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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 23:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Channon Rose (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)

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

Retired porn performer and vlogger who fails the GNG and PORNBIO and lacks decent sources to meet N Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Previously deleted as Randi Wright and still not notable. From my previous AfD vote: fails PORNBIO without significant awards. The writeup in a local paper is not enough for GNG. All other references are unreliable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above From the article "They are to be married on August 16, 2015 in Walnut Grove, California." … best wishes, but you still can't have the article. Pincrete (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this promotional autobiography with negligible independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ammad Azhar (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)

Promotional, non-notable, no reliable sources can be found. - TheChampionMan1234 22:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. See also this note by an apparent paid editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by all means as my searches found absolutely nothing. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable or sourced. Fuzchia (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only source I could find was the website already referenced on his article. Clearly not notable. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Christopher Gordy (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)

Along with lack of notability, this article has had many issues for a long time, one of which it is not sourced appropriately. The subject's own website is source 1 & 2, and the IMDB is sources 4,6, and 7. That leaves 3 sources for the entire rest of the article, two of which are dubious. This also is basically a resume. Cagepanes (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:N not shown. If kept it should be moved to Milan Christopher.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Clearly fails general notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Searches found nothing at all to suggest there's better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Achiever Book of 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)

Contested proposed deletion: Does not establish notability of subject and fails to give independent third party sources that document the topic SFB 21:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and draft & userfy if needed as there's nothing to suggest third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - local competitor of the Guinness Book, apparently two years old, but the web has not taken notice yet Kraxler (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Institute for Anarchist Studies. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perspectives on Anarchist Theory (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)

Seemingly NN journal - no independent coverage. There are articles that cite articles in this pub, but no independent coverage found. Citations don't pass the in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP The Dissident Aggressor 21:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I merged the content to Institute for Anarchist Studies so, at the very least, the article should redirect there to preserve attribution. – czar 00:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above. There's no true reason for this to have its own article, especially when the organization's article is fairly small. It's actually quite common on here for an organization's article to also contain information (in a subsection) about their journal/publication/etc, so there won't be anything really lost by doing this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Institute for Anarchist Studies, where this material is sufficiently covered. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biomorphic_robotics (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)

very poor writing, no sources, refimprove tag 7 years old Pcwendland (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only significant references I could find was in the context of old ads for an Xmas toy and the title of a single book. This appears to be a term that did not 'catch on'.Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be improved as though I'm not at all familiar with this, my searches found no good sources aside from this (nothing much outstanding as it is). SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meus Momentos (band) (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)

Meus Momentos (band) was recently created with Washington Benicio and Category:Meus Momentos. Nominating all three as failing notability. Tóraí (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD notice placed on Washington Benicio. Category:Meus Momentos should be taken to WP:CfD or deleted under WP:C1 after it has been emptied. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, Google searches did not return anything relevant. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 03:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nomination. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all for now as my searches found nothing better aside from this (a few music encyclopedias). SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 02:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined speedy because there's not category this fits under. It appears the author wanted to write content to do with the positive effects of dancing for Alzheimer patients. What should we do with this content/article? Tóraí (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tagged this as a speedy. It stretches a genuine research finding to WP:OR and what amounts to promotion for a very local senior fitness scheme. It's also not clear that the article title is anything other than a slogan since it's never referred to in the text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article can easily be expanded. The title may need to be broadened, but a quick search on google finds [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] multiple themes on this Wiki article. I see zero reason to throw this article away at this time since there is obvious context out there which can be developed.MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 21:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Johnson (YouTuber) (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)

All references are primary sources. No indication of coverage in reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. I've done a search online for such coverage and have come up empty. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 20:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Can't see any notability sources, most of the links are primarily targetting social media. I cannot verify the reliability of the said article based on the reference fielded.--Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 20:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable. Gparyani (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable OluwaCurtis The King : talk to me 21:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Added other sources, including Gigaom, ABC World News Now, Zagat/Google, iMore, Bleeding Cool, Premiere Radio Networks, etc User:Sircheeto talk to me 1:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC) User:Sircheeto is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.

• Question: Do you have sources that talk about him? Many sources (ABC included) seem to be links to videos/podcasts with him, but I'm not seeing sources that talk about him in any kind of depth, that are also unrelated. That's really what will be needed here. Crow^Caw 16:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Can't see any reliable sources, most of the links are targetting social media, some cyclic, fails GNG.Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as there's nothing much convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bazj (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Curriculum (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (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 articles tries to combine three very different elements into one. Each is better served by the separate articles that now exist, i.e. National Curriculum for England, National Curriculum for Wales and National Curriculum for Northern Ireland. MichaelT1979 (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The article purports to be about three countries. However the content relates only to what the Secretary of State for Education has done. Since education is devolved matter, the content would appear to duplicate National Curriculum for England, but since the title is misleading, it should not be redirected. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Devolution came several years after the National Curriculum was introduced. References to "National Curriculum" before devolution, such as in Kenneth Baker#Education Secretary, correctly link to this article. The alternatives would be to merge it to Education Reform Act 1988 (probably too much to merge) or to redirect it to National Curriculum for England as the regions of England are the only regions of the UK still under direct rule. Peter James (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The curriculum is just very different in each country, nothing is added in this article. Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They may be now but this is (or should be) about the curriculum that was introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988. Several articles link to it such as the one I had mentioned above. Peter James (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that the national curriculum was never national because it didn't include Scotland and with devolution in the late 90s - Wales, NI and England all diverged. So this article describes the history of education from late 80s to late 90s. The article can't describe just this time period (and the Education Reform Act 1988) because the article name dictates otherwise and editors will add content according to the article name - leaving the article the same mess. The only credible option is a rename but that begs the question what for? A history section in the other articles is sufficient. Szzuk (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Even before devolution education in Wales and Northern Ireland were dealt with by those offices. Sometimes the same measure was promulgated by all the relevant Secretaries of State together. If kept, the article should be amended to limit it to the period before Welsh and NI devolution, with links to the separate subsequent curricula. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Peter - Remove everything after the devolution and the article would make far more sense & would serve a better purpose than it does now.. –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peterkingiron - Remove everything after devolution and brief explanation and the article would make far more sense & would serve a better purpose than it does now, similarly clip the early parts of England/Wales/NI such that the context of central/devolved curricula and national variations before devolution become clearer. Deletion might cause difficult 'link' problems.Pincrete (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article describes a notable historical phenomenon. It should be updated to reflect devolution and the wording should make its historical character immediately apparent. It should link to the National Curriculum for England, the National Curriculum for Wales, the Northern Ireland Curriculum, and the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence. --Boson (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Visakhapatnam – New Delhi AP Express. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visakhapatnam New Delhi Express (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 blanked article, No references or contents. Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirected : The user added it again which was duplicate of existing one. Hence, redirected.--Vin09 (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Afghanistan helicopter 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)

Miltary aircraft accidents are rarely notable unless other factors come into considerations, like the death of someone wiki notable, I cant see any factors here that make this accident of note for a stand-alone article, mention at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) is all that is required. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS also applies....William 19:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and the well-established consensus. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOTNEWS, routine military incident.TheLongTone (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A crash killing seventeen people isn't routine even in military terms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp. 217.30.195.63 (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the number of deaths has no bearing on whether the article should be kept. Is there significant in-depth coverage? No there isn't; the requirements of the general notability guidelines have not been met. YSSYguy (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, can be mentioned in 2015 in aviation or 2015 in Afghanistan instead. Brandmeister^talk 08:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable unless there was a notable person among the dead, casualties on the ground, or civilian passengers, doesn't matter how many dead--Petebutt (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Definitely not notable. Haven't even heard of this before. Versus001 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – A helicopter crash killing 17 people – whether civilian or military – is automatically notable because of the unusually high death toll. Any military crash with a death toll that high is far from routine. Such a crash probably would not be nominated for deletion if it occurred in the United States, Canada, or Europe, which should be a factor in considering the "notability" of the accident. Mdnavman (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC) mdnavman[reply]
• Delete This article fails WP:GNG by a mile.--Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 00:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Not enough content, if more is added it would be keepable SOXROX (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is hard to call a crash killing 17 "routine," but it does seem that consensus is that military crashes of this magnitude are generally not regarded as sufficiently noteworthy to merit stand-alone encyclopedic coverage. This decision would have been harder if this piece was more than a stub. Carrite (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting impact shown Kraxler (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William X. Wang (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)

Pure vanity bio - if the guy is notable, this needs to be blown up and started again. ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There may be a rationale for notability, but this began as an unsourced vanity autobiography in 2010, and has accreted resume-cruft substantially since then. There has never been a good version. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It is sad that this glorified CV has remained undetected for 5+ years, there does not appear to be anything in this person's history to suggest he meets WP:N. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkwood829 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)I have read over several messages from your talk. I get several issues would like to discuss with you. As Mr.Wang’s very close and long-time friend, only me who has opportunities of follow his experience in both US and China for decades, and also only me who is able to understand the languages that introduced him in both English and Chinese, this is the reason, I has initialized the article and been kept it updated. I think it would be more beneficial to keep the article alive and to continue improve it for better. I feel there has a few reasons: At first, Wang’s story have been continually appeared in a number of TV program, book, magazine; journal; records in Chinese since 1980s of last century. Those information presented in the article all can be verified from public resources. Secondly, because his unique life story from a country boy to be a scholar is considered as a miniature and epitome of a Chinese history period that communist has ruled for more than last 60 years. Thirdly, Wang’s experience from a bio-scientist to bio-related entrepreneur, is the products of the times, that reflects and somehow represents the trend of the times and the tendency of 21st century’s industry development; thirdly Wang spent a half time of his life in china and another half in America, he is a kind of symbolic figure for millions of American Chinese who contributed to both country and he is a good example of the United States as a national,culture and idea melting pot for people who coming from all over the world. Fourthly, since the article lunched in 2010, it has been 6 years,and during this period, I can see from the view history where has more 20 editors whom you might be included, had appreciable time to correct it, improve it and make it better and better. A deletion is a simple and quick action, but it would waste all those valuable efforts and precious time. At last, I found that your last modification has removed the most controversial paragraphs which I had added a few days ago, and so the article already returned to the before that the version has existed 6 years. In future, if I intend to add more details, I should very carefully to follow the rules and policies of Wikipedia and write it neutrally and professionally. Sincerely, Kirkwood829.Kirkwood829 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Befuddled This fellow may or may not be notable. But the article is so horribly badly written that it's impossible to make an informed evaluation. The suggestion to blow the article up and start all over again is spot on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete whether he is notable or not is impossible to tell from such a wall of text. Without proper sourcing it’s impossible to fix, best to start over from sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the information of this BLP does not meet WP:V. The citation needed tags I added a few days ago to the article were replaced mainly by articles that failed to source most of the information in the paragraphs. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wow. Simply wow, that's all I can say. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOWCLOSE (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oath Keepers (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)

1) This organization is not notable, 2) Liberal Blogs are not reliable sources. 3) SPLC is not a reliable source, they call all conservative organizations hate groups. This article fails to meet even the most basic of Wikipedia's standards. It is so biased, poorly written and poorly sourced, that it is not salvageable and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC2D:A090:3547:9104:7718:66D3 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh666 18:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The Washington Post is a reliable source. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/11/who-are-the-oath-keepers-and-why-has-the-armed-group-returned-to-ferguson/ . I also note that the SPLC does not call this group a hate group and the word hate is not in the article as it now stands.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Plenty of RS coverage, including the sources already in the article (most of which do not appear to be "liberal blogs") and the following additional sources: [7] [8] [9] [10] Everymorning (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Several years of RS reports. There is biased content, which should be cleaned up, but that is not relevant here. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This article needs a LOT of help in the neutrality department but as Rwxrwxrwx said, that's irrelevant. The organization is clearly notable with even the most hasty Google search. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, 2a/3. While it's not a flawless article, there's really no question about the existence of enduring coverage in reliable sources. With the subject of this article also being associated with current news events, it is difficult to assume good faith regarding this nomination. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep for the same reasons as Squeamish Ossifrage. BSVulturis (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as per previous comments re: keep Mr Pyles (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy keep per previous comments. If you don't like how the group is being portrayed, work on the article. 5minutes (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy keep per previous comments. This is all over the news right now. This has nothing to do with whether the article discusses good people or bad people. If you don't like the article, I suggest you work to fix it. Having a Wikipedia article on an item of general public interest is in everybody's interest - except the deletionists. --Achim Hering (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The sources provide abundant evidence of sufficient notability. All other issues can be corrected by editing. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per previous comments.Autarch (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7. Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saleehou (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 and unsourced/poorly sourced Variation 25.2 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD A7. Alexf^(talk) 17:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elee Kay (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 and non notable. No significant works Variation 25.2 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear case of NN autobiography. Speedy-deleted as non-notable. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The first source in this article is a directory entry. The second is the company's own site. The balance is a list of books, each cited to a review or sales page, with the name of the publisher - yet each is presented as a "reference" in the article. There is no substantial coverage of the subject itself. Its website is... amateurish. Yes, there is Comic Sans. The catalogue is small, the authors undistinguished, and that's to be expected since they don't seem to want anyone who has an agent. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First, I want to say that it would have been easier to review this if nom hadn't removed all but one sentence from the page. It is true that the remainder was un-sourced, but the content there would have given reviewers some clues as to where to look for additional info. I recommend looking at the August 1 version. Finally, though, I find no sources about this company. I looked in the local newspaper, Asheville Citizen Times, and didn't find anything. (Their interface is a bit hard to navigate using search, however.) LaMona (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it precisely because after I had checked the sources and removed the poorly-sourced material, there was basically nothing left. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't mean to be accusatory, and I can understand how that happened. I apologize if it came out sounding harsh, but other reviewers might get more out of the earlier version of the page, which has more content. LaMona (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not seeing any evidence of notability ukexpat (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. Miniapolis 00:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of evidence that sufficient reliable sources exist to create a neutrally worded article about the subject without resorting to original research. Adding to the confusion, the publisher in Ashville, NC is not the only business to call itself Black Mountain Press. There was a publisher based in Cave Creek, Arizona that was in operation no later than 1975 and still in business under the same name in 1996. A third Black Mountain Press appears to be based in Aberystwyth, Wales.[11] As normal searches for information fails to turn up anything substantial for any of these three publishers, there is no reason to belive any of them sastisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Allen3 ^talk 12:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, redirected by nom. (non-admin close) shoy (reactions) 13:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cylinder boot (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)

Very small topic, already covered in Diving cylinder#Cylinder boot. Redirect. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Redirection is done by ordinary editing, not deletion. See the Complete Diving Manual for evidence of notability. Andrew D. (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I will redirect. No problem. Thanks for the ref. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Asheville, North Carolina#Film and television. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Rivers Multimedia Film 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)

Article apparently created to inflate the importance of crank films by Gary Null. The purported sources are directories and namechecks, there is no objective evidence of the significance of this subject. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue Guy/User Talk:JzG. Article was created as it sparked my interest in my building of an article about an award winning Gary Null film. Not for the reason you incorrectly have stated here. As a multi-media festival it intrigued me. If you look at some of my edits, article creations you'd see that I have connected articles to others with links and relationships. I do admit that I like doing that. If would take the time to look / admit, you'd acknowledge that the festival has been going for 22 years. Look (again?). The festival also gave 3rd place award to Journeyman that starred Matthew Montgomery and doubtless others. JzG/Guy, I would like to think that you're addressing this issue objectively but looking at your comments, relating to Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs where you say "non-notable crank film" and of course here where you say Article apparently created to inflate the importance of crank films by Gary Null.. Sometimes having a break, taking a breath and re-evaluating something without prejudice can make it a whole lot easier. Anyway something to have a think about. Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep ~ It is a departure from the normal type of festivals. It is a multi-media film festival. It has also been going for 22 years. It has also exhibited films from Europe including one from director Martin Rath [12]. Journeyman, which starred Matthew Montgomery got Third Place Feature at the festival. I'd say that news articles from Noth Carolina would give a good idea of what it's significance in the North Carolina state is. I say that with independent film festivals, we need to look more objectively. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Editor now indef-blocked for fringe advocacy[reply]

• — Note to closing admin: Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a departure in the sense that there is no significant independent coverage, and it promotes crank films like the ones whose articles you write, supporting them with references to this "festival". Guy (Help!) 07:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a "departure", as there are hundreds of similar multi-media festivals in the U.S. and elsewhere world-wide. What matters is coverage and this does have just enough despite its author. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable and probably only created in an attempt to bolster the notability of Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs. ukexpat (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm generally pretty inclusive when it comes to events like film festivals, but WP:ORG still applies and it's seems clear to me that this is part of an extensive effort by the creator to promote fringe theorist Gary Null. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't think to check under alternate festival names, as I should have. I don't ascribe to the essay WP:LOCALINT, so my !vote is at the very least neutral, based on what Michael has turned up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Shawn above. Doesn't meet WP:ORG; sources are directory listings or blogs, which is a bit surprising for an event reportedly in existence for 20 years. Miniapolis 01:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect as indicated below would work for me, given the festival's reported age. Miniapolis 12:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep for in looking at the festival's alternate title, I find it spoken of in multiple WP:NEWSBLOGS. IE: Asheville Citizen-Times et al, and just enough others to show it making it into the enduring record so as to meet WP:ORG. It is a pity that the article has a taint due to its author, but that does not dismiss minor notability per coverage just meeting WP:GNG... and sadly, had it been written by someone else we might not be at AFD at all. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ORG Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Jytdog, but WP:ORG is met though WP:CORPDEPTH [13][14][15] and in paying attention to the instructions toward regional notability at WP:AUD. Yes, the article has issues, but guidelines tells us an organization is fine in speaking about itself if supported by a few reliable sources. Is it as notable as the Sundance Film Festival? No. But is it just notable enough? Yes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Michael Q those three links are a local (not regional) news story, and a link to google search and a link to google news; doesn't meet AUD. Jytdog (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that some may chose to ignore the other regional news sources offered in my sharing a link, or ignore the books which show this as making it into the enduring record. Certainly a closing admin will note that and the fact that many of the deletes seem to be because of the author, and not the sourcability of the topic found with a refined search parameter. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nice rhetoric. local is local, and passing mentions have never been relevant to NOTABILITY and passing mentions are what your 2nd two links are full of. You've got one source, in a local newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons already explained above. Non-notable, even in a regional context. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A closing admin may think authors concerns ntwithstanding, WP:AUD is satisfied, even if you or others personally do not, for AFD is not a count of heads, but a consideration of guideline and policy supported arguments. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia,but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign ccauses great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC

I couldn't agree more with DGG's rationale above. Miniapolis 23:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to a short sourced mention in Asheville, North Carolina#Local culture where we have enough sourcing to merit a sensible neutral mention even if seen as lacking enough for a separate article. I have Struck my comments above. DGG? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and have added a sourced sentence there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Asheville, North Carolina#Local culture. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the redirect suggested by MQS is a reasonable solution DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG, as I feel this simple solution serves the project and its readers without doing anything to support the promotional intents of the blocked author. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Wikicology and MichaelQSchmidt. Pincrete (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is just a standard, mass produced amusement ride that is non unique or notable. Astros4477 (Talk) 04:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh - forgot I posted this page. But yeah, a few of the other Chessington rides ended up having lots of refs - but I think like Astros points out, this is one is just a standard model. Redirecting to the ride type (and have a note about the Chessington ride and dates there) makes sense. Earflaps (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why there should be a redirect. Do you think people would specifically search for this wave swinger out of the thousands worldwide? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete searches provided very little about this ride. News provided 1 brief mention from 5 years ago, while highbeam provided another from 4 years ago. Other than that, zilch. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences#Economics. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails wp:gng: no in depth secondary sources exist for this university department, as is the case for most universities. Algircal (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh dear, oh dear! Delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences#Economics, where one paragraph sums it all up already. Nate • (chatter) 06:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively. I'd go along as suggested by Mrschimpf, but a mere redirect would remove sourced information. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge/redirect as stated by Mrschimpf. Neutrality^talk 23:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nato Feelz (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)

None of the citations used in this article (all of which are formatted incorrectly) contribute to an assertion of notability for the person who is the article's subject— they are links to places where the information being discussed may be found. Failing the appearance of multiple, reliable, independent, and verifiable sources as to this person's notability, I propose that the article be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 04:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:N. INeverCry 04:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, web searches turn up social media and sales outlets like the refs in the article Kraxler (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rather obvious open and shut case considering all my searches (News, Books, browser, NewspapersArchive, highbeam and thefreelibrary) and a search for mention from that book found nothing at all (aside from mirrors of course). It's also worth noting the foundation may no longer exist as the website is gone and there's no further evidence of them; it has basically had zero edits since then also suggesting its non-existence. I also understand this would first appear acceptable compared to some other articles (that urgently need deletion) but this basically has no signs of improvement so the time is now. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like the nom, I couldn't find any sources. shoy (reactions) 18:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no coverage, fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Kraxler (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yup, searches returned nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ecosystem Corporation (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)

Another rather obvious open and shut case with my searches (including the other names) finding nothing good at all (aside from this (a few mentions) and it seems the company may also be closed now (website is gone); it may've even closed around the time this was started as it's outdated and hasn't been noticeably edited since then. The only near notable thing would've been the Warren Buffett investment but that won't save it and there's no target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is made up entirely of primary sources. Once those are trimmed, no article would be left. CorporateM (Talk) 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NYSE is always notable, but despite the article, they're not on it. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and DGG. Searches show nothing notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Horna#Discography. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hengen tulet (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's subject does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NALBUMS. I propose that the article either be deleted or turned into a redirect/ merge to the band, Horna. KDS4444^Talk 05:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources aside from this article's reference have revealed the new album by the group coming in September. This also includes Horna's Facebook page. - shadowartchitect (4 August 2015)

http://www.vboogieman.com/?p=181212 http://www.dailyheavymetalnews.com/2015/07/28/horna-reveals-new-album-hengen-tulet/ https://wtcproductions.bandcamp.com/album/hengen-tulet https://www.facebook.com/pages/Horna-Official/194755433889352 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowarchitect (talk • contribs) 12:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Facebook page is not considered an independent source, and cannot be used to support a claim of notability. Further, the fact that the album is coming out does not make it notable— the album needs to be the subject of multiple, reliable, independent, verifiable sources in order to qualify as notable independently of the artist or group that creates it. KDS4444^Talk 16:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please note the similar article: Askel lähempänä Saatanaa. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge, per WP:NOT crystal ball. No coverage available to justify album having an article prior to release. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Richard Rohmer. Consensus that there shouldn't be an article here. Any useful content can be merged from the history. T. Canens (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimatum (novel) (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 plot-only article about a probably non-notable book failing WP:PLOT, WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. It seems to be an interesting book, but that description would be better hosted on a book review site. The article could be retained by radically trimming the plot and adding sourced context information - but I wasn't able to find such sources. GermanJoe (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Richard Rohmer though needs plot editing. It may well be notable but sources will be 1970s Canadian newspapers: it was the best-selling novel in Canada in 1973. I found a review in an academic journal[16] but I don't have access to it. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no need to merge, since the article about him lists the books but doesn't include plots (as it shouldn't). We've recently been cleaning up around this author here at AfD, and I see this as part of this cleanup. This book is held in about ~140 libraries (worldwide, acc. to Worldcat), which is no where near "bestseller" level. I find no evidence of reviews beyond the one discovered by JAaron95. That one was in a small-ish journal of Canadian culture, which to me doesn't bring the book to WP:NBOOK notability. LaMona (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #1, which looks like a fairly detailed and accurate source, mentions the sales number: "Ultimatum sold close to 30,000 copies". Similar to Separation (novel) we could retain the basic lead information in the main article (not sure if that still counts as "merge"). Ref #1 calls it his "most popular novel", so a short mention with a few details would certainly be OK. But I agree, that the lengthy plot is unnecessary. GermanJoe (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOCH (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, no secondary sources exist (as far as I could find). Did not submit for speedy deletion since there are multiple editors that have touched it. Jcmcc (Talk) 18:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe should be merged somewhere as part of a different system.Caseeart (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Chinese Macroeconomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an allegedly important book written by an author for whom we apparently have no article, published by XLibris (misleading, since this is actually a translation sold through the print-on-demand house, not the original). The article lacks context other than a bald statement that it's a textbook. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks like the article is mainly a work of self promotion. A longer version of the article exists here. For reference, an article about the author was deleted, see discussion. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for a supposedly notable book written 7 years ago, their is not a single reference to the book on the news, newspaper, highbeam or jstor searches, except for one showing that the book exists. Books, similarly shows that it exists, but that's all. Scholar shows that it received 2-3 brief mentions. Hardly notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is close to G4 territory, but sufficiently different to merit another AFD. The most important issue of notability doesn't seem to have been addressed. This local source has been written since but that still seems to the best source for providing evidence of notability. This other 2015 source doesn't appear reliable. I suggest redirecting and briefly mentioning him in The Zebra. SmartSE (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the first two AFDs were about a different Adam Lyons. @Johnpacklambert: and @S3venevan: who !voted in the previous AFD. SmartSE (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see several articles cited in the sources about him. I would suggest cutting out sources not about this article subject. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was the nominator of the third AFD--actual deletion-- for Adam Lyons (UK dating coach), so all three previous discussions were about a diff. Lyons. This Lyons didn't muster G4 imo (diff. subject/not a recreation) and I believe I declined a speedy for this reasoning. Apart from that, the 30 Under 30 possibly warrants a weak keep for individual recognition. There's a couple profiles here and here that aren't referenced tda.. probably worth adding. My main issue is "The Zebra" subsection and lengthy excess not about Lyons. Worth cutting and I don't mind doing so. :) Overall, enough refs and Inc. recog. for a keep albeit slightly weak. Make sure to differentiate the subj. though. Jppcap (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Dogs (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 references indicating notability, created by SPA. valereee (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - unambiguous promotion of non-notable product. Even assuming this hotdog variety is popular locally or on a regional level, it still flatly fails WP:GNG. The few Google hits in English-language sources are mostly related to real-life Canines. GermanJoe (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- AfD is not a speedy--JAaron95 ^Talk 10:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see nothing in WP:AFD preventing this kind of statement, which is actually quite common for clear cases. If you think this is inappropriate, you should probably start a broader discussion at WT:AFD or a village pump board. I stand by my assessment. GermanJoe (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsoursed and opinion like article. Fails WP:GNG. Article created by single purpose user -Rayabhari (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is nothing promotional but still notability is questionable and this is the reason it fails GNG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as I found nothing to suggest better knowledge and sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A long, long way off meeting the requirements of WP:BIO. The article makes a claim of significance for something or other, but there are no sources to back this up. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Couldn't find any third-party mention that establishes notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as I found nothing to suggest better sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches provided zero references to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ JY (Artist) (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 about a DJ known for buying "likes". Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC for lack of available sources. - MrX 11:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has very few Facebook likes and virtually zero youtube views which supports claim that likes have been bought. Nothing notable found anywhere. Delete.Rayman60 (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - google news, google newspapers, and Highbeam produce zero hits. Clearly not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as I found absolutely nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Gabriel Dy (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 - does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is evident in those reliable sources cited. And it's in being the son of a former boxing champion who's also a fighter despite not having won the number of required titles Yet.--RioHondo (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited and assuming he'll win major titles is clearly a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being the son of a former boxing champion does not make him notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). The interviews are focused more on the father than the son and routine sports coverage does not meet WP:GNG. As an MMA fighter he has no top tier fights, and only a so-so record in very minor MMA organizations, hence he fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not inherited. Lacks the coverage to meet GNG and fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NMMA, coverage is WP:ROUTINE sports talk Kraxler (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of living princes and princesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT. Wikipedia is not Hello Magazine and this list is just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of everyone with a "prince" or "princess" title. Lists about lines of succession I can understand but I fail to see the point of this list. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, primarily because I don't think a valid argument has been presented as to why the list should be deleted, and I can't think of a good reason to delete it. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay and thus not a good reason for deletion, but this list seems to pass the criteria presented there anyway. The list has a well defined scope, and the subject is neither too broad nor too narrow to be listed. The list corresponds to a notable subject (that of princes and princesses), and the content is easily verifiable in reliable sources. There are no concerns about neutrality, original research, or any of the other potential problems with lists mentioned at WP:LISTCRUFT. The other stated reason for deletion, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, has absolutely no relation to this list. It certainly isn't a plot summary, lyrics database, listing of statistics, or software update log. I also don't think you can say the topic just isn't encyclopedic, as people with princely titles seems like the sort of thing you would expect a broad encyclopedia to cover (many of them are individually notable, and those that aren't would generally be expected to be mentioned somewhere, such as in the articles on their parents). I just don't see any good reason why this list should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being alive seems like very arbitrary criteria to me. Per WP:LISTN the grouping itself has to be notable, so in what way exactly are living princes more notable as a grouping than dead princes? Seems like very ephemeral criteria, and by your rationale you could impose any arbitrary criteria on a particular group of people and create a new list i.e. list of princesses through marriage, list of blonde princes etc, list of British princes etc. In the case of British princes we do have such an article since it is a notable set, but would you condone a list of living British princes for instance? Just because a particular group of people are notable doesn't mean we can contrive our own criteria and derive new lists. Are there any other lists of this nature on Wikipedia, where simply being alive is the criteria for inclusion? Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a living prince or princess doesn't seem like an arbitrary criteria to me. For almost any notable topic, it seems natural to me to cover the current state of that topic. There are certainly other articles on Wikipedia limited to people who are alive, such as List of living centenarians, List of living cardinals, List of living former United States Senators, etc. In the case of List of living centenarians, the article had a strong keep consensus at AFD recently (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living centenarians (2nd nomination)), suggesting that such lists are considered acceptable. Calathan (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why being alive is a notable characteristic in the case of centenarians since it is intriniscally tied to the topic i.e. you are notable for being alive and over the age of 100; in the case of senators and cardinals it seems as arbitrary as it does here. Being a living former senator, cardinal or prince is not inherently more notable than being a dead one is it? Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with these titles widely bestoed to members of royal families, this could get unruly. Especially since there is no reason to limit it to members of monarchical families still in power. It also is a collection by shared name, not function. Since some people with prince as title are soveiregn while others are just potential heirs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, arbitrary and indiscriminate with no informational value in this form. If anyone wants to see the living heirs to a particular throne, they will look to that particular throne's line of succession article, not to this awkward conglomerate. Little different than the list considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of teenage princes and princesses, also from the same creator, and which would have been deleted per the AFD discussion had the author not requested deletion before it was closed. postdlf (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary, redundant WP:FANCRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT, the OTHERCRUFTEXISTS argument up there is unconvincing Kraxler (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not an "OTHERCRUFTEXISTS argument". I wasn't suggesting that all the articles I listed should be kept, and instead think that articles like List of living former United States Senators should be deleted (a list of all current people who are princes and princesses seems encyclopedic to me, while a list of former senators who happen to still be alive does not). I merely listed other lists of living people because Betty Logan asked if there were others. My comment about List of living centenarians was an argument to keep this list, but that was based on a consensus. The whole point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that if the other articles haven't been discusses, then they might also be things that should be deleted. Referring to a discussion that resulted in a consensus is a completely different matter. I think some of the other comments in favor of deletion seem reasonable, but yours is basically a meaningless WP:ITSCRUFT argument. Calathan (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Lest we forget this is an encyclopedia for general users, i.e., a novice history student might not know where to begin a search on particular throne. This is a useful starting-point entry. SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No novice history student will get any useful info from this page. Kraxler (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, your omniscience is impressive. I'm assuming this empirically-based assessment stems from your decades of experience as a professor (i.e., Who makes bold-faced, absolute statements like this...?) SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you avoid ad hominem remarks, check out WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. By the way, the reason why "no novice history student will get any useful info from this page" is that the page has no historical info at all, it's a simple list of names and ages with partly faulty family relationships, no text, no history. Kraxler (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-which is why the names are hyperlinked. SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject is not notable and does not satisfy the criteria under WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST. It was previously tagged for notability which was removed by the article's creator without any changesor additional references to support notability on the basis "Subject is only popular/notable amongst Sri Lankan community" Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I do see evidence that he is known in his community and has received ongoing coverage from 2007 onwards. It's not the greatest coverage, but it exists, and I think there is enough there to justify the article existing, although it does need quite a bit of tidying up and improving of citations/style. He is still receiving namechecks and coverage in 2015, now as a judge for these contests rather than as a winner. Despite my well-documented feelings on pageants, I don't see any compelling reasons why he shouldn't be on here, but similarly, I don't see anything super-compelling as to why he should - but I see many more reasons to lean towards keep. Mabalu (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Subject is only popular/notable amongst Sri Lankan community. He is not only a model but an upcoming film actor in Sri Lanka (may not be notable in Hollywood or Bollywood).DilJco (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, whether the subject is popular in Sri Lanka or not, the onus is on you to establish their notability in accordance with WP guidelines. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, subject's notability is already established with available references and will be further improved.DilJco (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Searches on news, newspapers and JStor reveal a single 5 year old hit, which is only a brief mention. Highbeam reveals a couple of more, but again, brief mentions. 3 brief mentions in 5 years is hardly notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I checked all links and references and none are in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nialaya Jewelry (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 -- refs are just PR DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not sufficiently notable; sources are scant. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My searches found nothing outstanding to suggest improvement and notability with the best here, here and here. I would've suggested moving to Jannnik Olander but he's also AfD and seems non-notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "Give it time" is not a valid retention argument.  Sandstein  12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyin.com (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)

advertising The Banner talk 01:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now with changes. It's not blatant advertising ("buy X product now, here's the link") I think if the promotional materials were removed, there is enough left behind to have an encyclopedic article. It notes awards won and claims to be the first of its type in its country. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has also stated on my talk page here that they want to work to make the needed changes; I think they should be given the chance to do so. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up to now the original author did not change a single character... The Banner talk 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People do have other things to do in their lives, as we all do. It's still early. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we support advertising by doing nothing? The Banner talk 21:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not blatant advertising. That said, I think we are approaching the end of a reasonable period of time for improvement. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject belongs to a company called Saudi Ebreez, and the article was created by SPA User:Saraebreez, well, looks like they have nothing else to do but promoting this company. It's not like any odd volunteer would sacrifice his time to edit the article. Kraxler (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article created only about a week ago. Give it time for improvement. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was actually gonna close this as Keep but unbelievably since this was nominated there's been no improvements at all to the article, I do and I don't think it's blatant advertising but either way I think the best thing for this article is to be deleted & rewritten, If no improvements have occurred now at it's most "vulnerable" time than it never will happen. –Davey2010^Talk 03:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - moderately spammy, borderline G11. Agree with Davey2010: WP:TNT. --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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