The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Idol (season 8). Consensus not to have an article, but not consensus to delete, so...  Sandstein  17:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Darrell[edit]

Katrina Darrell (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:BLP1E. Her only "claim to fame" is auditioning in a bikini on American Idol. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a BLP1E. There is no significant ongoing coverage of her as a personal, but just lots of passing mentions that she sang on TV in a bikini. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an easy vote for me at this stage. Yes she has gotten attention obviously for being outrageous. There is on-going coverage of her which I don't find surprising. Other incidents that I hope don't make her seem like bimbos that always make the news when they make mischief just because they're members of wealthy or famous families. I've found other info about this Cali Gal that relate to other things. I vote to keep the article and then in maybe 6 months or better still a year later, if need be possibly revisit this. Karl Twist (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This incident happened in 2009. Could you provide evidence of "on-going coverage"? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I meant coverage of other things. Incident was another. She's also just done a horror film released this year and I believe another on the way. Karl Twist (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The ongoing coverage that is claimed is not in the article, nor did I find it in my own searches. I'm prepared to change my !vote if appropriate ongoing coverage is demonstrated. -- Whpq (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I still maintain that there is other coverage of her. She did make the news in 2012 in papers around the world as a result of her accident. Also: As the film that she film that she has appeared in this year has only been released this year and the other project hasn't been released yet, I still maintain that the best thing to do is wait and see what happens over a course of 6 months or a year. No doubt she will get mentions and more as a result of her acting. Karl Twist (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTAL. We don't "wait and see what happens." Either someone is notable or not, and we can't predict the future. If her career takes off and becomes notable, it'll be super easy to get a WP:REFUND and add the relevant material. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying Tavix. I believe that she is notable enough now as she is. I just suggested waiting for 6 or 12 months for those who are skeptical. Because nobody is taking much notice of her article to improve it and add good info, this is part of the issue. Karl Twist (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason nobody is adding anything is because there is nothing to add. -- Whpq (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Whpq, I've been able to create a section Film and television. I've added a bit and there are 2 more films to go in there. I might do a bit more but I'd rather be doing something else. Karl Twist (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my last post here, as I mentioned, I added a bit as there is more to add as I have done, but you have to look for it. Looking at Highbeam, having 14 hits can be an indicator. Karl Twist (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for your efforts to improve the article. However, none of that work establishes that there is ongoing coverage about her. The entirety of the sourcing for that section is either sources that simply list her name as part of a list of credits for a movie or TV, or does not mention her at all (so I am unsure why these references are even there). In a couple of instances, the sources have actually scraped information from Wikipedia. As for Highbeam, the fact that you get search results proves nothing without actually looking at what is being written about her. We can skip the 2003 obituary as that isn't about Darrell at all. We can also skip all the 2009 stories as we know she got a blip of coverage in 2009 and that does not constitute the continuing coverage that needs to be established. That leaves two articles from 2011. There are non-paywalled versions available for each: [1], and [2]. As you can see from these articles, both simply are a passing mention and are not significant coverage about Darrell. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even with the modifications (credit to the amender of the article for their efforts in dragging this up to the N/BLP1E threshold). In my opinion, however, the subject of this article still does not meet the level of notability we require to pass BLP1E. Daniel (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to American Idol (season 8) (with the history preserved under the redirect). I searched for sources and reviewed the sources in the article. The sources fall under two categories: (1) American Idol coverage and (2) coverage of the March 2012 DUI incident. I don't think the DUI incident is enough to push this past WP:BLP1E.

  I recommend preserving the history under the redirect so that the redirect can be undone if the subject becomes notable in the future. And preserving the history will allow the content in the article to be merged to the target article.

  Cunard (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per Cunard. Clearly n/blp1e, but think the history is worth preserving. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 23 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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Socialist Union of Davaar[edit]

Democratic Socialist Union of Davaar (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)

Micronation with no claim to notability. No found coverage by external sources. Generally fails WP:NN Westroopnerd (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Yet another non-notable "micronation." --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, you can't have a republic without a public - and I wonder if the owner of the place knows about this... Peridon (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This has the feeling of the surreal. I suspect the whole thing to be a fantasy of the owner of the island, even assuming it actually exists, of which I am not sure. A coup d'état in a date with a population of two (or three) sounds like a marital dispute, unless it was a sale. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's real - the island, that is - except at low tide when it's a peninsula. Davaar Island. From where it is, it could well be part of the Duke of Argyll's estates, as it was in 1766. There's one holiday cottage, formerly a naval post. Peridon (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not a complete hoax, but certainly a joke, and certainly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be a cute bit of creative writing, but not the sort of thing that belongs in an encyclopaedia. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant hoax. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, blabant hoax. --Soman (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Such a pity it's a hoax! Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have th delete imediatley this nonsense adverb-articel about a nonexisting thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkstod (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minepi buddhism[edit]

Minepi buddhism (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)

Appears to be a hoax, with no relevant Google results. MopSeeker FoxThree! 23:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete absolutely by all means as my searches including the simplest found nothing. It's concerning the author made this as a first edit and there's nothing to suggest this exists. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails verifiability in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Web search isn't pulling anything up. WP:V --Djembayz (talk) 01:45, 22 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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chang'e 2 moon base hoax[edit]

Chang'e 2 moon base hoax (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. Even though I live in China, I haven't heard of it. --Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 23:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally all over the Internet. The only problem is that the sources I could find I'm not sure would be allowable sources, unless an article about a hoax allows the original sources of the hoax. DN-boards1 (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is unreferenced and I have not been able to find any discussion of the hoax in reliable sources. Yes, there are plenty of kook blogs spreading the hoax, and some skeptic blogs refuting it, but nothing reliable as needed for notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails um... everything? No assertion of notability. WP:N WP:V WP:EVENT. This could have been a speedy candidate.--Savonneux (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User DN-boards is in a campaign creating useless articles with complete disregard to Wikipedia's spirit and editors' feedback. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BatteryIncluded appears determined to attack me and the field of astrobiology with insults such as "little green men" and calling what is legitimate "fringe". He has also opposed practically everything I have voted in support for - be it moving "Ceres (dwarf planet)" to "Ceres" or keeping Life on Europa a separate article. He has mocked me and the entire field of astrobiology. And now, he is attempting to vote to delete a rather common Internet hoax for what appears to be one reason: because I made it. He probably has never read this article, or thinks it's another astrobiology one. The hoax is about as common as the Mars hoax, the only problem being that this hoax is so out there, no one attempts to debunk it because it's so obviously a hoax. I am offended by BatteryIncluded's remarks towards me and astrobiology. I apologize if it seems that I am attacking HIM, but I feel he is attacking me. DN-boards1 (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Very short, no reliable sources or external links for verifiability, and not notable at all in my opinion. --189.25.214.56 (talk) 04:46, 21 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, then redirect to Batman Begins#Fight choreography. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keysi Fighting Method[edit]

Keysi Fighting Method (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 started in 2012 but not a single independent ref has appeared despite being tagged as unreferenced for most of its life. Fails WP:GNG and google offers no reliable support.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman begins The original AfD got it right and there is nothing in the new article that would cause a change. The article as it now stands should be speedy deleted for copyvio and/or promo and I would have done that if the AfD had not been started.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect With no independent sources there's nothing to support this as a standalone article. The result from the first AfD should stand. Papaursa (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The result from the first AfD should stand.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:17, 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 Snow Keep. Nom should read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMEA & make himself familiar with all of that (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claires Court School[edit]

Claires Court School (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 since June 2006. If deleted, then Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 will become empty. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This 55 year old school educates about 1000 students up to age 18. According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, we almost always keep referenced articles about secondary schools. Perhaps we might delete if the article is a hoax or the topic is an obscure home school. Neither apply here. I have added two references to the article, so there is no need for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 can be deleted as this article does have sources. As indicated in WP:OUTCOMES, we keep all verified secondary schools and this one is no different. With the the large amount of local sources available [3] along with some national coverage that's already in the article, there's no question of the article's existence.--Oakshade (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep obviously, according to the precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nominator GeoffreyT2000 is possibly not aware of this and other topics of exceptionto the GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Since the school teaches up to the age of 18, it covers the Secondary School age group, where we normally allow articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Clearly not unsourced either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - Per common outcomes. --TTTommy111 (talk) 06:36, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Ann Tan[edit]

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

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

I don't think she is notable as I can't find reliable sources on her. Pretty much everything I've come across is either a first-party source or unreliable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:TOOSOON.--RioHondo (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - WP:TOOSOON. –Davey2010^Talk 02:38, 20 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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sumire (model, born 1990)[edit]

Sumire (model, born 1990) (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 evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Sumire is the daughter of two famous entertainers, Junichi Ishida and Chiaki Matsubara, and has been in the news pretty much since she debuted. There are a ton of articles out there on her: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. etc. Easily passes WP:GNG and may be a case of WP:BEFORE. Michitaro (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:ENT as seen by the number of appearances she has held as reflected on her ja wiki article--Lionratz (talk) 09:22, 16 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 merge to Borderlands (series). There is unanimous consensus that this should not remain as a stand-alone title. Less clear is whether it should be a straight delete or merge into Borderlands (series). I'm going to call this a limited merge, mostly because doing so would preserve the editing history and WP:ATD recommends avoiding deletion if there's not a clear consensus to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Borderlands characters[edit]

List of Borderlands characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I recommend deletion because this consists only of plot summary (WP:PLOT), which is constantly being inflated, as fancrufty articles tend to be, by drive-by IP edits. As one of the authors of the main Borderlands (series) article, I'm not aware of sources that could be used to expand this topic beyond plot summary. There are of course numerous media articles about these games, but they cover almost all characters only in terms of what they do in the plot, or in terms of their gameplay significance. The main antagonist, Handsome Jack, might have received enough coverage for his own article, but that wouldn't be precluded by deleting this.  Sandstein  21:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• After a brief review of available third party references, I'd opt to Split Handsome Jack in a standalone article and Merge a brief summary of the list of characters to Borderlands (series)#Characters, then redirect the title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think a split of the Handsome Jack content would help, it's all unsourced and probably original research. A serious article would do better to start from scratch with sources. The same applies to Claptrap, as noted below also a possible article candidate.  Sandstein  08:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was notified of this AfD but I only made a redirect to the series' section—I think it can return to that state and expand out summary style. The characters don't need more than a line or two apiece. I can see Claptrap having its own article, but that's independent of this AfD. I'm not an apologist for long, rambling, mostly unsourced plot/character articles. I wouldn't bother merging anything that wasn't from a secondary source. I also doubt there would have been objection to a bold redirect. – czar 22:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as in-universe plot and trivia with no real-world relevance, development information, or cultural impact. Lack of sourcing for characters to be a stand-alone topic and overly detailed gamecruft for the main article to warrant a split. The length and separation of characters does not aid understanding game's plot. I could see that one or two characters may be notable given there are sufficient sources, but not all. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Borderlands (series). Given there are 3 main titles, 1 spinoff title (Tales), and additional media (comics, etc.), a brief list of characters and their VAs would be reasonable. Without checking, I would suspect that Handsome Jack could potentially be a separate article, followed by Claptrap and Tiny Tina but all those would require sourcing. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was leaning toward merge, but am swayed by the nom and Heelknowz' arguments. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 23 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. Daniel (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AkitaBox[edit]

AkitaBox (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 reliable sources for notability: just press releases and articles dependent on them .Local bizjournals are a notoriously unreliable source for notability, because they'll cover anything sent to them. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like artspam. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing good aside from this. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable per story from a reliable newspaper.

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article gives almost no information about the company; all of the sources are about the fact that they got funding from a local startup capital funder. I had to go to Google to confirm that the company is even open for business (it is, or at least it has a website). Way, way too soon to have an article about this brand new startup. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 22 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. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anuradha Bhattacharyya[edit]

Anuradha Bhattacharyya (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 independent reviews from RSs, and no evidence of notability as WP:PROF. No /wroldcat holding libraries for her fiction; only 1 library for her poetry. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now - Unfortunately, for Wiki standards, I found no good and convincing sources to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge deletion

To meet notability standards, many more publications, links and references as well as redirects to Wiki articles have been added. See edits to the page Anuradha Bhattacharyya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Bhattacharyya (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. David describes the proper assessment for an article like this and found results indicating an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Whatever "redirects to Wiki articles" means, the article still hasn't changed perceptibly in terms of notability — I see insertion nothing particularly useful, just blogs, goodreads.com, and the publishers. DGG's original arguments provide sound reasoning for deletion. — Brianhe (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete Anuradha Bhattacharyya

The "redirects to Wiki articles" show why Anuradha Bhattacharyya is similar to many other Indian writers. Her books have been published by notable publishers in India. If she has not published her books with American or British publishers, that does not make her less notable.

Categories have also been added. Links to other articles (to legitimately remove 'orphan' tag) have also been added. Anuradha Bhattacharyya compares legitimately with Ananda Lal, Mahip Chadha, Vivekananda Jha etc. Writers Workshop books sell worldwide. Fifty Five Poems was mentioned by the Journal of Commonwealth Literature among its 'books received'. Knots was being sold by flipcart until stock lasted. Knots and The Road Taken have been reviewed by notable authors (what if the authors themselves are not listed in Wiki; I think they are also worth listing!). Her other publications have been cited by many scholars. Her PhD thesis is also listed in the Villanova list of publications.

Hope DGGwill remove 'deletion' message now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Bhattacharyya (talk • contribs) 15:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Friendly Comment. The points you're arguing are not relevant. This article will only be kept if notability according to one of the established WP guidelines can be demonstrated. Further, demonstration will require proof by legitimate sources – assertion and testimonial are not sufficient. WP:PROF will explain some of this in much better detail. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete I have to admit I really wanted to say keep, but the article is too reliant on publications from blogspot and publications by the subject, and even the blogspot pieces seem to more often be publications by the subject. If we had actual reviews of her work published by people in India she might well make the cut for notable authors, but we do not at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have examined the sources now given in the article. They demonstrate that she was not only an academic but a widely published and appreciated writer. You can't expect the same level of English-language coverage for Indians as you would look for in connection with Americans.--Ipigott (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, reluctantly. She clearly does not qualify for an article under the guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC; she is an assistant professor, and a search at Google Scholar turned up absolutely nothing at all. The question is whether she qualifies under WP:AUTHOR. Several reviews are quoted, but they are not from the kind of sources that would give notability; they are from Amazon, and a blog, and what looks like a Facebook page. As for the language issue, since she writes in English, it is to be expected that she would receive coverage in English as well. At this point in her career she does not seem to have achieved the kind of recognition that we need for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 22 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 Longevity claims. There is no doubt that there is consensus that this article should not exist on Wikipedia, and if it is recreated it can probably be reverted to redirect/deleted per G4. The only reason I haven't closed this as delete is because there are a number of people below who advocate for selective merging. Hence, I've left the history behind the redirect so that it can be merged with editorial discretion. (Note: If anyone thinks this should be redirected to the 130+ article instead of 'Longevity claims', please feel free to alter accordingly.) Daniel (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified longevity claims[edit]

Unverified longevity claims (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 topic is already is covered by the page Longevity claims (possibly merge the two articles?)Gotha^☭  _Talk 20:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incomplete longevity claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Longevity claims and List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 (all of course unverified) to this article, which has the clearest title. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See my reasoning from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incomplete longevity claims. As a stand-alone topic, what this split is based upon (when it was called "incomplete" claims) is either parroting the GRG's verified/unverified claims (while allowing their unverified claims to persist), or pure WP:OR with about what constitutes verified/not verified/complete/incomplete claims. This is purely crystal balling that these claims could or will have reliable sources. This was merged before and split under the basis that these are the claims based on non-reliable sources (that certain people still want to list here under as their cruft-de-jur). For example, this for James Olofintuyi is not a reliable source and rather than actually deleting and removing it, it's been moved to this page if/until the GRG has verified it. At best, the place for these speculative nonsense claims is the project's (complete or the incomplete cases list) rather than as an separate article from the actual "verified" claims but frankly we shouldn't be webhosting a storehouse of all nonsense claims so that people who are interested in this cruft can keep track of it using our resources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Purely on the basis that anything that is unverified, thereby failing WP:V, has no place in Wikipedia. Fanfluff articles such as this are not encyclopedic and are a discredit to Wikipedia as a serious website. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Longevity claims and List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 with this article. Hardly "fanfluff" when such cases are discussed by scientific journals like this. Moreover, they are unverified in the sense of being their claimed ages, whether they made the claim can be easily verified, thereby not failing WP:V.

Gotha^☭  _Talk 11:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing whether or not people who are old is a topic. The point is, nobody wants a list of "here is everyone who has claimed to be old" without any care about whether or not they're right. We have a list of NBA players, not a list of everyone who has claimed to be an NBA player. One is useful information, the other is nonsense no one cares about. That is why we go to reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ricky81682 and also because it appears to be a re-creation of List of unverified longevity claims, which was deleted after discussion in 2011. The information appears to have been deleted and re-added from Longevity Claims before the 2011 deletion. The information was subsequently split again from Longevity claims. Ca2james (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article as written has an infinite scope, has ridiculous statements in it (like a section called "Scientific status" - the scientific method is not involved in verifying people's ages - that is something the historical method is used for - this is history, not science, per se). Just GNG articlecruft. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as having deep, deep Wikipedia:Verifiability issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 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 both. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Răuță[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was WP:NFOOTBALL states that "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." Răuță has not played in one of Astra's league matches until now (see also the Astra appearances chart on the official Liga I website. The stats in the infobox also seem to be wrong, see also his Soccerway profile. As the other club listed in that profile is from a league that is not fully pro, he does not meet the notability criteria. Once he has appeared in an Astra Liga I league match, the article may be recreated. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following article for similar reasons. The PROD rationale was the same. However the PROD was contested by a different editor on the grounds that Liga I is fully pro. However, since Mr. Hurbudei has not played in that league, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hurdubei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both While the Romanian Liga I is indeed fully professional, the players in question did not play a single minute in a league match for Astra so far. The fact that they currently are on the Astra roster is also not enough to meet WP:GNG. So, no notability for these two just yet. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Players fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, they did not play in liga I yet, and they are not in the principal team, according to FC Astra Giurgiu, so there's not much chance that they will play in the main competition soon. Kraxler (talk) 17:20, 22 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 RHaworth per CSD G7 (non-admin closure). Daß Wölf (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final statements from executed offenders in the United States in 2015[edit]

Final statements from executed offenders in the United States in 2015 (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 list of quotations of non-notable persons does not belong in an encyclopedia (see WP:NOTQUOTE) Any actually notable quotes should be at Wikiquote. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:24, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acidic mouth[edit]

Acidic mouth (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)

Zero pubmed hits for the term "Acid mouth", "Acidic mouth", "Acid mouth syndrome" or Acidic mouth syndrome" [16]

The majority of the references are very poor, and fall well below accepted standards for medical articles (WP:MEDRS). Importantly the references do not contain this term. The very few reliable sources in the article (e.g. [17]) also do not contain any such term.

I share the concerns first raised about this article by Jennie Matthews 97 that this article is OR and is attempting to present a term which is not an accepted scientific term as such. This article is really trying to mash together concepts dealt with on Xerostomia, Dental caries and Acid erosion. Given the very poor referencing compared to Wikipedia's existing articles on these topics, I feel that any merging of content is unwise (and also unnecessary duplication). I have however scavenged a useful diagram from this article to xerostomia. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in Pubmed or of any significance in Google Scholar. Seems to represent OR and is better covered in passing in other entries. Jrfw51 (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not even a standard google result returns any results other than this article. PriceDL (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - if it helps the other articles that related to it, then it should be added. I must remind other editors that an article should not be deleted because it doesn't meet MEDRS or else we would be discussing hundreds of other articles. Not meeting MEDRS is not a reason to delete an article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an acceptable source coming from a state health department: "Focus on Oral Health" (PDF). ndhealth.gov. North Dakota Department of Health. Retrieved 14 December 2013.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:44, 22 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. After discounting the horde of meatpuppet and/or sockpuppet accounts, only one contributor wants to keep the article, which is not enough to save it.  Sandstein  15:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shahbaz[edit]

Ali Shahbaz (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, at least not yet. Lots of PR, & piuffery and promotionalism "keeping up with the progress he is making, " but that doesn't count. Highest achievement is runner-up om an award--the winner might be notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

I feel that the article should remain up on the site. Wikipedia personalities do not have to be increasingly famous but could be leaders in their fields as well. A few edits would make this article much more cohesive and apt. Rest, I strongly believe this article should NOT be deleted. This young man has accomplished substantially and is well recognised in related circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.178.147.220 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC) — 180.178.147.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Surprised that this page is being considered for deletion. I vote against deletion. This young man has tangible achievement record and should definitely stay on wikipedia as his achievements are registered more and more. And I don't think it has a lot of PR/Promotionalism. It only alludes at what is true. Minor edits could be made to enhance the overall quality JahanAlam — JahanAlam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Valid article with credibility. The article features a public figure with key international involvements in development. Perhaps the user who suggested deletion is looking at the whole criteria too narrowly. Not everyone has to be Bill Gates to reach the status for a wikipedia page. As for promotionalism, small edits could be made to make the article more opinion-neutral. Otherwise, surely this article should remain on site. The award, although the person got runner-up, was a huge award since he was a runner-up for an award that had nominees from ALL OVER ASIA AND PACIFIC. Please refer to the context prior to making sweeping, almost arrogant statements. --RizwanUllah (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)RizwanUllah — RizwanUllah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. • User:RizwanUllah is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT. [reply]

Keep keep the article on the website. I don't see why extreme popularity is being used as a yardstick for keeping personalities on Wikipedia. The fact that this person has achieved extraordinarily and is rewarded is enough evidence to keep him on the wikipedia site. As for User:DGG I find it kind of offensive that he is making insensitive remarks about loads of different persons around wikipedia. Anyways, Ali Shahbaz should be kept on wikipedia. --Junaid AZ. (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Junaid AZ. — Junaid AZ. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete for now and I would see the benefit of drafting and userfying as this would be better anew and a good case of WP:TNT. My searches found nothing outstandingly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for sure! Outstanding is a very subjective term! As far as I am concerned, the subject has a very particular niche in which he is working and has done outstanding accomplishments! He is the first youth ambassador of Pakistan and has continued climbing the ladder in diplomatic circles. I can't understand how this is not outstanding especially when you started at the age of 14! Definitely keep the article --180.178.156.88 (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC) shahnamey — 180.178.156.88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep meets notability.

• The Express Times with the International New York Times. [18]
• The Dawn ref appears to RS, reprinted from InPaperMagazine[[19]]
• Looks like the official YouTube channel for the Sustainable Development Policy Institute.[20]
• the OnePakistan source has no date nor author, so iffy on RS [[21]]

I've cleaned up the sourcing a bit to clarify that they are RS. Full Disclosure: I have no interest in this person/topic/article. Cheers --009o9 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well enough notability according to wikipedia standards. Meets basic requirements of credibility. Should actually give a chance for keeping on site because the subject's current progress is indicative of his growth and hence additions to this page. Some vital citations as well. With a few edits for improvement, I vote for keeping the article--David Sub (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC) David Sub — David Sub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Please note that it is not permissible to edit comments signed by other accounts as was done with this edit. It is worth reading the Wikipedia policy at WP:SOCK too. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited font of the former comments to bullet them correctly and make the initial word bold for easier read by the moderator(s)--David Sub (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC) David Sub[reply]

Keep matches requirements for notability. Sources/references credible for now. Might need to brush up external links. Otherwise, I foresee that the subject's profile shall expand exponentially with time and thus, it makes sense to have the page active. Note measures of popularity are unfair comparisons when contrasting large scale professionals with young start-up youth activists. Not everyone has to have Nobel Prizes in their baskets to qualify for "notability". --Neureter (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Neureter — Neureter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete another case of attention-seeking, not attention-getting; youtube and blogspots, and the occasional oho-aha! mention for occupying a less than even ceremonial office, still fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Kraxler (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Surely a high-achieving youth, but nowhere near notable enough for an article here. His main claim to fame is that he was a delegate to Rio+20, but so were 10,000 other people.[22] More than half of the references in the article are to his own blog. Other claims, such as "Honorable Mention for the Readers Digest Asian of the Year Award", are not sufficient for notability. We may hear of this young man someday, but not yet. BTW I'm sure the closing administrator will take note only of the arguments here that are based in policy, and will recognize that all but one of the "keep" !votes here are from an obvious sockfarm. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete searches turned up nothing which would meet the criteria of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 23 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.  Sandstein  15:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coco (2017 film)[edit]

• Note: This article has been redirected to a duplicate article Coco (2017 film) by the article's author. I have relocated the AfD tag to the target article.- MrX 17:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Possible WP:CRYSTAL with a considerable degree of speculation and vagueness. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This movie has confirmed details as of yesterday including a director and final title so I believe it deserves its own page. Matt14451 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:NFF. In order for an article to exist for a film, principal photography must be confirmed to have started. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough information about the film is known and therefore the article should stay.Matt14451 (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Matt... only one vote per editor. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. The article can be resurrected when production starts. MarnetteD|Talk 18:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The production cycle has started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt you only get to vote once in any AFD and you have already done so in this one. MarnetteD|Talk 18:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporarily merge with List of Pixar films until enough information is valid for this to have a full-length article, noting that although the story where the production stage go as expected so that the film will be released in the fall of 2017 is a possible story of the future, so is the story where the film has production problems and its release date is pushed to a year like 2023 or 2024. Georgia guy (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge, failing Wikipedia:NFF. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is needed77.98.81.144 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to director Lee Unkrich as one of his planned projects. It can be spoken of and sourced there as facts come forward. Undelete after filming has begun and only IF production then gets requisite coverage. Simply TOO SOON and so fails WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(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)

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

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

• Merge to an appropriate article. List of Pixar films might be more stable, since directors sometimes get fired if production doesn't go according to plan. WP:NFF is not yet met, as principal photography has not been confirmed to have begun. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps more "stable", but a list is not the proper place for extensive merged quantatative information nor a suitable place where production information can be added and sourced as it comes forward. As he is sourcable as the slated director Lee Unkrich makes more sense for a place for forthcoming information until a speculation that he may not direct is somehow confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Generally for films, the article is acceptable when principal shooting starts. Of course there is no such clear cut event for animation films. My assumption is that since animation films take a long time to create, the criteria should be adapted for such films. Hektor (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar Animation Studios FYI there is a criteria for animation, that the film be out of pre-production - work should have begun on the final animation and voiceovers that will actually be used in the film. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge into the List of Pixar films. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect:Not enough information to warrant a separate article. Redirect to List of Pixar films until a decent more information is available. --Babar Suhail (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as a redirect somewhere seems reasonable, I still contend that no matter where the title may be redirected, information about his slated project can per policy be included and sourced within the article of director Lee Unkrich until a separate article on the film is warranted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's a confirmed film from a major studio, they've probably already started "filming" (layout animation and set/character design, not to mention voice recording), and if deleted, the article will just have to sit in a state of redlink limbo until it gets created again. Plus, it finally has a title instead of just "Untitled Dia De Los Muertos film". Dogman15 (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dogman. Production has likely been underway for years at this point, considering it's a CGI film, not live action. Anyone with knowledge of the production cycle of CGI films will get this. Therefore it actually passes WP:NFF. At the very least, it should be merged/redirected to List of Pixar films. Deleting would hurt the wiki. Also, why is there an open proposal to merge at the same time as this AfD? Shouldn't it be one or the other? TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 02:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if a release date is already set, then it is very much out of pre-production. As stated, CGI films take YEARS to create. At the very least merge, but don't delete. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A release date is set as stated in the article I think Matt14451 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Matt14451, what is needed is sourced confirmation. "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced}. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The only source I know is D23. There was a Coco poster presented with "Fall 2017" at the bottom. This is the image which is currently in the Infobox. The animation specialists can tell us when productions starts based on a release date of Fall 2017. As a comparison, Brad Bird told once that The Incredibles took four years to make. Hektor (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Speaking toward Disney's D23 Expo, Rotten Tomatoes reported "Disney Announces Coco and Gigantic for 2017/2018", and on August 21, NBC News reported "Cartoonist Lalo Alcaraz to Work On Pixar's Day of the Dead Film 'Coco'" that is "to work" not "has begun work". This would make it weak on WP:NFF... however Film School Rejects did report that while not much was shared at the D23, Pixar "debuted a quick test clip for Coco" and The Wrap reported "Disney-Pixar offer sneak peeks at films on their upcoming slates, including newly titled film Coco", so while I would agree that some type of animation prep-work is under way, is it enough to meet WP:NFF? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:09, 22 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. Headcount is reasonably close, but many of the keep arguments are from WP:SPAs; once those are reduced in weight, a clear delete consensus appears. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OPNsense[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

OPNsense (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 lovefest for non notable software. Article is build around the sources from the projects developers, blogs and download sites. There is a lack of coverage about OPNsense in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article contains objective information, I do not see your point with the advert claim. Also a google search reveals great notability. I have added the following references to the article:

Joswp (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simply throwing references at a page will not make the inherent issues go away, namely that the vast majority of the references are primary, unreliable, or one-sentence mentions. Even if the above references were added in a relevant and meaningful manner (which they weren't), "how to" guides are not a sign of notability. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not just throw some reference on a page, they are all very relevant. They contain reliable reviews written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.

Calling The register, BSD Now and FreeBSD News unreliable sources feels like an insult. Hope you can clarify.

Joswp (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added two sections called "Articles about OPNsense" and "Other references", with no inline citations or sentences to match up to them (incidentally, they're identical to the list you added above). That is about as close to throwing references on a page as possible without simply copypasting a block of URLs.

I did make the mistake of switching topics halfway through a sentence, though: I was referring to the majority of the references on the page itself as being primary/not-RS/name-drops. I did, however, say "the majority," not "every single one," so even your additions qualify for my statement. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In adition to what Primefac said, the references added are still irrelevant. They are not articles, just fan made guides on how to install OPNsense, which is not "reliable reviews written by independent authors and published by independent publishers".--Mnlth (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references are way from being irrelevant, we are in the modernity, and these sources are called blogs, or blog articles, today, and are not, I repeat not rightfully to be pejoratively labeled 'fan stuff' per se. With software, especially relative new ones, one would just expect this come up on blogs, video-platforms, shows, other software project's pages if in search for coverage, as this article has abundantly. The user above has shown the software is standing relative within relevant and quality 3rd party coverage and sources. The critique here is in limits that qualify it for the resp. TP, first, which has no entry yet. --Miraclexix (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are being biased, especially after reading your replies and almost personal attack on Dilbertfan. The bottom line here is this, they have just a couple valid references. I posted a long review in my reply to Netfitch below. Please read it. OPNsense references are self-promoting and irrelevant fan made blog posts. Furthermore, the whole OPNsense wikipedia page is obviously a PR edited article which doesn't follow WP:GNG --Mnlth (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Page serves as self-promotion, company PR with irrelevant information and no evidence of most of the claims. Not satisfying most of WP:GNG.--Mnlth (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cant manage to find any reliable secondary coverage longer than brief summaries, so does not satisfy WP:GNG. Dilbertfan (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is coverage about OPNsense in independent reliable sources. OPNsense's coverage in this regard is comparable to the situation with the article on pfSense, its predecessor (fork base). Difference is it is younger. The articles tone/ductus is towards objective info and discussions about its base, schematics, etc.pp. A search found 3rd party coverage, again like the situation with pfSense, which is only years older. Number of articles' sources from the projects developers, blogs and download sites is due to the rapid development after the fork and citation of bug fixes etc., and should be seen in relation to other core article portions which are covered by 3rd party sources. Since there is no discussion on this 6 month old articles' Talk Page, with other senior Wikipedia editors gotten by and adjusting it w/o any objections, one begins to wonder what exactly did get duffbeerforme s attention to get _this_ article on the doom list, exactly? If someone would object to the quality of the article - be not only my guest on the articles' TP --Miraclexix (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being pfsense can be found to have reliable secondary coverage with a triviality of searching, e.g. the third result on an incognito google search for "pfsense" being this article, while the first result for OPNsense on google that is not A: It's own website B: Hardware vendors or C: pfsense groups talking about OPNsense (lol) is this, a website called "PR newswire" that barely makes the second page of results. Dilbertfan (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you are discussing, Dilbertfan, gives no insight to the discussion here, because I have -in contradiction to your claims- the same results with pfSenses as with OPNsense as strings for anon search via ixquick:> A: own website B: hardware vendors/commercials or C: blogs/groups talking about the projects - giving that the first is a 7 month old project, the latter is a 11 year old project. Your article www.infoworld.com article on pfSense not only is in principle applying to both software, pfsense and opnsens, because they are very close related, but comes up on my search way later? You may had not deleted all your cookies? BTW Wikipedia is not serving as a link farm because of inherent prevention mechanisms, so why bother, anyway the way you argue?--Miraclexix (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? The article on infoworld is not at all applicable to opnsense, because it never once even says the name! I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean (is it a personal attack? I honestly can't tell), but if your only argument is that "it's younger, so give it some time" then this should be deleted ASAP; wikipedia doesn’t make articles for children of celebrities 2 months after their birth because "give it time, the parent is notable and the kid will probably become notable later". Dilbertfan (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The guidelines state that "Any proposed deletion or AfD nomination of a software product should mention the sort of product it is, if that can be intelligibly derived from the article." and this AfD nomination fails to do so. Is the scope of the software unclear from the article? Are the guidelines being ignored? A defence against an ambiguous AfD is impossible especially since there *is* open-source / blog-based notability. A "search found nothing better" argument by allegedly sweeping the first few google pages does not warrant non-notability, also covered by the guidelines. Netfitch (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Counts:_ The count of project related sources and citations vs 2ndary external sources is now 12 : 32 (out of 44 references in total, as of 14 August 2015) --Miraclexix (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OPNsense wikipedia page is still an example of biased editing and promotional content. This really isn’t the first time this is happening, OPNsense page was already deleted before (for promotional content) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=OPNsense&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

Starting from the very second sentence of article, many things are wrong with OPNsense page. Examples of usage purposes are exaggerated, self-repeating, nonsensical (routers, could routers, UTM?!). Instead it should simply say it's a open-source software firewall. Adding marketing terms like “cloud” and “UTM” are proof that this page is being edited by biased PR mentality of OPNsense supporters.

Part about licensing “The OPNsense ports, source code and build environment are freely accessible without licensing costs and without special clauses attached” is exaggerated and biased. The editor is alluding that OPNsense is open source more than others, which doesn’t make any sense and is pure PR self-promotion.

Part regarding the name of OPNsense is a copy/paste from opnsense.org "About" page which is a PR article with absolutely incorrect and wrong information. Since OPNsense is fork of pfSense they are alluding that pfSense is not open and free, which is complete falsehood.

License and Trademark part of page is again full of self-promoting content and untruthful statements. Perfect example of irrelevant and self-promoting content “OPNsense is committed to open source community peer review and classical free & open access to its source code and build environment”.

"See also" lists “OpenBIOS” which has literally nothing to do with OPNsense other than having the word open in their name. OPNsense is not a BIOS ::firmware.--Mnlth (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (weakly) and rewrite Whilst the article clearly has a COI and is almost definitely promoting the software somewhat, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Give the author some time to act upon it and if he cannot tone it down then by all means, delete the article. It does, however, contain substantial verified information and facts which should not be overlooked as the biased sections can simply be removed and the rest left as is. --Flobberz (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Delete I'd say merge but there is already information about it in the M0n0wall article. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON.--Savonneux (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to M0n0wall - I'm not sure what experienced editors have to do with anything, but here's my take: Given the lack of substantial sources, it looks like what needs to be said can and has been said in the M0n0wall article. This project fork is less than a year old, has one release, and really, the article is nothing more than a bunch of tech details. Nobody's used it, nobody's reviewed it, and all the press was at fork or is based off posts on the project forums, etc. GHits in order: site, this article, twitter, github. GNews: one release announcement in July 2015, and nothing since the fork in January. There's just nothing of substance here to meet GNG. MSJapan (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article contains objective information. My opinion here is biased, I am a contributor to OPNsense, (and also a contributor to the pfSense project), but to add some context: OPNsense is a fork, and as forks of software go, this request for deletion is not very constructive.Ikedotike (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, apart from main people from OPNsense project commenting here and basically doing meatpuppetry, now they got their "contributors" to do it as well. You guys might want to read this page first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry This just shows how corrupt OPNsense people are. Stop abusing wikipedia!--Mnlth (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnlth: Multiple violations of Wikipedia guidelines! Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum ,WP:PERSONAL, Wikipedia:NOTGOSSIP,Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning, WP:CIVIL --Miraclexix (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclexix: Why are you accusing me of something that you are doing? What's the point in that? Everyone who sees reads this page will notice meatpuppetry by employees of OPNsense and their biased supporters like you. I'm not doing anything wrong, I'm pointing that out.--Mnlth (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is worse than the copy I deleted as G11 a while ago - it's a massive reference bomb mask. The vast majority of those citations aren't related to the subject and most of the narrative is just padding. The reality is most of these projects are simply not notable because they are rarely covered in reliable sources. We need to revisit WP:NSOFT at some point and perhaps lower the bar for topics like these, but for now this fails WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to M0n0wall, as per MSJapan's comment. It's also too soon, maybe. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:33, 23 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Pagan (Yuri Bernales Short Story)[edit]

The Last Pagan (Yuri Bernales Short Story) (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 short story. Published on the authors own blog. Claims to have won a university society competition, but I can't find any references to that end; can't even find a reference to establish the competition itself. One review is offered, but it's from a blog that doesn't appear to be too noteworthy. Mikeblas (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability not established.--Staberinde (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My searches found nothing good at all, not even anything to suggest author notability (there isn't even a page for him). SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a google search brings up nothing useable, just blog sites and sites based on this wikiarticle and unsurprisingly WorldCat shows nil holdings. also, article created in June 2014 by one-off editor, who has done nothing else. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 21 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anaïs Gallagher[edit]

Anaïs Gallagher (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 actor - The article is more or less WP:NOTINHERITED as she's the daughter of Noel Gallagher, Also fails NACTOR & GNG, (I propose redirecting Friday Download but would rather set this in stone than BOLDLY do it & end up being reverted & all that), –Davey2010^Talk 14:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I remember writing this article, I was reading a paper on a London Buses route 358. There was an entire article about her in it that didn't even mention her Friday Download antics. I'm going to have another look for sources but for now keep. Does NACTOR cover presenters/models?--Launchballer 15:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you don't worry :), I would prefer to Keep it but so far the only sources I can find are pretty much related to Noel, Not sure on NACTOR but I assumed presenting would come under it (I'm probably wrong! ). –Davey2010^Talk 06:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- List of Friday Download presenters classifies her as a stand-in presenter. I am very dubious whether that is enough for notability. She is a 15-year-old school girl, who has probably gained her place, as the daughter of a famous person. Still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete stand in presenters are not notable. We should err on the side of non-inclusion with border-line cases where the subject is a minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now; probably best to redirect to Noel Gallagher. Her mother, Meg Matthews is surely more notable as a model and socialite but doesn't have an article. I suspect it is likely that she (Anais) will develop a showbiz career, but I think this is WP:TOOSOON. Maybe in 2-3 years time it will be different. Le petit fromage (talk) 03:07, 21 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster Insurance Services[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. The nomination for the PROD (which I agree with) was: "Only notability claim it setting a Guinness record for largest parade of MGs, which doesn't address any of the WP:CORP criteria. No in-depth third-party coverage." SmartSE (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Creation by a sock in violation of the user's block. Only edits by the creator and 2 minor edits by a newly created account. See Speedy delete WP:G5. But aside from that the company also clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP (no in-depth coverage found, just a few common company listings, 2-3 passing mentions and several PR announcements). The whole claim of notability is based on a trivial, puffed up Guiness record and completely fails our inclusion criteria. GermanJoe (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user wasn't blocked at the time of creation so G5 doesn't apply. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mixed up the block and creation dates, thank you for pointing out that error. I struck that part of my statement accordingly (hope that's OK). GermanJoe (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No probs. Personally, I wish it did qualify for speedy deletion! SmartSE (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- It seems to be an advert for a NN specialist insurance broker. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It sponsors a car show, which is basically a publicity event and certainly doesn't make the sponsor Notable except to the folks who attend the show. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as my searches found nothing good and convincing. SwisterTwister talk 16:47, 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 draft & userfy until notable; I was actually going to comment until I noticed this has been voluntarily drafted. Feel free to restart the article when notable. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Profit[edit]

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

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

There do not appear to be any reliable sources regarding this DJ's notability. Grahame (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability sources have been supplied and cited and requests for more documents to further support notability will be submitted shortly. Clearly other users have issues regarding the page being that it has only been active for less than 48 hours in that period has been flagged multiple times even though further supporting documents, links and cited references have been supplied each edit. These ongoing attempts in regards to questioning DJ Profit's notability. Please Note: This DJ is a very real and notable Australian DJ with a big following in the EDM Australia Scene. I request that this page remains given that it has been targeted for removal clearly since it has been moved from the beginning. However I do advise that further notable sources be added to the page when they become available to further strengthen the pages notability factor. — Preceding Getofftap comment added by Getofftap (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Profit has been an active Australian DJ for several years I created the page in honour of his known achievements that I have sourced myself. The reason it has been flagged from the beginning was my fault I stuffed up some references at first, given that this was my first created page I was excited to make it after one of my favorite EDM dj's. Apart from the pages of his that I have shared there isn't any other media available to my knowledge nor any other digital versions of his events of articles I can track down at the moment I will continue searching for extra notability sources. But I too request that the DJ Profit page stays, I will continue looking for more notable sources as they become available. Thanks. — Preceding Alwayztime87 comment added by Alwayztime87 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Simply not notable. Lacks coverage in reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fotofab[edit]

Fotofab (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)

As far as I can tell, this company has recieved no coverage in reliable sources and is therefore a long way from meeting WP:CORP SmartSE (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's no good move target and my searches found nothing good at all, here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:CORP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:17, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Klein (District Attorney)[edit]

Robert Klein (District Attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:POLITICIAN gives clear guidelines for notability, which this person does not appear to meet. Notability requires holding state-level office, while this person holds (or rather, will hold) a county-level office. An alternative proof of notability would be significant press coverage, but the article does not assert any such coverage. In short, fails to meet notability guidelines. Ashenai (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article's creator, Kleinsauce2000 (talk · contribs), has a suspiciously similar name, and another major contributor, 2000baby (talk · contribs) has a name that is suspiciously similar to Kleinsauce2000. I suspect a PR job either by the prospective DA or one of his staff. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a not yet elected candidate for a relatively low level office. In addition, the article title is inherently misleading since he is not yet a district attorney. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. Article reads like a campaign leaflet. ABF99 (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Being a district attorney is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia by itself. It can get a person into Wikipedia if the article is well-sourced enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but it does not confer an entitlement to a Wikipedia article that rests on no sourcing beyond their own campaign website. In addition, this reads very like a campaign brochure rather than an encyclopedia article — and even politicians who do pass our "automatic in because state-level or federal-level office" criteria still don't get to keep that kind of article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 16 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hridayananda Dasa Goswami[edit]

Hridayananda Dasa Goswami (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 does not pass the GNG and notability. There are not the reliable sources and valid reasons that establish the notability to have the separate page on Wikipedia. Justice007 (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, For the very reasons mentioned in the deletion nomination, this article fails to satisfy Wikipedia's GNG and notability guidelines. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as although "Hridayananda Dasa Goswami" found results at News, Books and thefreelibrary but nothing to suggest improvement and better notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing on the searches to show they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:02, 22 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bw Parker[edit]

Sean Bw Parker (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)

Apparently non-notable person; promotional or perhaps autobiographical creation. The references appear to be to his own work or to publications he has worked for (some links don't work, so it's hard to be sure). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• probable delete found a few, very minor sources for him [23]. It might be that if User:Okans took the trouble and really scoured the world for sources, a proper article could be written, but it would require locating better sources. The sources I was able to locate ofr him and his bookk were not enough to establish notability.14:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I found nothing better than the News results thus nothing to suggest improvement and better notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches found nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:35, 22 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) 18:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office India[edit]

Box Office India (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)

Although it's a while, I still don't think this website has sufficient notability to be included. In 2008, the website itself was not considered a reliable source because there was no indication on who was behind the site. Ignoring this brief statement that the source is reliable with no discussion, the only jusification I can see for it was the same as the reasoning in the prior AFD for not deleting it: the website is used and refered to extensively as seen here, but that is not significant coverage in any way, just an inherited notability based on the sources that cover it. The Techshali link (it's a dead domain name now) was the only potential for third-party coverage. To this day, this is still zero information on who is behind the site including from the website itself. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An archived version of the TechShali link shows that there is little evidence that TechShali would qualify as a reliable source nor does it provide much mroe detail about Box Office India. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bollyjeff and Prashant!, please share your views. I believe the site should not be blacklisted, not even deleted, because of the reliability we have had on it all these years. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792:, there are rules against canvassing. No one is suggesting blacklisting (here at least), we're just discussing the article at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know about this. I wasn't even aware that it was up for deletion and was about to be blacklisted. Well, I think the website provides much information about box-office collections of Bollywood films. But again i have not seen anyone from Bollywood saying a word about it. Infact www.boxofficeindia.co.in is more often used by industry people. Karan Johar retweets several tweets from co.in but .com is still a mystery. If i'm not wrong Boxofficeindia.co.in is a monthy or weekly magazine and several Bollywood personalities have shared their interviews, and other stuffs. —Prashant 10:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any indication that this site is connected with the one in question here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know. What i mean is that dot com is still mysterious. Bollywood professionals does not even mention the website in the interviews and all. Now-a-days all newspapers look to wikipedia for gathering knowledge and that's why some of the newspapers are saying this (According to a report in Boxofficeindia.com and blah blah blah!)—Prashant 10:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this can help or not but you need to look at this. I followed several bollywood personalities and got to know that all of them follow Boxofficeindia.co.in and it also has a verified account. I think people from an industry know better than us.—Prashant 10:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Know what? Whether or not they know anything or not doesn't answer the question of whether this article is appropriate. We still don't have reliable source about this website (not the .co.in page). Everyone here is using the .com for all the box office grosses not that twitter feed or that link or whatever. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all the Bollywood personalities follow this (.co.in) and they even post something from the magazine pages. However, the .com is never mentioned by any industry professionals. I think the most people on Wikipedia are confusing that there are two boxofficeindia websites. Atleast, the .co.in is more reliable and .com is only used here, with no sign of reliability.—Prashant 10:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's an argument I'm having at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Box_office_collections_for_Bajrangi_Bhaijaan, about whether we should consider boxofficeindia.com a reliable source. As to this AFD, it's a question of whether this website should be kept, and for that, I can find zero indication short of the fact that newspapers seem to cite this website (and I'm thinking it's this website not the trade magazine because the trade one doesn't publish daily box office results) that this website is notable. As to the trade magazine, that's another issue entirely, if someone wants to create an article for that, that's on them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this Times of India is pretty explicitly citing BoxOfficeIndia.com so that's still the issue still. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the .com has no reliability then it must be deleted and blacklisted. The newspapers are citing the source because those sources are ultimately added to all film articles. The reporters search Wikipedia for these stuffs an they cite in their newspapers.—Prashant 11:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what the newspapers do? Ever since I have been editing here, boxofficeindia.com has been considered as the one and only definitive source for box office results. I don't know how it was established as such, but I just took it as fact. If that was all wrong, we are in trouble. It is cited everywhere, including GAs and FAs. What would be the alternative, if the newspapers themselves are using wikipedia?? BollyJeff | talk 11:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read a lot of articles published in leading newspaper that resembles Wikipedia text from A to Z, which is really sad. I don't know about this website because i always suspected its reliability. First it is never mentioned by any industry professionals and second the same industry people talks about boxofficeindia.co.in. The latter is a magazine published weekly i guess, and is followed by personalities like Karan Johar. And, i agree we are in a big trouble and will have to move with other sources.—Prashant 12:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Quoting from the last AfD, " While it's true that the coverage found generally doesn't discuss the site in-depth, it is extremely extensive. It's clear that at least some portion of the Indian media relies on Box Office India as their main source for ticket take on Indian movies. This means that the website has a significant impact on popular culture reporting, which is one of the evaluative tools WP:WEB asks us to apply". Also see the last few comments in this discussion, in which it was proven that this website has been used in scholarly publications as a source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those scholarly publication links are relevant. This link is citing www.bosnetwork.com and ibossnetwork.com on page 30. This link cites the IBOS network and OBS on page 49. This page cites IBOSnetwork on page 9. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ibosnetwork can be notable on its own; we are not debating that issue here. This case, boxofficeindia.com has been used multiple times in popular culture (as evident from usual google search) and scholarly resources. What do you mean by " Not one of those scholarly publication links are relevant"? Why are not they relevant? If you need more recent coverage, see these: [24]; [25]; [26]; and so on.Books published by significant publications are mentioning this as a source, thus giving coverage needed to establish notability. The notability has been proven in previous AfD and other discussions. Why waste time again?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't relevant because those "sources" didn't even cite this website. They cited ibosnetwork which is my point. You can't justify this website on the basis that other sources cite other things. Are you actually reading these things? Now, you're got more books that allegedly source this website. Here, this page claims that this website started in June 2013. Your Source 1 retrieved it in March 2009, Source 2 in March 2013. Source 3 has no date but it was published in 2014 but I can't pull the actual website page it's allegedly using. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Wikipedia is now used as a source for those works. I will show you some article which are copy-paste from Wikipedia articles. This website has no reliability. Yes, it is useful because it provides lots of sources but it can be anything. Those works which you are talking about has no proof if the site is really reliable. Those works say according to a source called "Boxofficeindia.com" and that's it. Those newspapers also mention Koimoi then why it is not used for box-office collections?—Prashant 15:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant, wikipedia also states according to boxofficeIndia.com; in-text attribution is must for this kind of data. Any respectable author will always make sure that the data is attributed to the source. We are not debating reliability, rather notability. --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's somehow reliable, there's nothing here that we can write an article about since there's significant independent coverage about this website. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable and notable for this project. Aero Slicer 13:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The .com version is being used extensively by 'Times of India': [27], with only one usage of .co.in: [28]. 'Telegraph India' uses both; here is one for the .com: [29]. I couldn't find a search feature on 'Hindustan Times' or 'The Hindu', it's broken on DNA, and I am tired now. BollyJeff | talk 00:30, 5 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.  Sandstein  15:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scot Young[edit]

Scot Young (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)

Biography of a businessman, containing no substantive or sourced information about his career to suggest that he passes Wikipedia's inclusion rules for it — all that the article, as written, actually says or sources about him is the simple fact of his death. I'd be happy to withdraw this if some actual substance can be added to make the article longer than three sentences, but "Subject is a person who lived and died, the end" does not constitute a keepable Wikipedia article in and of itself. Delete unless improvement can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable.Pincrete (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article as it stands, although based on the most local level of coverage that the BBC produces, is fully verified by it. I am therefore somewhat bemused that the nominator either seems not to have looked to see if there were less local sources available, or not found ones, over several years, discoverable through a standard GNews search. My one reason, given these (and more) sources, for not !voting Keep is that, seeing that they all primarily relate either to a lengthy and bitter divorce dispute or to the circumstances of his death, I am not sure how easy it will be to achieve a properly WP:NPOV article. PWilkinson (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BEFORE. I'd like to see the stub fixed up to WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- If true, an individual worth £400M probably ought to be notable. The problem is that we have nothing on his life, only his rather lurid death. Unless this can be expanded beyond being a stub relating to his death, it ought to be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - needs more sources added, but they are there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 22 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 G5 by RHaworth. (non-admin close) shoy (reactions) 14:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary Network on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund[edit]

Parliamentary Network on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (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 completely relies on primary sources. This organisation does not seem to have sufficient independent reliable sources. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 04:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably delete for now as my searches found nothing convincing with some possible mentions here. I was going to simply comment but unless someone can find better coverage, I'll stay here for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nanolathe[edit]

Nanolathe (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, crufty article about a fictional technology in a computer game. I can find nothing in reliable secondary sources to indicate that this is notable, and it's already covered in sufficient detail at Total Annihilation. Reyk _YO! 08:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Same situation as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander (Total Annihilation)—fictional construct with no out-of-universe coverage/import. Doesn't look like it's used in the main article, so I wouldn't even recommend a redirect. – czar 00:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Could not find any coverage.Pincrete (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, fancruft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 22 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Box Office[edit]

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

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

I don't see any evidence that this is a notable website. The only references I can find to it (excluding the alexa-type websites that just analyze the site on its own) is the fact that the IBT newspaper uses it as a reference. I think it says more about whether the IBT is a reliable source when it's doing things like posting box office results based on comparing tweets of Andhra Box office and some twitter post called "Tolly BoxOffice (of which I can't even find a website). As such, I don't find evidence of substantial coverage on independent reliable sources. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It maybe possible that the references are in regional i.e local languages, see WP:INDAFD.— CutestPenguin^Hangout 10:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why we should speculate as to that. The website is entirely in English. It's used extensively for English-language articles here. I think we should presume that the lack of sources indicate the lack of sources rather than presume that there may exist sources in some other language for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This website has not got any reliability value. Daan0001 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Can't find any sources to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:43, 22 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 - Article's been massively improved and a few sources have been added since nomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Island Air Charters[edit]

Island Air Charters (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 article is about a small business which fails the general notability guidelines and WP:CORP; there is a lack of widespread in-depth coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. YSSYguy (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete - as it stands right now it fails even WP:GNG. The addition of new refs shows that the company is notable, if only for reasons of notoriety. - Ahunt (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. All secondary sources seem to be only passing mentions, such as [30], [31] and [32], and a lot of recommendations/advertisements, such as [33]. The closest thing to coverage in the reliable sources are mentions in relation to a small airplane crash which probably also isn't notable. Daß Wölf (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have found two reliable independent source for the airline in the news two article from NZ herald and have added this to the article. But it could do with some more if anyone can help.CHCBOY (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ahunt NealeFamily (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the two news stories that have been added to the article are more about the company's owner than the company. This leads me to a concern, although it is really not my area of expertise; is there a BLP issue with having only negative information about this guy on Wikipedia? YSSYguy (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment - not if they are well sourced, which these appear to be, YSSYguy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; however the two news stories do not bring the subject to the required threshold of notability either. This is coverage by a local newspaper, so not widespread coverage in multiple sources; and as I noted before the articles are about the owner and his misdeeds and therefore not in-depth coverage of the subject either. YSSYguy (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YSSYguy - Not saying they do. Haven't researched this, so I didn't offer a "Delete/Keep" opinion, was merely responding to your question. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment expanded article NealeFamily (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NealeFamily: a lot of the new text relies on a blog by Bruce Gavin. Who is Bruce Gavin? Blogspot is generally not a reliable source (WP:UGC). Daß Wölf (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Gavin is a long time member of the Aviation Historical Society of New Zealand. He is described by the society as an active collector of airline information and aviation photographer specializing in New Zealand. Normally I would not take blog as an RS, but given his standing I consider it so. NealeFamily (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ahunt. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 11:35, 23 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Pepin[edit]

Marc Pepin (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 person has met NONE of the requirements of Tennis Project guidelines or WP:NSports. No main draw appearance in any ATP event. No wins on the ATP minor league Challenger level tour. No JR championships. Absolutely nothing. He plays 55+ senior tennis and almost all his events are in New Brunswick club events. Yes, the million members of the USTA sponsor senior Canada vs US tournaments, but the coverage is local hometown papers. Whether this meets GNG is up for discussion here, because it does not meet any tennis notability at all. Readers are going to look at this list of tables and say he has done more than Roger Federer. These are trivial events as is the list of awards. Many many club players have these same type of awards in their own home towns. If this article somehow remains, those charts have to go and those awards also, but I might delete the whole thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pure self-promotion, fails WP:NTENNIS, and the WP:BOMBARDment can't hide that there is no significant coverage outside his hometown Kraxler (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]