourth one is a review of the android app and the website that has done the review PCMag.com is owned by j2global which also owns efax - at least from the disclosure on the PCMag android app review. This Yahoo finance article has a passing mention about eFax being a product owned by J2Global. This fifth one is a press release via market wired and there is nothing concrete about efax in addition to it being a non-reliable source. To add to the above there is a BBB review reference that is not a relieble source as seen here Maharayamui (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One of the more well-known PC fax services. A niche market for sure but still notable enough for being a top company in its small (and admittedly declining) field. Nate • (chatter) 16:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources to give weight to the notability of this subject? Kindly point me there if it is indeed a well known PC fax service. Even if the field is declining then it should have coverage in WP:RS otherwise it is a trivial subject that shouldn't have an article here. Maharayamui (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is nothing in the article to suggest its notability. There are also no reliable sources as per nom as one would expect for an alleged leader in its otherwise small niche. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing to suggest notability as per WP:GNG. Mwenzangu (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Agree that there is nothing notable about this organisation, other than they are well-know to engage in fraudulent billing practices.It may therefore be of benefit to alert consumers to the fraudulent conduct that this organisation repeatedly engages in and to the number of complaints (655) filed against it in its registered place of business Mistral2099 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment is slanderous since there are no reliable sources to substantiate these outrageous claims by this editor. The editor also agrees there is nothing notable about the organization which is the real metric to be on Wikipedia therefore the vote ought to be a delete. Maharayamui (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a consumer protection service. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Most of the sources are press releases, passing mentions and usual announcements by a company which do not meet WP:CORP.Kansiime (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Product. Passing mentions in one or two RS cited, the rest of the sources are blatant promotional/self-published by other websites affiliated to it. Your average variety spam, delete this and move on. DarthVader (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources have been added and seems to beet BASIC & GNG, Sources haven't been refuted so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Liguori[edit]

PJ Liguori (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 filmmaker with one work that doesn't appear notable - only one somewhat reliable source, appears to fail WP:BIO. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 17:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - Aoidh (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• At the beginning I was quite sure I am going for delete, but after searching the google, I've found this [21], [22] and this [23]. So, unless I am convinced, he passes WP:CREATIVE and hence, I am tending to Keep now. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in view of the reliable sources above, particularly the Deadline Hollywood article, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best and Draft if needed as this is still questionable for a solidly better independently notable article, perhaps too soon at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Glorious day, somebody doesn't just state that sources exist, they actually go and put them into the article. Will wonders never cease! -- RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Beck (professor)[edit]

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

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

Unsourced BLP, is this person notable? ViperSnake151  Talk  16:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Creator name is the same as the article. Same editor makes update edits to the article. — Maile (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I really hoped I could save it. However I can not see how. There might be more contribution to the field than I can find, but what I have found is not promising. I do not see him passing the Academic prong 1, which would involve making significant contributions to his field. He co-authored a text book, but I am not seeing that or his articles. His "Mental Health Counseling: A Stakeholders Manifesto" has 15 citations, which is the highest I can find on google scholar. The abstract says he is "a pioneer stakeholder in the formation of the mental health counseling movement" which I am not sure what it really means. I don't think that abstract reference is enough to establish notability. He was at one point president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association, but that if you look for it in Wikipedia is just a redirect. I do not think it would count as a "major academic society" per criteria 6 for academic notability. On the other hand his work in relation to Jewish and Israel issues might make him notable. However while I can find lots of articles, often however op-ed articles although he has been a regular contributor to the Jerusalem Post, I can not find any actual coverage of him other than a listing as past board member on the website of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, and that is a directory listing. Articles that cover opposition to the Boycott of Israel, which he is vocal in opposing, only showed up in my search for him because he made comments in the comments section, not because he had made contributions to debates on college campuses that were felt to be worth considering. So I just cannot find how he passes any notability criteria, and I do not see any coverage that indicates that he passes the General Notability Guidelines. The Catholic Priest named Edward Beck is far more notable and dominates a straight out search for that name, so I may have missed something, but my search leads me to think there is nothing to miss.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or (distant second choice) redirect to Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. Appears to be non-notable, the organization he founded barely moreso. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources appear ot date form a decade or more ago, when he was most active. I'm going to attempt to pare this bloated article down to size, I have found sources, which I will add.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of sourcing available for his career as academic activist, and some for his role as a clinical psychologist and academic. I deflated (some of) the bloated c.v.style article and rewrote (some parts) according to a few of the many sources I found. (tips for searching, looked under both Ed and Edward with keywords including psychologist, and name of org. he founded) Flag User:Johnpacklambert to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per E.M.Gregory. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep E. M. Gregory's work has convinced me we should keep this article. I still think it needs to be trimmed a little though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST isn't a good argument to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament[edit]

2012 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament (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:SPORTSEVENT for "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats" and "For a games or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted." Issue already exists and noted with WP:PRIMARY. Also doesn't appear to pass more general WP:EVENT or WP:GNG requirements. GauchoDude (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's just stats, and no evidence of notability. Agree 100% with the nominator's rationale. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of independent coverage. Miles away from WP:GNG. C679 08:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - NCAA Division I Soccer Conference Tournaments are generally considered notable due to the automatic bid in the NCAA Tournament the champion gets, and almost every other conference tournament from 2012 and other recent years has its own article. No reason this should be any different. The article could be expanded a bit, but it satisfies WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Is pretty far from satistfying GNG or EVENT. No credible claim of significance. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 04:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all other NCAA Division I conference soccer tournaments, as well as tournaments in other sports, have articles. Should they be deleted too? It is notable because the winner gets an automatic bid in the NCAA Tournament, the biggest tournament in college soccer. Conference tournaments in Division I college sports are generally considered notable, I thought. That's why we have them all. Smartyllama (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self Protect App[edit]

Self Protect App (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)

Not notable app & a promotion article. I didn't found any SDK file on the official site or Google play store. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support to Delete Experimental app so not notable. --Kayser Ahmad (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is noticeably new enough to where there's unlikely enough coverage and even if there was, it would still likely be too soon thus still questionable for notability. Delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Volkanovski[edit]

Alex Volkanovski (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 MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Winning championships in minor organizations (not even second tier according to WP:MMANOT) does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Routine fight coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. spam page for non-notable amateur writer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyl T. Cobb, Jr[edit]

Kyl T. Cobb, Jr (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 person. Cobb is an amateur self-published historian and paranormal investigator. No significant sources to be found about him other than his own writings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK Wrestling Experience[edit]

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

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

Unsourced article about a wrestling promotion with no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no signs of any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Staples Corner tube station[edit]

Staples Corner tube station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "I'm sorry, but this fails WP:CRYSTAL. There's no evidence that this is a serious proposal and no chance of it being built within the next 20 years." Only one of the three sources mentions Staples Corner, and it's not even a formal proposal but a suggestion in the report of a feasibility study. We only create articles for railway stations that exist, have existed, or (verifiably) will exist - we don't create them on the offchance that an eight-year-old scheme might get the go-ahead someday. Redrose64 (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as the PRODder. No evidence of detailed planning or funding, it's just a fantasy. It's hard to see it happening in the next 20-30 years, so it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Blythwood (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - If it's listed on the West London Orbital map template, somebody must have some evidence that it's suppose to exist. Unless I'm wrong, this seems more like an infill station like 10th Avenue (IRT Flushing Line). Why not Redirect it to the West London Orbital article until further notice? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I expect that it's on the RDT because it's second blob from the left of the diagram on the first page of "West London Orbital 2008 Update – a summary". The only other place that it's mentioned is in the second paragraph on the last page of the same doc ("It would also include a new interchange station with Thameslink near Staples Corner"). But neither of these are evidence that the line is going to be built, let alone the station. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. There should be a mention of the WLO proposal on the Staples Corner page, and a mention of the Staples Corner area on the WLO page, but likley no more than a short sentence on each. That is not enough for a redirect, let alone from this title as the WLO proposal in it's most recent form is not for a tube line (nor is Thameslink a tube line) and thus an article about the station (if ever built) would be unlikely correctly placed at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Piercer[edit]

Sky Piercer (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 significant independent coverage to show GNG is met.Mdtemp (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThis is a name of a particular weapon in a fictional novel. No reason to have its own article when Ji (polearm) exists.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the previous comments. The bottom line is that there is no significant independent coverage to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, there are articles on fictional weapons ie. Sting (Middle-earth) but that weapon is notable with references while this is not and have been unable to find references, doesn't meet WP:GNG so delete, also not mentioned in articles on Lü Bu or Ji (polearm) as deemed trivial? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Projector Records[edit]

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

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

Non-notable minor record label. Article without references since 2005. XXN, 15:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Swister. Nothing sources found for verifiability. No indication the label has made any cultural impact through length of operation or releases by notable artists. No other indications of notability such as GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only link was its official site and it is not working either. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eartube Empire[edit]

Eartube Empire (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. There appears to be no coverage whatsoever in secondary sources. Rentier (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nom is not quite correct, I found enough coverage to verify the existence of the label, but that's about it. No indication the label has a history of releasing multiple albums/singles by notable artists. No indication the label has made a cultural impact of any significance. No other indication of notability such as WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm not finding anything convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]