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. Marginally notable (at best), unsourced, promotional... recipe for deletion. I'll note that I'm perhaps relying on my "judgement" to a greater degree than normal, so I won't object to somebody recreating the article more properly. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Scully[edit]

Miles Scully (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)

Insufficient coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. Sources just indicate that he's a prominent lawyer at a prominent law firm, but still not someone who's attracted sufficient coverage in RS to merit an article. North of Eden (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople|list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:BARE and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys. He's a name partner of a very large law firm and he serves on some major bar association committees and editorial boards. On the minus side, I don't see anything about law review, court appointments, or other major work he's done. The article as submitted was very badly written; I suspect a paralegal or PR type wrote it up for him (if not, and he wrote it, he's an awful writer IMHO). Bearian (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a comment, User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of attorneys is highly impressive. North of Eden (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based on the references provided thus far. But I can't let the comment pass without noting that the edit history currently includes a dozen different newly-created accounts with no edits outside of this article. Odd. --Finngall ^talk 04:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no claim to notability in the article, just another lawyer, sources are not independent, and most are about his name being added to the law firms identifier, fails WP:BLP1E. Also, article is a WP:COATRACK, most info is promotional about "one of the ten fastest growing law firms". Kraxler (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gordon & Rees, his law firm. The firm appears to be more notable than he is. This article is hopelessly promotional - "This was in recognition of the contributions Scully made to its meteoric growth," "he devised a plan to expand the firm's national, regional, and local practices and hire great lawyers to represent clients at twice the value of the large firms," "thanks to Scully, Gordon & Rees continued to grow," etc. - and very weakly referenced. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and just to note: none of the other partners in this firm, including the founders, have Wikipedia articles. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 9 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. Swarm ♠ 20:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie synclair[edit]

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

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

Article about a media personality that does not meet WP:GNG; no indication that sufficient reliable sources exist to get the subject past that threshold. A similar article, Stephanie Synclair, may have been speedied, but I think there's a sufficient claim to significance that CSD isn't the right route. North of Eden (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't locate any sources that demonstrated notability. Fails WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 23:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now - Searches found nothing even close to good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 6 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. Swarm ♠ 20:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue![edit]

Rescue! (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)

Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile merge/redirect targets. Please ((ping)) me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 22:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After searching, I was unable to locate sources that demonstrate notability; fails WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 23:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs. A search turned up forum posts and incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage of this 1990s shareware game.Dialectric (talk) 11:54, 8 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. Swarm ♠ 20:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.ks[edit]

.ks (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 content of this article can be summarized in one sentence is: there's no Internet TLD for Kosovo. The rest of it is speculation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable, and per WP:CRYSTALBALL. North of Eden (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't find anything that establishes notability. APerson (talk!) 23:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't even come up with a plausible redirect. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. This article has no current purpose, but it may end up becoming somewhat relevant should Kosovo try and get their own CCTLD. If it's going to be deleted, you may want to also delete the page for the French Wikipedia. -Vulpicula
• Delete as it doesn't exist yet- no prejudice for recreating if/when it exists. As for the French article, that probably should be deleted, but this isn't the place to discuss that (as every language Wiki is a separate project). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Proposed top-level domain. That's the appropriate target per WP:BEFORE C4. Kraxler (talk) 15:13, 8 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. Sam Walton (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Rafael Shimshilahvili[edit]

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

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

Very poor article that looks like a recreation of Ron Shimshilashvili. But it is possible that by now he is notable. Under this name just a few Google hits and a promo IMDb-page. Under the correct name about 80k Google hits and a serious IMDb page. Page move not possible as the Ron Shimshilashvili-page is salted. Re-evaluation necessary. The Banner talk 21:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - I would think this is a speedy delete as previous version was salted. No evidence of notability; lots of evidence of self-promotion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep He has over 1.8 Million followers and he's verified with the blue check mark... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.171.203 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC) — 5.29.171.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Where are you talking about? The Banner talk 22:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have 1.9 million followers and I'm verified with blue check marks, pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, and green clovers. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • On his Facebook and Twitter. Just need little fixing.

• A quick note, check out all those reliable sources. (has more but i am not going to put all of them).

• Strongly Keep i agree, Just needs little editing. Look on google how many hits and how notable he's now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.171.203 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC) — 5.29.171.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You already cast your !vote.... So you're agreeing with yourself? Duplicate vote struck. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep I see him all over the Red Carpet events and all over the channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.210.121 (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC) — 66.176.210.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• speedy keep saw him on the Oscars, and hes all over, who ever created this needs to fix it. But, his getting notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.179.163.225 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC) — 73.179.163.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Speedy delete and Salt - SPA re-creation of a deleted article with no new evidence for notability. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR. GermanJoe (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A quick note to the IMDB-credentials: spotchecking a few of the 50 entries (I am not checking all of them), those are minor roles in mostly less-known productions (a lot of them have him as producer, editor, director etc. as well). None of the checked roles have been in the primary cast of a notable movie. GermanJoe (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's an extra in almost all of them, most uncredited. The comment on his IMDB forum was complaining he was rude to the "other extras" on the Rock of Ages set. You can see from the aggressive sockpuppetry on this page that he has a high opinion of himself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that person who wrote the comment don't even exist his account last log in was 3 years and 7 months ago ... Can see it's a hater like you ;) don't worry time will come. Ron will shiny and all haters gone feel the pain. Printing copy of this page for further notice to send to Ron so he can keep a screen shot of this and in the future once he shiny it's gone be on tv. I'll make sure I found out his address to send him this screen shot. Go a head delete this page. Do it now!! Ron will get a copy of this "wanna be Russian" in the mail and we all will see it soon. Give it some time. Everything has time. Baby. Peace. I'm done with this case close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.171.203 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep really famous on a serious IMDb page. And all over the world! Who ever wrote the article needs to fix it. Next time I'll write better one about him. All you haters gone hate !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30B:8200:FFC9:DCF7:4D33:D20E:CB4B (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — 2602:30B:8200:FFC9:DCF7:4D33:D20E:CB4B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please stop spamming this page. This is not a situation where votes are counted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find a single reliable source. I removed some links from the page, after not being able to find any mention of him as being associated with these movies. I do not know what to make of having 97,000 Facebook "likes," and zero secondary sources, but it's not notability. Flag me if I'm wrong, and someone produces sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear to be a notable actor. Only one role in a film that currently has a Wikipedia page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)} ~ 17:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even under the correct spelling of Shimshilashvili, I can find a mass of social media and such stuff but nothing that would seem to pass WP:RS. Facebook likes are not accepted here as a reliable value indicator as they can be purchased at quite reasonable prices. IMDb is in many cases user supplied info (Adolf Hitler's page being an exception...), and not regarded as reliable here. I'm not a 'hater' - I've never heard of him before this and haven't managed to find anything much reliable to base hate or like on. That's what we go on here - reliable independent sources WP:RS. If you can produce them, please do so. Otherwise, you're wasting your time by posting things that will be ignored because they don't give good reasons WITH PROOF that the article should be kept. Peridon (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've delinked some of the films or TV progs as the links don't go to relevant things. I've also looked in the cast lists for things that are accessible, but can find no mention of Shimshilashvili in them. Peridon (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have reliable proof that he indeed won the award mentioned in the article and picture? I can not find one. The Banner talk 14:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes !! The video proof is on YouTube and on the newspaper !! Do you want me to send you the video link ?? Or just type on YouTube Ron won award movie premier ... At least you understand us!! May god bless you !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.171.203 (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @5.29.171.203: YouTube is not a reliable independent source. I'm afraid the sources you have in the article aren't reliable independent sources either. IMDb, profiles at places like MTV, and questions about Shimshilashvili's birthday at evi.com are no good for establishing notability. All they show is the subject exists. We need more - coverage in good quality press reports about him (not just naming him while talking about something else), but not the lyrics of a rap song. Peridon (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how about an tmz interview ?? Is tmz good or "fake " Also. If you guys don't believe in tmz. Well then i don't know what to say. His not the son of Obama ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.171.203 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obama does not have a son. He does, however, have two daughters, NEITHER of whom have their own Wikipedia article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question trying to back off lol ?? So answer the question about tmz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.27.194 (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What question? Is TMZ good or fake? TMZ can be used as a source, but it's not a very strong source. But as has been pointed out multiple times, he must meet WP:GNG ← read this please. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Anyone who wants to keep this article should share the 2-3 best sources of information covering this person which meet WP:RS and pass WP:GNG. This should not be a complicated assessment - Wikipedia's rules are kept simple. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep all you haters out there. His really notable !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.27.194 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC) — 172.56.27.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Aha, you have no more arguments so you start shouting and roaring. You loose... The Banner talk 21:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G4. "Best Actor at Boynton Cinema" my foot. Kraxler (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and suggest Salting to prevent this debate from happening yet again. The others have pretty much summed this up: this guy exists, he appears to have a degree of popularity, but there is nothing to prove that he is notable in the least. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This bloke is as about as notable as my left arse cheek!, No evidence of notability, FAILS NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:45, 9 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. Swarm ♠ 20:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark D. Templeton[edit]

Mark D. Templeton (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, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. There are some sources (like this and this), but they're not independent of the subject and the latter is a blog of very dubious RS status anyhow. Sideways713 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Searches found nothing good with this being the best result. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete struggling composer, possibly a nice guy, but no coverage in independent sources, fails all guidelines Kraxler (talk) 15:47, 8 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bashinelli[edit]

Chris Bashinelli (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 article with edits that are likely from his publicist. I can't find much secondary source coverage about him, other than this article in Scouting Magazine and a couple mentions of his speaking engagements. agtx 19:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Although the most recent potential conflict may be resolved, the article is still heavily promotional in tone. More importantly though, the subject doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG as far as I can tell. agtx 01:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am purely a volunteer and not being compensated in any way. I think that your other concerns can be addressed with some edits to the tone and additional references and do not warrant complete deletion. Thank you! KBHunter (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately delete for now and draft/userfy if needed as although the article is neat and sourced, the sources could be better and I would've actually suggested moving to the show's article (Bridge the Gap to Pine Ridge) but there's no current one. My searches found the best results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The argument for keeping would be WP:GNG, but 2-3 sources of information published by a third-party have not been identified. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. I also have no objections to it being moved to draftspace. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:47, 8 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IHS (schools)[edit]

IHS (schools) (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)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, although notability standards for lists are notoriously vague, the linked policy notes that list notability is determined by the group. There is just no way this subject, schools with initials IHS, is a notable subject or anything more than unencyclopedic trivia. North of Eden (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Inserted after later entries]: this discussion applies equally to all articles of the form <initials> (schools) and <initials> (high schools). Pol098 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to IHS (disambiguation page) where appropriate; no need for a separate page, and most of the entries do not have the initialism indicated as an alternative for the name. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete [entry revised]; can't merge as don't meet guidelines for abbreviations disambiguation page. Most of the entries in IHS (schools) don't meet WP:DABABBREV and so don't qualify for IHS; in fact they were in IHS, but I moved out those that didn't very obviously support DABABBREV (I didn't check all entries in detail, those that conform can be copied back). I'd comment that there have long been a number of articles XYZ (school) and XYZ (high school); I also created some new ones, imitating others that already existed. I'm quite happy to delete the huge and unnecessary schools articles, so long as huge lists of entries not meeting DABABBREV clutter up initials disambiguation pages, where they don't belong. I raised the question in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Initials of schools in disambiguation pages (e.g. BHS), with no dissent. Pol098 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pol098: Delete or keep? So your position is that you don't care so long as it's not merged? —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised my stated opinion to "delete", from "delete or keep". I consider this, and similar lists of schools, to be pointless. I thought there would be objections to a straightforward delete (added: I've had a great deal of flak for deleting inappropriate "disambiguation" initials entries); "keep" was a less worse option than merging it back into IHS. There are a lot of articles like this, and a lot of "<l>HS" initials disambiguation pages choked with pointless lists of schools—I'm happy to delete the lot. Pol098 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did state in my !vote "as appropriate" because I did not check everything to see if there were any which were appropriate. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this seems quite useless and also invites the creation of similar unnecessary pages. Next will be KHS schools, EHS schools, etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I've already done some of these, sorry. My motive was to clean up the initials disambiguation pages; I was under the impression that a suggestion to delete all these schools would raise a lot of protest, so I moved out rather than delete. I'm quite happy for all the "<l>HS (schools)" and <l>HS (high schools)" pages to be deleted. Obviously I'm not WP:Bold enough. Pol098 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ljgua124 (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 20:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Cheerleading Championships[edit]

World Cheerleading Championships (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 have been debating this AfD for a few days now, ever since I started working on the draft version of this page (before this page was "restored"). While this event certainly passes the A7 test, I cannot convince myself that it meets WP:GNG. An event (supposedly) this huge, but with no reliable sources talking about it? Very strange. The only reliable sources I can find are from the ICU/USASF, which are the coordinators/hosts of the event, and Varsity, which sponsors it. The only history/background I can find (other than passing mentions of "it started in 2004") are on these three sites. When a team goes to Worlds, they get a mention in the paper, but it's never anything specifically about Worlds, just that it exists and is a cheerleading competition.

This page currently is a two-sentence stub with a huge block of winners. Should it be moved to "List of WCW Medals" when there is no parent page? No. I will rescind this nomination if multiple reliable sources can be found about the competition itself, but until then I must conclude that it's not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think this is one of those money-making events that lacks authenticity, as I don't think there is a world governing body for the "sport" (cough, cough) of cheerleading. Just like there are about 10 "national cheerleading championships" and "national dance championships" (that are always conveniently held at Disneyland and Disneyworld). So I would guess that is why there is no legitimate coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia, the ICU is recognized as the world governing body of cheerleading (but that's a circular reference based on the Wiki page...), though I don't think that fact has any particular bearing on the outcome of this discussion. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh regardless, it's still sort of lacking in credibility is my point. It's organized by the U.S. federation (odd, not run by the ICU?) and lacks credibility as a real competitive event, much less a world championship. Thus, no coverage to meet GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources indicating notability are not provided. Even if this were to stand most of the content would need to be deleted. This page is being used to record awards which this organization has presented, and Wikipedia does not host that sort of information unless a third-party reliable source has covered it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article essentially is no more than a giant table of results which are readily available elsewhere. If the cheerleading championships were a constant source of newspaper articles, there would be a case for including it - but they ain't. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although cheerleading is a recognized sports activity in American schools and colleges, this list has not one blue-linked (i.e. notable) entry. As such it is utterly useless. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY or stats book. Kraxler (talk) 15:53, 8 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. Swarm ♠ 20:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ratko Dujković[edit]

Ratko Dujković (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with GiantSnowman; lack of notoriety. Kierzek (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify The player in question is on a team in a fully professional league, and could soon meet WP:NFOOTBALL if they make an appearance. May as well hold onto this for the time being. Brustopher (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, Huesofcolor (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL per above, and no other reason to establish notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this player is a substitute goal-keeper of both the Bosnian national team and Saipa (no. 22) and has been sitting on the national substitutes' bench for ages. I think it will take some time for him to make his playing debut with any one of these two squads (both pass NFOOTY). In the meanwhile... Kraxler (talk) 16:10, 8 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. If recreated, it must be done with thorough sourcing and a better claim to notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Collins (academic)[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC only has primary sources. Brustopher (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - should easily meet WP:ACADEMIC with almost 3,800 citations and h-index of 27 at Google Scholar [1]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was starting to think the same thing, but I'm doubting the accuracy of his Google Scholar profile. The most-cited publication (about same-sex weddings, written by someone named Ingraham) appears to be erroneously credited to him, as far as I can tell. In addition, there are several articles related to magnetic resonance imaging that were written by an AG Collins rather than this economist. I'm not sure what the actual h-index should be, but it seems a lot lower without the apparently misattributed publications (with citation counts of 362, 311, 248, 248, 145, 115, 76, 63, 63, 61... probably others). His website indicates prior work as an engineer/planner, but there is nothing about science/MR/NMR and he doesn't claim these kinds of publications on his site. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. With the Google scholar profile obviously not well curated, and Google scholar itself hopeless because of the common name, we'll have to look elsewhere for notability. He's not in the top 10% of economists as ranked by RePEc (approximately 4400 economists) [2]. He is however in the top 25% of UK economists, at number 669 out of 875 [3] (the same ranking places the department he heads as 78th in the UK). Category:British economists and its subcategories have 529 members (possibly fewer if some people are in more than one subcategory). So I'm skeptical whether this is good enough for WP:PROF#C1, but maybe it's close. His book Playing the Love Market has one academic review that I found [4] and his edited volume Cities of Pleasure has two [5] [6]. These give a plausible but quite weak case for WP:AUTHOR. But I'm not seeing anything that makes notability clear, and I'd rather not let a bunch of lesser things add up to more than they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Definite keep -- His faculty biography describes him as "Professor" and head of department. In UK sense, that alone should be sufficient for a keep. That links to a list of publications, listing over 80 articles, starting in 1992. That is a significant body of work. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The biggest problem here is that this is an unsourced BLP. Carrite (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced BLP. Source now or bye byes. Szzuk (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this is kept then it needs to be cut to a one-sentence stub for lack of references. It fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (voted above). This is NOT UNSOURCED. His faculty biography is here. The reason why BLP articles are required to be sourced is that otherwise they may be libellous. However, that source, on his university website, while not independent is unlikely to be false. How does it fail WP:ACADEMIC? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• He's failing WP:V - there's no need to read WP:Academic. Typically if an unverified article is challenged with an AFd the onus is on the AFd participants to verify the topic is notable with reliable secondary sources or it gets deleted. This is particularly the case with BLPs, it is possible WP could get sued for vandalism of the page when he isn't even notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:48, 9 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Martens[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable individual and unreliable sources used JMHamo (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article has been in poor shape and needs work: I have made various changes but left the final paragraph for the duration of the AfD despite it being discussion more appropriate on the Talk page (and which does the article no favours - I originally expected to conclude with a Delete opinion). However, the subject of the article has in his career received two awards which have WP articles (now linked and verified) and I notice is also described as an "éminence grise" in his field on the Stedelijk Museum site [7], so I think there is enough for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:AllyD. I think the two prizes are enough for notability. filceolaire (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Heineken Prizes and Gerrit Noordzij Prize are both notable awards, thus making this person notable for winning them. Dream Focus 20:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dream Focus and WP:ANYBIO criterion #1 (and maybe #2, based on "The Designer Says"). North of Eden (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article (and person) seems to pass WP:BIO and they have won notable prizes. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article isn't formatted well, but the books and awards meet importance. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 05:38, 8 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. Swarm ♠ 20:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AniMatsuri[edit]

AniMatsuri (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)

Was speedy tagged for non-notability but has some third party coverage - a quick search found [8], [9] and [10]. Necessarily, some of the coverage will be in Estonian. It was once userified in 2010. However, the fact that several editors collaborated over an extended period of time to create the page makes me think there could be more to it. Let's hear your assessment on this.

(This is a procedural nomination. I should not be assumed to be in favour of the motion!) Samsara 13:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unfortunately - I was the user who tagged the article for speedy deletion. Animecons is not a reliable source. The two other sources appear to be promising at first but as it turns out only the second link appears to be the closest to significant or reliable coverage (although it worries me that there is no byline), as the third link appears to be a press release of some sort. I did find a few other hits online, in Estonian and even in English, but they're mostly event profiles and the like. If someone finds reliable coverage that I may have missed, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing good and unless it can be improved by Estonians, there's nothing to convince keeping. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Unreferenced and no indication of notability, either stated or implied. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:29, 6 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Puriri[edit]

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

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

• Delete. No claim of notability and as per one of the editors, the only claim is mention in one reliable source. Mention is one source might make it WP:TOOSOON and not worthy of an article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Article fails WP:MUSBIO & WP:COMPOSER. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest alternative Since this article was just created today, rather than rushing into an AfD, the "newpage" template should have been added to the top. Then, after a day or so, contact the articles creator and see what his plans are. At this point, AfD seems premature.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would generally be a fair enough suggestion, Juneau Mike, but won't get us anywhere in this case. Have a look at the article creator's track record (e.g. his talk page). I suggest that it's a new account of an editor previously known as Bettifm - totally identical editing pattern (well-intentioned but generally creates one-sentence stubs with more than half of them non-notable, can't spell, very poor grasp of grammar). Don't hold your breath. Schwede66 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just not notable; maybe someday. Kierzek (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the article is clearly inadequate, media coverage for Ash Puriri seems to span both Australian and New Zealand sources, with an emphasis on NZ Maori sites. Needs more research before I would be prepared to write it off. NealeFamily (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and draft/userfy as a compromise - My searches found nothing particularly outstanding with the best results here and here. He may be somewhat well known locally but there's nothing particularly convincing for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Insufficient coverage reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Ritchie333 for A7. agtx 18:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Bitcoin Casino Affiliate[edit]

Bitcoin Casino Affiliate (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 online casino listing site. Standard searches did not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self-promotional material. Non-notable, no independent RSs. Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominated for speedy delete as no assertion of notability, advertising criterion probably applies too. Seems to be just an affiliate advertiser, not even mentioned in the two unreliable sources that were referenced in the article. Daß Wölf (talk) 14:51, 2 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. Swarm ♠ 20:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Casino 4U[edit]

Bitcoin Casino 4U (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 online casino. Standard searches did not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self-promotional material. Non-notable. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Self-promotional material. Non-notable, no independent RSs. Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with above assessment. Kierzek (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it fails WP:N (video games) and has no WP:RELIABLE sources. Anarchyte 09:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My searches even the simplest ones found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per others. Daß Wölf (talk) 14:58, 6 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. Swarm ♠ 20:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Casino 365[edit]

Bitcoin Casino 365 (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 online casino. Standard searches did not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self-promotional material. Non-notable, no independent RSs. Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - References given in the article appear to be web pages, but cannot be found on Google. Apart from Wikipedia, 20 unique Google hits. "BitcoinCasino365" gives more hits, but pretty much all of them appear to be advertising the website. There is no hope of this becoming anything more than a promotion. Might even qualify as speedy, but I'm not sure. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with above assessment; self-promotion. Kierzek (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the same reasons as given on the other AfD (fails WP:N (video games) and has no WP:RELIABLE sources). Anarchyte 09:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My searches found the same, no good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 6 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. Swarm ♠ 20:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jin Hwan[edit]

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

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

Does not satisfy notability under WP:Musicbio. Jinhwan has had no solo career and his only music industry participation is as a trainee group member still yet to be officially debuted. Asdklf; (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 06:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 06:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Subject is not independently notable. Random86 (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject is not independently notable.Pincrete (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly draft/userfy if needed - My searches found nothing particularly outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 6 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. Shame. Looked kind of cool, judging by the pictures. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Škoda Joyster[edit]

Škoda Joyster (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 relates to a car whose prototype seems to have been 'introduced' in 2006, yet there are no apparent updates to the info. presented. This to me suggests that the car was long(?)-since abandoned. Trafford09 (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Apparently there are rumours that this car will be launched commercially in India next year... There was certainly some buzz about this car in 2006, all the car media were talking about it, but that could be routine. Is there a special notability guideline for cars? Kraxler (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the car is successfully launched next year then an article can be created about it after the launch. filceolaire (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, re-write

There is plenty of information on the Škoda Joyster with a quick search query. However, the article may need to be re-written to announce that nothing has come of this project, or would that count as original research?

Either way, there is more than enough information on this car out there to say that it exists, and should have an article on it. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, it seems that the 'relaunched' vehicle will have little in common with the original 'concept car' (the subject of this article). In view of that, Delete and rewrite when/if necessary seems apt.Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable "concept car". Kierzek (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (for now). Current mentions are rumors and reminiscences of the old concept (this is probably the 3rd announcement, I found 1-2 mentions of a 2010 announcement for 2012). Such news are either speculation or initiated by manufacturer-driven promo activity. Both types of information are unusable to build an article upon. Rewrite when substantial encyclopedic information becomes available. GermanJoe (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GermanJoe.--Staberinde (talk) 17:02, 7 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. Users in favor of deletion outnumber those leaning toward "keep", but the arguments for retaining the article are a bit better-developed. Overall... no clear result, default to keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Zone (New Zealand)[edit]

The Zone (New Zealand) (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 TV channel. No independent refs in article. The 'website' doesn't mention the channel. Does no appear to have any original shows. Nothing obvious in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A nationally broadcast TV station is surely something we would want to include here? Sky's website does mention the channel ([11], [12]) as do several independent sources: [13], [14], [15], [16]. A merge to the parent company might make sense but surely deletion isn't the answer here. --Michig (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the article fails to establish notability, and looking around doesn't bring up anything that suggests otherwise. Schwede66 09:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it passes WP:BROADCAST: "Cable television - Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable." I also added info and sources to show coverage. There are some more links in User:Michig's post here above, and there is more to be found, I suppose. Kraxler (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's worth noting that all of the coverage in the article right now is launch or pre-launch hype, written prior to the channel actually launching. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, but there's WP:BROADCAST, and the sources only re-inforce it. Kraxler (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree comnpletely. " Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable." and this is the kind of case the 'Generally' was included for. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Kraxler; It passes WP:BROADCAST and while there isn't much written material on it, New Zealand is a very small nation with a population less than that of Chicagoland. However, there are some related press material, and it is an up-and-running channel in New Zealand--perhaps it is relatively inconsequential for most of the English speaking world, but this channel would be very mainstream in New Zealand, as it is part of the Sky network. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the descriptions the source listed appear to be the cut and pasted from IMBD coupled with standard trailers. This is not in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get het up about one source, there are 5 other sources. Kraxler (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This channel is a subset of Sky Television's - it does not even get a mention on NZTV ratings, whereas Sky does. There is nothing about it to make it reach any reasonable notability threshhold. At best it should be merged into the Sky TV article with perhaps at most a sentence about what the Sky Channel covers. NealeFamily (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable in NZ NealeFamily (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it does not pass the notability threshold. Schwede66 22:00, 6 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. Swarm ♠ 20:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of roller coaster rankings in the UK[edit]

List of roller coaster rankings in the UK (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 list doesn't have any references and is too specific. There is a page, List of roller coaster rankings that is more comprehensive and broad. Astros4477 (Talk) 03:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced list with no clear inclusion definition. Rankings? Most visitors? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sourcing as far as I can tell, let alone any establishing notability for the topic. By the way, the same likely also applies to List of roller coaster rankings as well (not notable). Nwlaw63 (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing to establish notability, unsourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 7 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. Swarm ♠ 20:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southern California Women's Health Conference and Expo[edit]

Southern California Women's Health Conference and Expo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to have only generated local coverage, which I think is consistent with conferences of this type, but I don't see how it meets WP:GNG or other notability standards. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and draft/userfy if anyone wants it - And there isn't even that much local coverage to begin with! My searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found the best results here and here. It seems it's not a major event and it makes sense some of the coverage are press releases or not much as it is. SwisterTwister talk 16:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable local event, no coverage outside the area of the venue, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX or a free host for little essays Kraxler (talk) 16:23, 8 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. Michig (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mimo Garcia[edit]

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

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

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

Also nominating his podcaast:

Radio Serial (by Mimo Garcia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Fails WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG. I tried to clean the page up but nothing to work with; perhaps WP:TOOSOON. I am also nominating his radio show (“Радио Сериал”) for the same reason. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I find this biography extremely confusing partially because I don't speak Bulgarian. Mimo Garcia is a "Bulgarian director, actor, TV/radio host, writer and LGBT rights activist", has published 3 books of poetry and will direct a film this summer...but he is 17 years old! The article said he changed his name when he was 18 years old...but he is 17. When I looked at one of his books at Goodreads, all of the reviews are 5 star raves. It's hard to believe he has accomplished so much at his young age. But if he hasn't actually done all of this, he has created a lot of website material that supports this biography although much of it is from user-generated content sites or the links are bad. He is either amazingly accomplished for a teenager in Bulgaria (which I doubt) or he is an adept self-promoter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I speak Bulgarian - I included his name in Cyrillic above (Мимо Гарсия) so you can search for sources in BG. There is simply nothing there. Not a single news article, interview, television appearance etc. He seems to be a very ambitious young man. Note "someone" even created a Wikiquote article about himself with a quote from his blog: wikiquote:Mimo_Garcia. There is a separate AfD on the movie he supposedly directed and starred in - thereis not a single news article about it. His books at Good Reads are self-published - the publishing house he listed for at least one is essentially a Kinko's. [17]. It's almost at the level of speedy delete as hoax. There is something very strange about all this - note what I removed from his bio in the personal life section: [18]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia, the AfD notice for the Radio Serial (by Mimo Garcia) article leads here. I think you need to create a separate discussion for that page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:: It's supposed to lead here :-) It's a multiple nomination. See WP:MULTIAFD —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the listing of Radio Serial underneath the Find sources links. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just made it stand out more :) —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - promo advert, no indication of notability in the article, fails NACTOR and GNG, despite this (which actually transliterates his name as "Mimo Garsia" (s instead of c). Kraxler (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above. My sweeps did not find anything to suggest notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:39, 6 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 Donetsk People's Republic#Economy. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novorossia ruble[edit]

Novorossia ruble (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 is no any verifiable sources. Also the article looks like failing WP:CRYSTALBALL Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge content/redirect article to Donetsk People's Republic#Economy. There are plenty of verifiable sources. I cleaned it up but it's still bare bones. However, it's good content. I'm going to create a banking/currency section as it's really pretty important. Some issues are mentioned in Donetsk People's Republic#Problems of governance, but it needs to be expanded. [19] —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Seems to be speculation or rumour. Sources are not reliable. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note There is a new note at the article talk page, which also clearly shows conflict of interest. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect article To Novorossiya's economic's page or subsection. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Donetsk People's Republic per Colapeninsula, this article may have a future, but it's too early to tell. It would probably do best to be a part of the country's article until more sources appear. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Daß Wölf: Cola said to delete, I said to merge. You did mean merge, correct? —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Daß Wölf (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Мандичка, but please be careful with reliable sourcing. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:32, 6 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. Swarm ♠ 20:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Galaz[edit]

Ivan Galaz (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 kickboxer. Does not meet WP:KICK or WP:GNG. Had to fix The World Champion to A World Champion but even so the Kickboxing title is minor. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject lacks the significant independent coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG and his title from a minor organization is not sufficient to meet the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator; not notable. Kierzek (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:KICK and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:29, 3 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. Swarm ♠ 20:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MiniTool Partition Recovery[edit]

MiniTool Partition Recovery (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 indication or assertion of notability. Mys_721tx (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Although the article is in better state than others, I found nothing outstandingly convincing with the best of my searches here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; software programs are not exempt from WP:GNG. North of Eden (talk) 22:27, 2 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 Technical University of Denmark. Overall consensus is to redirect so redirect it shall be (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DTU Fotonik, Department of Photonics Engineering[edit]

DTU Fotonik, Department of Photonics Engineering (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 indication of notability (WP:GNG). Individual university departments are typically not notable independently from their faculty or university.  Sandstein  07:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Technical University of Denmark —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability established by [20] and [21]. Nom may wish to open a discussion on Talk:Technical University of Denmark about how best to cover content in Technical University of Denmark § Departments and Technical University of Denmark § Research centers. ~Kvng (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• These are passing mentions. The articles are about the science, not the institute.  Sandstein  17:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles done have to be about the subject to constitute WP:SIGCOV. I admit the first is not a great example. The second is solid. For good measure, here's another: [22]. ~Kvng (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another passing mention, again about the technology and not the institute.  Sandstein  08:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Technical University of Denmark as per Sandstein. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:23, 2 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rrjedha[edit]

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

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

This is an article about a publishing house. It is written in extremely poor English, and it is very hard to understand. It is probably machine-translated from Albanian. The subject lacks the WP:NOTABILITY. There are zero reliable independent sources cited in the article. All sources cited are either the company's own sites, or are writeen by the company owner ([23]) or are dead links, or do not mention the company at all. It is hard to look for reliable sources using Google Search because Rrjedha means simply "stream" in Albanian. As far as I was able to search, I found no reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no independent sources, no coverage in English (I know it's not required, but if nobody appears to vouch for foreign sources, it fails WP:V), badly written to the point that it is unclear what claim to notability could be there. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 8 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 eMule#eMule mods. I haven't deleted the history behind the redirect, so if anyone wants to merge the content to the target of the redirect, they're free to do so at their own discretion. Daniel (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Mod[edit]

Xtreme Mod (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)

Obscure open-source software project - unable to find any third-party (non eMule) coverage of this project, as noted back in June 2010 on the article's talk page. It might be a candidate for a redirect to eMule but I'm not sure even that is worth doing. The Dissident Aggressor 07:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources: There are two references published by cnBeta.com [zh], a well-known (alexa ranked 1104 worldwide and 145 in China) Chinese-language, non-self-publishing, general IT-related news website. The two references was added by me and, before doing that I posted "I'll add some sources from some popular Chinese sites" on that article's talk page and another editor User:Old Death responded later "That should be sufficient". I'd suggest User:DissidentAggressor post under that thread if he disagrees the sufficiency of the sources, instead of asking for deletion directly and stating "unable to find any third-party (non eMule) coverage of this project, as noted back in June 2010 on the article's talk page" which according to what I said is not true at all.
Influence: Xtreme Mod brought a remarkable anti-leecher function (DLP (Dynamic Leecher Protection)) into the eMule/eDonkey world, thus brought in lots of discussion in Chinese and in worldwide eMule or even all peer-to-peer file sharing community. Leecher and anti-leecher is really an interesting topic and culture in the P2P world, you may also read Leech (computing)#P2P networks and BitTorrent.
Other notability: In China, Xtreme mod's user may be more than official eMule's, although among eDonkey network clients it may be VeryCD's easyMule which gets the most Chinese users. And as stated in the article, it is the most popular emule mod in the world and there may be really few eDonkey network clients, except official eMule, that can be more popular (according to users count) than Xtreme mod.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the eMule/eDonkey world" What the heck? That's press release language. "As stated in the article, it is the most popular emule mod in the world?" That's like saying it's the most popular left-handed non-chrome plated crescent wrench in the world. Not quite one of the criteria in GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 02:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's like saying it's among the most popular Firefox or Google Chrome extensions, whose Wikipedia articles do exist. Actually by download count Xtreme Mod is comparable to them. If I remember right, eMule was ranked no.1 and Xtreme Mod was ranked about 10-20th by all time download count on Sourceforge on 2008 or 2009 (I checked sourceforge.net/top/, the list contained not only top 10 but more). And at that time Sourceforge was uncontroversially the world's most popular software repository / hosting service. It was a decent rank, had Xtreme mod got such rank and such popularity today, this AfD might not exist. Xtreme Mod may be less used now, but once it is considered notable and popular, according to Wikipedia guidelines, the popularity doesn't need to be ongoing. Just for information: download count of Xtreme mod, of ScarAngel (a mod of Xtreme mod). --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, as you might already know, I'm obviously not a native English speaker. Sorry for using "press release language" in our discussion, but as long as it is not written in the article, I don't think it's very inappropriate. Thank you for your understanding. Consider "eMule/eDonkey world" as "eMule/eDonkey community" if you want. Given that once eMule was the no.1 software on the no.1 software hosting service, I think this community is far larger than a community where discusses "left-handed non-chrome plated crescent wrench". --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomchen1989: Sorry - didn't mean to criticize a non-native speaker's use of language. I've been dealing with a lot of paid editors. - But more to the point you made, Chrome, Firefox and IE are mainstream products used by billions world-wide. eMule is relatively obscure, catering to a small segment of techies. I don't think the comparison works. The Dissident Aggressor 18:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Unable to find any real coverage in independent sources, so fails GNG. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any significant content with eMule, fails GNG so otherwise Delete.Pincrete (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to eMule#eMule mods, where it already is mentioned, and actually belongs for the sake of completeness. I do understand that open source products have a harder time with reliable sources, but the community has decided that they need to meet the GNG, and this product does not. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ITraveller[edit]

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

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

advertising The Banner talk 13:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe delete for now - My searches actually found coverage here and here but it could be better so draft/userfy for now is a good option. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't seem to find any notability now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. iTraveller.com is one of the hottest companies in the Indian startup scene. Although users from around the world or those who aren't familiar with the startup scene may not have knowledge of this, the multitude of media mentions that iTraveller.com has is reason enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksandip (talk • contribs) 17:33, 22 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that this article is a blatant advertisement. The Banner talk 22:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say delete. I looked at some of the sources SwisterTwister found, and they don't seem very impressive. At the most, userfy it. But there does not appear to be anything right now to justify this article. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 06:04, 9 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. Swarm ♠ 20:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malika Haydon[edit]

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

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

Delete: non-notable individual. Possibly a case of TOOSOON. Quis separabit? 21:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I found this [24] but it's not a great source, and I can't find anything else that really comes close to meeting WP:GNG. North of Eden (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person lacks enough of notability. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} — Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This subject lacks significant coverage as discussed above. I formatted the current page sources in a previous edit, which aren't substantial enough in my opinion. Delete. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 03:39, 8 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. Swarm ♠ 20:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heart's Medicine[edit]

Heart's Medicine (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)

Dearth of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. (?) Only review is from Gamezebo. Jayisgames can't be used to prove notability. Rest of the refs are unreliable. Little else in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. No viable redirect options. – czar 06:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my research came up with no results. Anarchyte 10:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article seems to have been created to promote the game for the (potential) upcoming release of Season 2. Wikipedia is neither a platform for PROMOTION nor a CRYSTALBALL. As a note, I've removed the Season 2 speculation from the page. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 3 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. Swarm ♠ 20:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher James Jones[edit]

Christopher James Jones (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)

Maybe it's a country barrier but my searches found nothing (not even an IMDb) and there's not obvious good coverage; there's also no good move target and there's simply nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable per GNG. Maybe some day. Kierzek (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- On my reading of it he is a very minor actor, and may well be making his living by other means. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 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 Speedy deleted under A7. Glen 06:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Morin Foundation[edit]

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

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

This page was earlier deleted (twice) under CSD the same day and was recreated immediately by the user. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt I speedied this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Highbeam and Questia searches return nothing on this group, whether under its English or French language name. Nor does Google return substantial coverage beyond the voir.ca photofeature referenced in the article, which is insufficient for notability. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per consensus. Being on the Forbe's billionaires list is certainly a valid claim to notabilty, a status backed up by the current references and confirmed by the 1,000,000+ Google hits on his name. Sure, We don't judge notability on WP:GOOGLEHITS but a million plus, even if we discount ninety per cent of them?  Philg88 ^♦talk 20:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Chandra[edit]

Subhash Chandra (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)

An article about a media mogul who owns multiple news channels and companies. While most of the news channels passes WP:ORG but since WP:NOTINHERIT the subject may not pass our notability threshold. Most of the coverage is just passing mentions and a large amount of coverage is not independent of the subject (News reports from his own channels). Furthermore, few independent sources can't be used as most of them are of controversies, which can't be added as it would look WP:UNDUE and will be a violation of WP:BLP. I don't feel it passes GNG, but what's others opinion? Jim Carter 05:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- The subject is notable and have significance coverage in reliable sources (excluding those from his own company) (look here and here). This article meets the general notability guidelines. He is chairperson and founder of well-known tv channels and Essel group which is one of the biggest investor in Digital India and Make in India (see here). Your this Afd is just to waste precious time of the editors. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cutest Penguin Obviously I understand how precious community's time is, please don't use such inflammatory words. Furthermore, please understand that notability is not inherited, if he is the chairperson and founder of a well known company that doesn't mean he is also significant enough to have his own article. Also, please make sure you understand the difference between passing mentions and indepth coverage; excluding sources of his company, I can't see any indepth coverage. It's just passing mentions. Best, Jim Carter 11:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Carter Let it be on the consensus. I gave my views as per my understanding and WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. The subject is notable, not according to me but as per the references. There are certain books that you should go through for depth coverage. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per Penguin, flies over the WP:GNG Govindaharihari (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable person in India and per penguin- Rayabhari (talk) 14:43, 2 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. The sense of the discussion was that the subject lacks independent sourcing, and the article was excessively promotional. The separate language encyclopedia are created by independent communities, and may develop their own rules for inclusion, so the existence or nonexistence of a foreign language article is no guaranty of notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The National Dwarf Fashion Show[edit]

The National Dwarf Fashion Show (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)