< 24 August	26 August >

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) 18:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Keasey[edit]

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

Not notable for an encyclopedia and somehow comes across as a resume Sheroddy (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof #C1,#C8. What's wrong with a resume? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep - This appears to be a borderline case given how the article really needs work and the mentioning by sources isn't that great. Still, he has written two economics-related book while had himself covered as an academic for what he's studied, so I lean more to keeping the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that he's notable enough for the Financial Times to have published his perspective. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having an opinion piece published in a journal doesn't necessarily equal notability. Having a piece written about you in a journal would be more significant. Have any of his books been reviewed/ referenced?Jonpatterns (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: you're all joking, right? A perfunctory journal search has returned more than 2000 citations, thus easily passing WP:PROF. No question here whatsoever as to whether this should be kept. Does nobody perform WP:BEFORE anymore? Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom makes no reasonable substantive arguments for deletion, and the article includes significant indicators of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - standard searching shows good case that Mr. Keasey meets criteria for WP:PROF. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edis (singer)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:ENT. Quis separabit? 23:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nom and above. No evidence of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as maybe it's language and country barriers though I doubt it, my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguably this could be have been deleted under WP:A7 because it doesn't make any assertion of notability. A preliminary WP:BEFORE search reveals nothing about a singer on the first page which is usually not a good sign. Mkdw ^talk 17:31, 1 September 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 deleted as G12 (copy vio. Diannaa (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gnarly Barley Brewing[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. No references, appears to be totally promotional. ubiquity (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt Non notable spamicle. User continues to re-post this copyright violation advert. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originally tagged this for speedy, but it was reverted (by an editor with no other contributions), so I brought it here. ubiquity (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. The article's creator also removed a copyright violation notice. There may be sufficient rationale for speedy on that count, but that template figures to be removed, too. Perhaps WP:SNOW will be obvious, and this can be closed quickly. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with all arguments. Should be deleted ASAP. Quis separabit? 22:31, 25 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 for insufficient evidence of notability.Mojo Hand (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Action University[edit]

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

Essentially this is spam for a recently created institution. No independent references because there simply aren't any yet. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Certainly I agree, and believe it qualifies for a speedy on the basis of spam. ubiquity (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep It's on online university that awards degrees, and the article is entirely descriptive. I declined the speedy. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a true accredited university? I can't find any online information on it outside of primary or WP-related sources.--Oakshade (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied this once before. It's obvious self-sourced spam. Even if it's notable, there is no real factual content to justify keeping this self-promotion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although universities and equivalent institutes are considered notable, I found nothing third-party to suggest the slightest coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does come into play here, in doing a quick search there are almost no reliable third party sources about this "university". No matter what, every article, whether it's a school or not, must satisfy WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 17:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Parson[edit]

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

Actor who has played a few unnamed characters ("American journalist", "news reporter", "FBI agent") in film and television. Fails WP:BASIC with no secondary sources, fails WP:NACTOR for lacking "significant roles". Not seeing any press coverage. McGeddon (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree entirely with @McGeddon rationale. Fails notability. Quis separabit? 19:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NACTOR, GNG, ETC. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now of course as a simple search at his IMDb finds two roles (one in production, Blindspot) and my searches found no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable roles, no reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The roles appear to be non-notable, background, or non-recurring roles in entertainment. I would say they don't meet WP:NACTOR to indicate any chance of notability nor do they have WP:SIGCOV. Inclined to say delete unless the WP:BURDEN of notability is addressed. Mkdw ^talk 17:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable roles, doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Searches showed nothing to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 2 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Television Service[edit]

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

No references are in this article that indicated the subject's notablity. I can't find any company exactly called "Japan Television Service", and the Japanese name provided is exactly Nippon TV's. Same goes for Kid's Japan Television, and its Japanese name provides no hint of existence. This might be a hoax. TheGGoose (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any references to verify even the existence of this organization, the article should be deleted as a suspected hoax. --DAJF (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can actually be improved as my searches found nothing to suggest keeping this long-troubled article. A final look at the Japanese wiki show symmetrical information so, if this exists, it's not well known and probably a low-profile company by NTV. Some of the previous speedy taggers are not very active but the two most are Mjroots and DESiegel. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article states it is available in UK. I've just been through the complete Sky listings and there is no trace of it, or its associated children's channel. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the Japanese article provided, the subject company NTV Service wouldn't match the one in AFD. The one in the Japanese article seems to be an NTV subsidiary that does business planning and develops merchandise. NTV Service is not said to be a broadcaster by its own. I also can't find evidence if Yatterman, Golden Warrior Gold Lightan, and Pokémon were aired by NTV or affiliates. TheGGoose (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Yatterman remake was aired by NTV, I just found out. But still no evidence found that the JTS existed. TheGGoose (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only a few hours left on this AFD. I've declined the speedy as this AFD should more than address the issue of deletion. Mkdw ^talk 17:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a hoax. Virtually inconceivable that a network broadcasting in the UK (even in Japanese) would not generate numerous Google hits in the form of programming listings, advertisements, press releases and likely its own website to inform consumers of its content. Calamondin12 (talk) 20:24, 1 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parminder Gill[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable performer. Fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 18:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be improved as, although I can't speak well for non-English sources, my searches found nothing good but I'm open to anyone providing insight with the non-English sources, if any. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The only source is a Facebook page. This is clearly a violation of WP:BLP. Me5000 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing to show they meet notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sina'a Stadium[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable stadium. Quis separabit? 18:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cannot find any sources to justify inclusion Spiderone 19:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be a lack of sources because the stadium is Iraqi and therefore references may only be in Arabic. That being said, the WP:BURDEN is on the editors of the article writers to demonstrate notability and my own searches, as well as others, have not suggested this issue is readily remedied. Mkdw ^talk 18:09, 1 September 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 per WP:SNOW. Maybe not a hoax, but still decidedly non-notable either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power (Stiehl novel)[edit]

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

All signs suggest this is fabricated as my searches found absolutely nothing for this rarely edited article since November 2006. @Charles Matthews:. SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The chances of verifying the content appear remote. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a hoax. No Google hits found for The Legend of the Power with the name Stiehl outside of this article. No listing in Google Books or WorldCat. An 80-chapter novel that led to a screenplay and a short story collection based on its characters would surely attract notice somewhere. Calamondin12 (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. No trace of either the "author" or the "novel" anywhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may not be a hoax per se - this might be a case of someone trying to add their book to Wikipedia. Basically, what I'm thinking is that this isn't a hoax but a self-published novel that was never published through the more mainstream methods like CreateSpace. It also might have been something that someone wrote on their own but then never actually went and self-published, which also tends to happen a lot on here. However those things said, hoax or not, I'm not really seeing any sources at all so I'm going to go ahead and snow close this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Apolot[edit]

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

Kickboxer who fails to meet the notability criteria at WP:KICK. Coverage is routine sports reporting and winning a title from a minor organization does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps not fully notable under WP:KICK, but comes close as she's scheduled to fight for the continental African ISKA title (not the world title as listed as a requirement for full WP:KICK); however, the subject appears to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability as a person of interest that receives consistent coverage of her fights by multiple, major news sources in Uganda, some of which are already linked in the article (a simple Google search will reveal more). One article states that "She became the first female Ugandan fighter to win outside Africa", which is a notable achievement for a woman fighter from a small country, and good enough to earn media interest from within Uganda. Even has a video story (http://www.ntv.co.ug/news-features/living-life/living-life-story-female-kick-boxer-patricia-apolot) by NTV Uganda, an independent TV Station in Uganda that's listed here[1] as being the target of Uganda censorship. This story was edited and released internationally through AP - one version was reproduced at CCTV, a major TV station in China, here (http://newscontent.cctv.com/NewJsp/news.jsp?fileId=309998). Earns coverage from an article from Hungary with a brief mention of her fight against the Hungarian contender (http://dunaujvaros.com/hirek/201506/nemzetek_csataja_utos_este_volt). Listed as part of a new wave of interest and success in kickboxing in Uganda, one of the few national champs at kickboxing in Uganda along with Moses Golola (http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/662920-kickboxing-federation-boasts-about-a-successful-2014-season.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.47.172 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Routine sports reporting and promotion is not considered significant independent coverage for purposes of meeting WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. These articles aren't promotional articles - they're articles by the largest newspapers in Uganda. The New Vision is the largest newspaper in Uganda, which, along with the Daily Monitor, are the two most important newspapers in Uganda(Media_in_Uganda). 2. There are several independent stories that go beyond routine sports reporting. The 2nd biggest newspaper in Uganda, the Daily Monitor, went out of its way to do a special interview with the subject - even mentioning how hard it was to secure the interview "Catching up with Patricia Apolot for an interview demands the patience of the Biblical Job. She will answer your calls, but she will also be busy with this or the other; at a mall fixing her gadget, at a press conference, persuading a potential sponsor or at the gym training for her coming fight" (http://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/Full-Woman/Patricia-Apolot--Uganda-s-female-kickboxing-star/-/689842/2822464/-/jwrjxr/-/index.html). Why would the second largest newspaper in Uganda waste its time pursuing a special interview with someone if they were not notable? Another major Ugandan newspaper, the The Observer (Uganda), also did a story that covered more than simple routine sports reporting (http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33299:-babe-of-the-week-apolot-kicks-her-way-to-national-title&catid=42:sizzling-entertainment&Itemid=74). An independent TV station in Uganda went out of it's way to do a special segment on the subject(http://www.ntv.co.ug/news-features/living-life/living-life-story-female-kick-boxer-patricia-apolot), a story that later made it to China Central Television via the Associated Press (http://newscontent.cctv.com/NewJsp/news.jsp?fileId=309998). There's at least 3 different, reliable, major sources in Uganda that have gone out of their way to do in-depth reports on the subject. If this doesn't satisfy your definition of going beyond "routine sports reporting", please show me a link in the notability guidelines that specifies the requirements for fulfilling this condition.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC. The following articles/news coverage provide significant biographical coverage about the subject that is well beyond routine coverage: Daily Monitor, The Observer, NTV-Uganda. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 1 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Agbo[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per reasons provided Spiderone 08:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editors. The search engines returned no indication of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:12, 2 September 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) 19:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio García (judoka)[edit]

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

Judoka who never competed at the Olympics and who never ranked even in the top 40 in his division. In fact the highest rank I could find for him was 66 in 2011[2]. He also lacks the significant coverage required to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning a bronze at the Pan American Games hints towards some sort of notability. I found this. Difficult to find more with a common name and most sources not being in English, but I'll look for some others. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If winning a medal at the Pan American Games isn't noteworthy enough, then why not start tagging every other existing article about a Pan American medalist -who has yet to compete at the Olympics- for deletion, too? If it matters, Sergio is taking part at the ongoing 2015 World Judo Championships.[3] -- Lancini87 (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the large number of competitors and divisions, simply competing at the world championships is not sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm willing to agree that winning a medal, not just competing, at the Pan-Am Games is sufficient to show notability. However, since 40% of the competitors in his division won a medal, it's less impressive than it first seems. That's probably why his ranking was as low as it was. Papaursa (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A case can be made for WP:GNG with significant coverage here and here. Vrac (talk) 15:14, 29 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar's Bay Shopping Center[edit]

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

Non notable mall fails WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing but a non-notable strip mall (I know because I've been there). Quis separabit? 20:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a run of the mill shopping mall, albeit with a large parking lot for NYC. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing apart from a few news mentions as part of incidents and such, and, at best, this would be better mentioned as part of another article. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 1 September 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Greatrex Graphic Designer[edit]

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

A search for this person surprisingly resulted in quite a number of false positives. A few hits did appear to mention this particular person but none of them appeared to be significant coverage. Note that the band which he primarily works with does not have a Wikipedia article at this point. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: wow, no clue as to why this is still here. Clearly fails general notability; couldn't find a single source about him. Not to mention the way this is written... FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete certianly not a notable visual artist. More like a regular, non-notable graphic designer. New Media Theorist (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing good and third-party even in the slightest. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 1 September 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 Paramus, New Jersey. Don't usually close on 2 votes but redirect is prefferred over deletion, Plus the shopping centre's mentioned over there anyway so kinda makes sense just to redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paramus Towne Square[edit]

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

Non notable mall fails WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paramus, New Jersey A rather small outdoor mall with no claim of notability or evidence to support it. In a place known for its malls, this isn't one of them. Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not even a mall. It's a strip of stores, just like dozens around the town. The only thing is the landlord put a fancy name in it to make it sound good. Not notable at all. Don't even bother with the redirect. oknazevad (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it is in essense just a row of shops like a million other places in New Jersey. I still think a redirect is plausible and disagree with Oknazevad. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:08, 26 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 Star Citizen. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Citizen ships[edit]

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

A list of spaceships in a yet-unreleased game. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK shoy (reactions) 15:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Star Citizen, which can accommodate the information. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

support there's no point in having this as a separate page. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:12, 29 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) 23:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. While there is secondary source coverage of the ships, there's no reason why they can't be adequately explained in the original article and split out summary style if necessary. Please consider boldly performing easy redirects yourself before coming to AfD. – czar 00:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that there is any secondary source coverage, and I believed a redirect would be controversial. shoy (reactions) 13:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are rarely controversial on unsourced, new articles. Search the video game reliable sources custom Google search for star citizen ships for plenty of dedicated hits on individual ships. Still doesn't justify a separate article, though. – czar 16:29, 31 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Irwin's Australia Zoo[edit]

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

Subject lacks sources that indicate notability, and this show may have never broadcast. The only one I can locate is mentioned in a dead link, but you can see the excerpt copied here in the top message, complete with the link to the source. I can't find the information in the source in Archive.org. TheGGoose (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject lacks notability. All I'm finding is information on the Australia Zoo itself, which already has an article. Fuzchia (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject lacks independent notability. If something could be sourced, it could be added to the zoo's article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to suggest independent notability and it may not have been well broadcased because it seems the best I found was this Hollywood Reporter from 2008 announcing it. At best, this would be best mentioned at the family's article. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as insufficiently notable. Also note grammatical error: should have been The Irwins' (or Irwins's) Australia Zoo. Quis separabit? 15:28, 1 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Conner Humphreys[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject epically fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Not even close to being notable. Previous version of article was deleted at AfD for the same reason, but CSD G4 was declined. Safiel (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. WP:ENT requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Humphreys has one less-than-significant role to his credit and has since retired (save an unknown role in a non-notable production). - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First and foremost, he meets WP:GNG. He's still receiving significant coverage in reliable sources in 2015, even for more than Forrest Gump [4]. --TTTommy111 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails Notability, GNG and ENT. [5] is just one-off trivia, not significa. Quis separabit? 19:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this trivia? It is a featured article about his life, not just about his part with the movie. I guess I am confused here. Is that article in depth coverage and is the Daily Mail a reliable source? Also, he doesn't have to meet WP:ENT if he meets WP:GNG --TTTommy111 (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I want to keep this article, but there just isn't enough there to meet the notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 2 September 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. I'll also be applying some salt Courcelles (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ JT[edit]

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

Advert based on PR with no independent sourcing in sight. At time of nomination sourcing was:

1. ireport by jdobypr (aka Jerry Doby). CNN iReport articles are self-published articles not verified by CNN

2. top40-charts.com. Not a reliable source. author unlisted. press release from DJ JT Official Website

3. ireport by jdobypr (aka Jerry Doby). iCNN articles are self-published articles not verified by CNN

4. The Hype Magazine by Jerry Doby. The Hype Magazine is a PR service, not a reliable source.

5. reproduction of Yahoo! Voices article by Jerry Doby. Yahoo! Voices articles are self-published articles not verified by Yahoo!

6. iReach by PRNewswire. Press release, media contact Jerry Doby.

7. Jerry Doby of The Urban Link "scooped" a press release from PRNewswire. Press releases media contact is Jerry Doby. This is the same press release as 6.

8. The same press release again. More Jerry Doby.

9. Same scoop of same press release. More Jerry Doby.

10. top40-charts.com. Not a reliable source. author unlisted. press release from DJ JT Official Website. Same article on iReport is by jdobypr (aka Jerry Doby).

11. same as 2

That name on most of them, Jerry Doby, is his PR agent.
Pure PR of dubious veracity.
The award it claims he was nominated for:

Winter Music Conference 2011. This one? No DJ JT.

Radio Music Awards 2011. Radio Music Awards? They discontinued in 2006.

All the supposed releases on big labels? Non existant or not on the label claimed. The remixes of big names? Not official if they even exist.
"The No.1 DJ in Singapore"? not according to topdeejays or thedjlist.
Delete and salt. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. Fails to meet WP:NMUSIC and is obvious PR as the use of CNN iReport makes abundantly clear. SmartSE (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per @SmartSE; this is not LinkedIn or other social media for self-promotion. Quis separabit? 15:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Just by reading the cite titles you can tell this is all Promotional-based!, To be blunt he's about as notable as my left arse cheek, Fails MUSICBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there's nothing even in the slightest good coverage and only the listed sources and such. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in the searches shows notability. Pure advert piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CurrencyTransfer.com[edit]

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

Example of the standard article on a new company as normally written by paid editors (of course any particular case might be someone imitating them in good faith, but the contribution pattern of this editor suggests otherwise.) Still a very small business. Most of the content is about the initial funding, the general subject of money transfer brokerage, and the standard retelling by the founders of how they happened to meet, and why they created it --based on no objective evidence but their own word. (personally I regard the inclusion of this in a business article as diagnostic). The references are either trivial mentions of promotional interviews based on their own PR. DGG ( talk ) 12:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Fails WP:WEB. On a different note, the article creator did an impressive job of writing that article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG based on the sources in the article. Despite being a new company, it meets notability guidelines. Just because it is new, that doesn't mean that it cannot be notable. Wired [6], Startups [7], and Tech Radar [8] to name a few.
Comment - Are we deleting this for suspected paid editing or for not meeting notability guidelines? Seems to me if the article creator has a COI, we should look for neutrality with the article. If it is neutral and notable, then why delete? According to User:AKS.9955, the article creator did an impressive job. Not sure why we would delete it then if it is notable and the creator did an impressive job.--TTTommy111 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How did this article wind up in AfD? The first five references are features.009o9 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I said "the article creator did an impressive job" I did not say that the article is notable, I merely said he did a good job in writing. Just because someone writes an article nicely does not make it notable; the same way just because an article is not well articulated does not make it non-notable. Please dont mix two different things here. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reliable source coverage seems to point to this being worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article was written by a single purpose account as almost all edits he/she done were about CurrencyTransfer.com. However, given the company's coverage in the startup world (ie http://www.techradar.com/news/software/business-software/how-currencytransfer-com-is-simplifying-business-foreign-exchange-1234246 and http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/21/startup-of-the-week-currency-transfer ), they meet Wikipedia's notability standard. For that, the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CerealKillerYum (talk • contribs) 09:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can prove that the articles were paid or come from a section of the site that has no editorial policy, I'm willing to change my vote -CerealKillerYum (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I have concerns over undisclosed paid editing here, but that issue aside, the article does appear to be the centre of a few notable and reliable third party publications such as the Wired article. I think this article barely scraps by WP:GNG. WP:IDONTLIKEIT just isn't strong enough here to sway me to delete. Mkdw ^talk 21:51, 1 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vildane Zeneli[edit]

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

No indication of notability, sources are all WP:PRIMARY. This needs an indication if she has been signed to an agency of note in the US. Her foray in music is negligible, a search throws up largely gossip around 50ct. Karst (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notability established and the only sources available are press releases. Nymf (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Albanian sources (such as Telegrafi and Gazeta Express) are flooded with articles about her, see for example [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. None of these are press releases, as far as I can see. --Λeternus ^(talk) 18:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many thanks for those sources. I had looked at them in detail and they are problematic I'm afraid. They are essentially based upon the Twitter and Instagram account posts that Zeneli has put out over the past few months. They tend to refer to plastic surgery and 50ct, and has a strong air of WP:GOSSIP. This article needs WP:RS, it tried to look for an interview somewhere in Albanian, but found none. Karst (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevance in Albania either, no one really knows her and she has only been in Albania once. Not relevant anywhere or any sources. Kakakola (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC) im not sure how to format this

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At best delete for now as my searches found some sources here and there but nothing explicitly good so delete for now and start again when sourcing is better. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Searches turned up nothing notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another case of attention-seeking, and not attention-getting, fails GNG per WP:ROUTINE and WP:SENSATION which say something about "tabloid journalism" Kraxler (talk) 15:51, 3 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LFP World Challenge[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#A7 "importance not asserted" for seven days now, and no admin has deleted it or done anything about the notice. Perhaps it is better to have a discussion about this article. Apparently this is about some promotional games of the Spanish football league, but I can't tell how notable this is and whether it should be merged into Liga de Fútbol Profesional or deleted outright. I am neutral so far. —Kusma (t·c) 10:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who tagged the article for speedy deletion. It contains a sentence about this event, which started in 2014, and gives a list of the events, but doesn't seem to me assert any particular claim that makes it notable. It would seem wise to me to merge with Liga de Fútbol Profesional. Compassionate727 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of passing WP:GNG. I would support merge if there is anything worth saving. Spiderone 21:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Search engines did not reveal anything to support notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 2 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner Group[edit]

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

This is a nicely formatted and written article about a perfectly average, non-notable company. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Remember: we are not Yellow Pages. Companies we write about should be encyclopedic (check linked policies). This one doesn't seem to be meet said criteria. Oh, and there is also the WP:COI issue: creator is a WP:SPA Christine at Wagner (talk · contribs). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Searches produced no reliable secondary sources that could support notability per Wikipedia guidelines. ABF99 (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The depth of coverage in the sources is not substantial enough to establish notability for an encyclopedia, see WP:CORPDEPTH. Also per WP:NOTYELLOW. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 17:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Search engines did not show how this corp meets notability guidelines.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental Empires[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable book, lacking professional reviews. While there are some reviews, most appear to be user generated. Fails WP:GNG Mdann52 (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added two NY Times refs just to show that they are out there, but the book became the basis for two PBS specials plus a documentary on Steve Jobs. I'll try to find more references over the next day or two. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems reasonably notable to me, following the addition of sources. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:08, 25 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Literacy Council[edit]

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

SPA-created article about a non-profit organization. The Council is also briefly mentioned in the city's main article, but is not notable for a stand-alone article per our guidelines (no significant coverage found). GermanJoe (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is another classic case of no good sources to be found aside from this which is hardly enough to change the article. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Searches found no reliable secondary sources to support notability. ABF99 (talk) 16:16, 25 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2020 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. This event is 5 years away and the article contains nothing but the announcement of where it is going to be held. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This is three FINA short course world championships in the future (2016, 2018, 2020). Two future world swimming championships is plenty. And, yes, it may be time to adopt a formal guideline to deal with the suitability of future sporting events for current article creation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Dirtlawyer1. No prejudice against re-creation once a suitable amount of time has passed. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:10, 25 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2023 World Aquatics Championships[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Event is still 8 years away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This is four scheduled FINA long course swimming world championships in the future (2017, 2019, 2021, 2023) -- and that's on top of the future FINA short course world championships that alternate every other year (2016, 2018, 2020) with the long course championships. Two of each -- short course and long course -- should be enough. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dirtlaywer1 is spot on. In addition, although we don't have any sort of formal guideline for how far in advance we can make this articles, I'd say that, while the year is listed (and the month isn't clearly listed in the single source, though it is listed in the article, possibly based on assumptions from previous competitions), there isn't enough clarity on specific dates and details of the competition for it to merit an article yet. I thought that WP:CRYSTAL could be a direct reference here, but unfortunately, it looks like it references pure speculation about an event, and, in this case, there are barebones details that make this more substantial than speculation. Upjav (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Dirtlawyer1. No prejudice against re-creation once a suitable amount of time has passed. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parents for Education[edit]

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

A truly horrible article whose sources are one newspaper report and a whole bunch of WP:PRIMARY material from scribd or the organisation's own website. Started by a WP:SPA with no edits outside of starting two articles related to Opus Dei. Perilously close to a speedy candidate. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Other than this I found no secondary sources to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any secondary sources other than the one ABF99 listed above. For searching purposes, the subject is alternatively known as PARED and The PARED Foundation, it appears. ~ Rob^Talk 16:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added several sources, including the one linked above. I strongly suspect that other sources are out there, possibly offline as when this was founded news was rarely online. I think what is already listed passes the WP:GNG, particularly with the KDP record article from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00228958.1993.10531866?journalCode=ukdr20#.VdNE5pcdddA and the Australian article linked above. DES ^(talk) 17:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I now count at least 6 secondary sources, with at least two of them having quite substantial coverage. DES ^(talk) 17:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DESiegel: The KDP article is written by a founder of PARED, if that changes anything for you. ~ Rob^Talk 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are abolutely correct, Rob. I don't know how I missed that, it is in large letters on the very page I linked to. That does reduce the value of that source significantly. Of course the fact that the source was willing to accept and publish the piece has some value still, but quite possibly not much, as far as notability goes. I still think this should be kept, but not as strongly as I did previously, unless other sources are brought forward. DES ^(talk) 22:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we have to keep this because it appears to meet GNG and ORG, but it needs to be severely edited for promotion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 27 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph G. Walton (doctor)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. According to this article, Walton is noted for his contributions to methadone therapy in the treatement of heroine addiction, and for his research in to the adverse effects of aspartame. However, there is not sufficient evidence in the article, nor can any be found, of Walton having a significant impact in the field of methadone therapy, and his positions on aspartame have been largely dismissed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been revised to include multiple references, including sources that document Walton's contributions to Methadone Maintenance. His work has been validated very scientifically in the published research which is now available in the references section. WikiDan61's claim that his work has been dismissed has not been validated. Where is WikiDan61's references to support this?? All claims refuting Walton's work have been funded by the aspartame industry, and therefore, not credible due to bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakul Bassarab (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify, no actual references have been added, only more of Dr Walton's publications. It would be a matter of original research for us to assess the impact of Dr Walton's contributions based solely on his own publications. We would require a secondary source that has already evaluated this impact. No such secondary source has been proffered. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure everyone recognizes the good intentions of User:Drakul Bassarab in creating this article, however, Wikipedia does not retain articles about individuals in any profession who do fine, professional work. To be here, articles must be about individuals who have produces work that has been recognized by multiple, reliable publications for significant on a professional field, or on the world at large.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article does not reflect particular notability as scientist; reads like resume-style hagiography. Also, IMO, one of questionable veracity and dubious and unsourced assertions, which I just removed. Quis separabit? 02:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searches showed nothing to show notability. Scholar, for instance, returned zero hits. Other searches likewise returned nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 2 September 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. slakr^\ talk / 08:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mihran Manasyan[edit]

(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) 17:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He played and scored in the UEFA Europa League qualifying round, he is a professional player in a fully professional club. However. I have expanded the article to include more details about the player from several sources.--Spetsnaz1991 (talk) 09:46, 19 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.

Comments above by Spetsnaz1991 are misguided. Current consensus is that NFOOTY is only satisfied by participation in contental competition when the player in question has played firstly in the competition proper and secondly is involved in a match between two clubs both from fully professional leagues.

Furthermore, the argument that Alashkert is a fully professional club is irrelevant. full professionalism needs to be league wide and there is no consensus at WP:FOOTY that the Armenian league is fully professional.

The sources provided in the article do not satisfy GNG:

Soccerway - is just a database entry, these exist for thousands of players across the world and do not amount to significant coverage.
Alashkert - is a profile on the club's website. As a primary source, this does not support GNG.
Yerkir - although this is dedicated to the player, the interview is very short amounting to four brief questions and answers and is not significant coverage.
BBC - this is a routine match report where the subject is mentioned tangentially. The focus is on the match between his club and St Johnstone not the player. Again not significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More sources were added.--Spetsnaz1991 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing GNG through the addition of an interview of reasonable length and an article which seems to talk in more general terms about Armenian top scorers than the player himself. Fenix down (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it is neither listed in the "professional" nor in the "not professional" section at WP:FPL, are there any sources to determine the respective status of the Armenian Premier League? The outcome of this investigation would be crucial for this and potentially other AfDs. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 07:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. None of the sources seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG Spiderone 20:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the arguments above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:06, 2 September 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 Sajib Das. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rj Raju[edit]

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

Non notable RJ, sources are not reliable at all. Variation 25.2 (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Sajib Das (if he's found notable) as unless Rj Raju has good sources in Bengali, there's not much here. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and fails WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:51, 25 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabnam Faria[edit]

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

unreliable sources, public profile. No significant works whatsover Variation 25.2 (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing good and the majority consensus seems to suggest non-notability for now. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (updated) Searched using Bengali orthography (added above). It's clear enough that she has played a part in numerous telenovelas, but it isn't clear that any of these themselves are notable, as I did not find WP:RS for them. She is not in the Bengali বাংলা WP, checking that manually rather than relying on the autolinker. No good sources; is WP:TOOSOON. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Found a few sources in Bengali though these are not much significant. [16], [17], [18], [19]. She has worked in around 10-15 dramas. But the the article will be WP:TOOSOON for her. -Arr4 (talk) 14:39, 25 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Clay[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a mayor, in a city not large enough (30K) to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors under WP:POLOUTCOMES. This is essentially written and structured as a campaign brochure, not an encyclopedia article, and it's parked entirely on primary sources: the city's website, his own website, and a campaign statement in the "campaign statements of the candidates" section of the local community newsweekly. This is not the kind of reliable source coverage it takes to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, the sources in the article are the subject's personal site, his office's site and an election campaign piece in a local newspaper Kraxler (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayor of a small town (ref WP:POLOUTCOMES), article appears to be a personal advertisement for himself. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-independent sourcing, non-notability, fails GNG. Quis separabit? 02:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 2 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right Hemisphere (Nabsora album)[edit]

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

Debut album of a musician whose article has been deleted for lack of notability. As before, this topic does not appear to be covered in multiple, reliable, independent sources and therefore does not satisfy WP:NALBUMS or the general notability guideline.

I am also nominating Animal (Nabsora song) on the grounds that it does not satisfy WP:NSONGS. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 21:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, fail WP:NALBUM and WP:NSONG, no chart position, no coverage in independent media, one piece in a local paper on the musiscian but his article was deleted already, so no redirect possible Kraxler (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. The album and artist has had no coverage whatsoever, only a primary source from the record label. 和DITOR E tails 05:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per the nom and above editors. Nothing to show notability about either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April (band)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a girl group that has not debuted and currently has no released music. I think it's WP:TOOSOON for an article. Random86 (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now: WP:TOOSOON. Tibbydibby (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion/Inquiry: I have a draft of this article already made, but this version was posted before I could since I was waiting for the official debut. I have much more information about this group, history, notoriety (some members were in a band before this and participated in Kara Project), and reliable sources. If I fleshed it out, would that impact its nomination for deletion? Katzenlibrary (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replace this article with your draft, right away, if it looks better than what we have now. Don't forget to add sources/references. Certainly it will influence the discussion here, but we'll know how it does only after seeing the new version. Kraxler (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as too soon and draft & userfy until better sources are found (the generic name is no help either). SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more time for Katzenlibrary to post, and the community to consider, their draft. T. Canens (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thanks, Timotheus Canens. I have now added the sources/information that I added earlier. While it isn't large swaths of info (I try to keep things as concise as I can), the new info about the failed previous band (Puretty) and members' participation in Kara Project, which gained a lot of hype for the band (KARA) and suicide linked to it, may help the discussion about the notability of this new group. I'm searching for a better source for Puretty's disbandment, so please take that into account when judging my edits! Thanks Katzenlibrary (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far, although the sources are all in Korean. I'd like to read something in English sometime. They'll debut before this discussion is closed, so we'll see how it goes. There should be more coverage then. It seems that girl groups are quite popular in South Korea. Kraxler (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some work to see if I can find English sources. The problem with English sources for kpop articles is that most of them come from places like allkpop, which are just crude translations of Korean-language news pieces like the ones I used in the article. But once the band debuts, there may be some English-language articles from places like JoongAng or HuffPost Korea. I'll keep my eyes open! Katzenlibrary (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago when I was heavily active here, I tried to get allkpop banned as the site has an explicit disclaimer stating that info "may or may not be true and allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims".... Anyway, good English sources will be hard to find, but eventually they'll come. SKS (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added an English language source here.Masterpeace3 (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you! Katzenlibrary (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They just debuted so it'll be a while before this page becomes a solid page (if their debut succeeds) but there's significant media coverage for various reasons (members tried out on a reality show, and it's from a "major" management company). Sources already on the page are all legit. SKS (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources in Nate, StarNews, and enews24.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow April to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia has become too harsh. Hike The Monicas (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boguslav S. Kurlovich[edit]

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

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

The subject of the article has no notability. Searching independent sources gave no result. No referee's reports and etc. were found. All links in the article lead to personal resources of this man or to nowhere. In other wikipedias, articles about this subject were written by the same users. It seems that this man actively advertises himself in the Internet. Xebir (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be improved as my searches found nothing better here and here so I'm inviting Wikimandia to find any available sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm this needs expert attention from someone in the field of botany. His field is too specific to have general coverage. It seems he specializes in Lupins. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought too, hopefully some familiar users can notice this. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save The subject of the article has notability! Automatically appears as the author of botanical taxa. https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Boguslav_Stanislavovich_Kurlovich

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Boguslav_Kurl%C3%B3vich Research in this area is unique! Botanist850 05:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Botanist850 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: @Botanist850 has made only one edit -- this one. Likely COI. Quis separabit? 15:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this reads like a dissertation or curriculum vitae. Unnecessary inclusion of middle initial indicates probable COI. Quis separabit? 17:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Taxonomy is a low-citation field so I think we can't read much into the fact that his publications have low citation counts on Google scholar, but I also strongly disagree with Botanist850's claim that being a published taxonomist gives automatic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Describing even a single species has always been held here to be unquestionable notability for a biologist. From the bio, he's a disciple of Vavilov, the pioneering Russian plant biogeographer, one of the few Soviet biologists of the period whose work is still considered valid, (despite the efforts of Stalin to repress it) and the field he developed is one of the very few fields of Soviet-era biology where the country was truly a pioneer. Not all of the people continuing the field will be notable, but from the academic positions, it seems that he is. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears at a glance on the Google to be a leading Russian academic in plant biology. Needs to be assessed as an academic (special guidelines), rather than per GNG. Not really my forte to do such, but we definitely need to move slowly on this one to prevent a wrongful deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your Cyrillic paste-in for Google searching: Курлович Б.С. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay villages[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also fails WP:V and WP:NPOV a large proportion of the Village mentioned in the article are unsourced further there is no official status ,statistics or on what basis it has has been classified as a gay village hence clear original research.Even the given citations do not clearly verify test this has been raised since Sept 2008.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Going by the logic of WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, all lists in Wikipedia should be deleted. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. With a lot of work, this article could be cleaned up and all items sourced. Or it could be purged and only sourced items left behind. However, Category:Gay villages combined with Gay Village fills the role of everything this article could ever hope to be. I see some small value of having all the neighborhoods cited in one place with their sources instead of scattered 3 to 5 levels deep in Category:Gay villages, but not a huge amount of utility. KNHaw ^(talk) 14:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I tidied up the header description, which was cited as a problem in the earlier discussion.
Keep. This can be sourced or purged to include only those properly verifiable. This list is certainly not indiscriminate nor is it original research in its entirety. ~ Rob^Talk 19:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "List of Gay Communities". Without any kind of official designation as such this title with that list is intensely WP:OR. Village is a legal term in parts of the US and UK. Almost all the hits for "gay village" on google are links to wikipedia, and articles about a specific place in Toronto that is literally called "Gay Village" [20]--Savonneux (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 26 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 withdrawn. Nothing has changed since this was discussed in Feb so I will just have to live with it as unreferenced. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has been around for four years but no-one has added any evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:50, 25 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. There is one keep !vote from Kraxler, with whom I find myself often in agreement. However, not this time. I have checked the references that they added to the article, which are in-passing mentions and don't seem to be in-depth discussions. The "Who's Who" listed here is published by the International Biographical Centre, a vanity publisher. Listing in one of their publications can be bought very easily. In sum, I find that the delete !votes have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samethanahalli Rama Rao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. There has been some discussion at the India Wikiproject noticeboard here. That the subject authored books does not make them notable per se. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails general notability guidelines, there are hardly any reliable sources to establish notability. Even after considering the instructions mentioned at INDAFD; there are no significance coverage about the subject in reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The most significant mention I can find seems to be [21] here. This seems to suggest some notability as an author, but just not enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the editor of this article and am also related to the subject. This author was well known in Kannada literature and there are plenty of citations offline and in Kannada. He also has an entry in the Kannada Wikipedia (not authored by me). There were some citations found in a prior AfD discussion - not sure if they are enough to keep the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasho78 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found several online citations in Kannada and added them to the article. There are several more available - please search Google for "ಸಮೇತನಹಳ್ಳಿ"

We will need translations and an indication of why the websites are reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush I tried looking for ಸಮೇತನಹಳ್ಳಿ on Google but hardly found any reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which of the sources cited are unreliable, and how (and where) translations can be provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.162.88 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it can't be improved as my searches found this which suggests there is coverage about him but the question is whether it's accessible and available. The first AfD suggested keeping but I think this article could be better and there has been more than enough time to improve it. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok to use offline sources etc. The issue here is determining whether those sources would be (a) reliable, (b) independent, and (c) something more than just passing mentions. That is why I think we need to have some more information/translations of relevant bits etc. We probably could do with running them past someone who speaks Kannada and has no connection with the article subject. - Sitush (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am native Kannada speaker and this writer was well known and his works are studied and regarded well in literary circles. Special mention should be made of his epics or Maha-kavyas, a literary tradition of Kannada language of great importance and antiquity. I have printed books and review articles on his works. Will try to provide the references to same. Kindly do not delete this article. Ramashray (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in Kannada volume of "Indian Literature" by C.H. PRAHLADA RAO

Keep a well-known and critically acclaimed author, I added two English-language sources to the article, there are more in google book search (I wonder why other !voters can't find them), he is also in Who's who in Asia and the Pacific Nations (1999; pg. 359) Kraxler (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 06:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While this author has been referenced tangentially by some sources, it looks like they're only somewhat notable. I pretty much agree with the arguments made by the nominator. Having a fan following and some commercial success isn't the same thing as getting major reliable source coverage. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American fuzzy lop (fuzzer)[edit]

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

One paper doesn't make this program pass WP:GNG. I couldn't find any other non-blog secondary sources. shoy (reactions) 20:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete as non notable prgram/software, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the program already improved the Free Software world significantly by affecting about 100 projects and leading to hundreds of bugfixes. At the moment there are 378 people subscribed to the "afl-users mailing list" and contains hundreds of posts. This means that this project made a big impact and has a healthy and active userbase. Also, I added some more references. Deetah (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsimic and Davey2010: I added more references that point to serious security bugs and proofs that those were found with the aid of afl-fuzz. Those bugs were found in FLOSS programs used by millions of people and if they were not found and reported, somebody else could find them in a different way and instead of leading to fixing them, those could be weaponized. I believe that afl-fuzz greatly contributed to the current state of information security. Deetah (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to expand the article beyond its current state of a very short stub. That might help, as it would demonstrate that the provided references contain enough relevant material. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsimic: I understand that the article would be removed tomorrow if the voting goes against it - could I get more time for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deetah (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, no discussions of this type are closed by bots, people instead read them and conclude the outcomes. Thus, if you're asking for more time, there are no reasons not to have it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deetah: You may also use this Black Hat presentation (see page 44) as a rather good reference, which also brings the notability up one notch. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsimic: Thank you! I included this in the article. Deetah (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great. Your next steps should be to add more content/wording to the article, and to convert already existing external links into references. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quite frankly, at the moment it fails to satisfy the notability requirements. I'd suggest that we add american fuzzy lop somewhere into the Fuzz testing article as an example, and revisit its status some time later. It's highly possible that it will become notable enough in the next few months, but that unfortunately isn't the case right now. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After a more detailed insight into the features, use and impact of the american fuzzy lop so far, I've changed my opinion. The article should be kept, and its current form is rather good. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to another article on a larger topic, such as Fuzz testing. There may be merit to keeping the history so it will be there if and when this topic meets WP:GNG. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting per author's request for additional time to improve the article Swarm ♠ 06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I added more references, including more serious CVE bugs, a Black Hat presentation and French infosec-related magazine and underlined the size of the community. Also, I expanded the article beyond its stubby version and added a screenshot. Deetah (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC) You only get to !vote once shoy (reactions) 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought that after relisting I should cast my vote again. Deetah (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Idea is to be encyclopedic and not social media, where censorship is more rampant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debasish Dey (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been significantly improved since this discussion was opened. Dozens of official security announcements (maybe more) by widely used projects (i.e. millions of users, or billions in the case of some like sqlite - which has integrated support for it the testing harness) with credit given to AFL for finding the vulnerabilities is a strong indication of notability. The information is certainly verifiable. At a minimum it's covered by an infosec magazine and lwn.net, which is a very reliable publication with strong editorial oversight rather than a tech blog. There are multiple academic papers analysing it or making use of it. 99.231.115.244 (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Current references seem rather specialized, and the text is really reaching a bit in places (census of the mailing list...?), but I would judge there's a borderline notability demonstration. Wouldn't say no to a merge with Fuzz testing though. -- Elmidae (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: actually, the post was there just to connect the CVEs to the author. On the other hand, the CVE pages already reference afl-fuzz in links inside the report, so perhaps this particular reference can just be removed. Deetah (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: Regarding the nature of references, we can expect only highly specialized ones simply because that's the nature of american fuzzy lop itself. It should be a while before it's covered in more popular media, but that shouldn't affect the fact that it's already notable enough to deserve a separate article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:00, 1 September 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) 18:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Blackshirts Party[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this meets our criteria for notability. I note it was incorporated:3/27/2014, [22] Doug Weller (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly does ABP not meet criteria for notability? It's the only italian fascist party in the United States.--OCCullens (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:OCCullens, you could have typed in to the Wikipedia search field WP:NOTABILITY That would take you to our main page and from there you want Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You should read that in detail, but the nutshell version is "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. I searched and could find nothing. Doug Weller (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see. The page will have to wait then.--OCCullens (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Ogress _smash! 04:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find absoultely no coverage in reliable sources. Only coverage comes on Facebook and weird fascist websites. AusLondonder (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I favor the lowest of possible barriers for inclusion for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections without regard to size or ideology, I remain unconvinced that INCOME OF $77 AND EXPENDITURES OF $72 in the first six months of this year are sufficient to confirm existence as an actual political party. Still, we should be very, very slow to delete this sort of material, since it is the sort of information that the public has the right to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. (That is, Ignore All Rules, if necessary...) Carrite (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Cannot find anything in the search engines which shows this group comes anywhere near close to notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:22, 1 September 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. Mkdw ^talk 01:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Melmer[edit]

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

This was a refunded BLProd, but I honestly can't see where this person ultimately passes notability guidelines. A search doesn't bring up any coverage for him and it appears that his role in the soap opera is so small that he isn't in the IMDb listing and nothing comes up in a search other than this article. Of the sources, none of them would show notability since I'm assuming that they're all primary. The first two are linking to specific news stories, but since he wrote for both publications I have to assume that these are referring to specific articles he wrote for both outlets. Amazon isn't usable as a source in any context (since it's a merchant source) and just listing CBC doesn't really show anything. (Although I think that this is a reference to the soap opera, which ran on CBC.) His books are all self-published through CreateSpace and while being self-published doesn't mean that someone is automatically non-notable, I don't see where he is one of these exceptions. (Which are admittedly rare.) I just don't see where he's notable enough for an article. Being active as a journalist or actor does not automatically make someone notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO... agree with nom, a non-notable person. JMHamo (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is written very much like an advertisement, and is extremely poorly sourced. The two newspaper citations listed under "references" are just publication name and date while failing to include the title of the article that's being cited, and aren't footnoting anything in the article but are just contextlessly listed — making it impossible for us to verify whether either paper actually published anything substantive about him, or merely namechecked his existence in passing. I just searched ProQuest's "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" database, further, and found that he generates exactly zero hits — not a good sign for a Canadian actor and writer. Zero hits on Newspapers.com either (or at least none that were about him, rather than some other unrelated person with the same name). A person does not get an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist — the article needs to be based on reliable source coverage which supports a claim of notability that passes one of our inclusion tests. But this satisfies neither part of that equation. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not notable as the article stands (or rather notability not demonstrated) and I can't find anything that would improve it significantly. There could be offline sources, or ones we all missed, but I tend to doubt it. One quibble, Tokyogirl79, there are cases where a link to amazon can be an acceptable source, but it would be a source of last resort at best. DES ^(talk) 21:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to argue against that, since I can't imagine any cases where it'd be appropriate. If it's for basic data, we can use WorldCat for that. If it's for the reviews (obviously not the reader reviews), we can't use those since we can't really verify how much pruning goes on with the reviews or if they're even a review. The publisher has quite a bit of control over the review section and I've seen them add a small snippet of a non-review article (like an interview or overview) as if it was a review. Sometimes there are interviews, but they usually contain information contained elsewhere. Even in situations where you have article content that covers activities on Amazon, usually that can be covered by news coverage about the content. (Like in Bend, Not Break.) Any of the exceptions to this are insanely rare, to the point where I'd probably consider it "lightening strike" type territory. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet the encyclopaedia standers Davidwiki12 (talk) 14:48, 31 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 Extraterrestrial_life#Planetary_habitability_in_the_Solar_System. Not deleted because WP:CHEAP (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life on Mercury[edit]

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

Existence of article is misleading because there is little serious speculation about life of Mercury. Originally, article was redirected to Mercury (planet), but restored without prejudice to AfD after discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Life on Mercury A2soup (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic of life on Mercury has been a part of fantasy and science fiction works for a long time, and you can even go back to mythology and legends from the time in which the planet was first discovered as well. There's many sources for that, just look at here for an example about Mercury-based science fiction. Now, of course, there's no little green men there now in reality, nor has there been. But that the article is badly written doesn't mean that it totally should be deleted. Wikipedia is crammed full of articles on notable fictional concepts: Goblins, Ghouls, Angels, Demons, Satyrs, Ghosts, Leprechauns ('In the hood, yo!'), and it goes on. That applies to astronomy-based things as well, like with Venus in fiction. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but would you recommend keep and merge to Mercury in fiction? A2soup (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is WP:SYNTHESIS of it's own sources and general hand-waving and open ended questions. One of the sources even says that "Mercury itself is unlikely to be habitable." The topic was sufficiently covered in all it's glorious depth, two sentences, in Mercury (planet). It has also been noted that the original creator seems to be on a crusade, against consensus, to introduce multiple WP:BARE articles in the form of "Life on X" for every astronomical body in the universe.--Savonneux (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might also point out that there was already a merge discussion for this article where it was closed as a merge to Mercury (planet), here is convo Talk:Life_on_Mercury--Savonneux (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The relevant info and references have already been merged to Mercury. It would forever be a stub. BatteryIncluded (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The one purported source for this article is a link to a light-weight article in Astrobiology magazine. That article, in turn, links to an academic article that is not actually about life on Mercury, but, instead, about life that might arise on planets that have an orbital resonance like Mercury. Mercury is held up as an example of a planet with such a resonance, thus providing evidence that, more generally, planets can have such a resonance. Mercury is not cited as an example of where life might arise, since habitability takes more than just a certain orbital resonance. Really, on controversial subjects, like "life on Mercury", we need to be more careful in citing sources. We need reliable sources and, yes, sources that say what we say they say. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extraterrestrial_life#Planetary_habitability_in_the_Solar_System, which already has brief entries about other solar system bodies. I'm not sure that section would stand close scrutiny either, but so long as it's there it's the obvious place for a redirect. Failing that, delete. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extraterrestrial_life#Planetary_habitability_in_the_Solar_System or delete. Like the others have said, I'm not sure that weasel words and vague statements are enough to support an article – especially when it can be summed up in two words: "Probably uninhabitable." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Savonneux. Double sharp (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

One editor wants to keep it while the rest want it deleted or merged/redirected. It was merged back in 17 August so it is time to delete it and close this case. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:00, 31 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 Monica the Medium. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 04:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Ten-Kate[edit]

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

No notability. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable actress; way too soon, if ever. Quis separabit? 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too soon to warrant her her own article outside that for the TV show she will appear on. - SecretName101 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monica Ten-Kate instead as the show aired yesterday so we'll see what happens from there. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - Way too soon atm. –Davey2010^Talk 18:26, 26 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 Penn State Nittany Lions football#Joe Paterno era (1966–2011). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State Nittany Lions football under Joe Paterno[edit]

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

This page was mainly created to contain the schedules for each of Penn State's seasons under Paterno. Now that separate articles have been created for each season (and this page edited to reflect that), it is now no more than an unnecessary, redundant repository of links and can safely go. Mizzou1993 (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice or redirect to the subsequent creation of an overview history of the Paterno years a la History of Michigan Wolverines football in the Yost era. Cbl62 (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Redirect is also an acceptable resolution. Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Penn State Nittany Lions football#Joe Paterno era (1966–2011). This is a plausible search term and that section gives the relevant information. By avoiding deletion, you also retain the history so there is a foundation to work with in case someone wants to create Cbl62's suggestion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Serves no purpose at the moment, but is a plausible search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term, per Tavix. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tavix: plausible search term. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I doubt that this is a plausible search term, but this article must be retained for attribution reasons, as many of the season articles it links to took content from this article. ~ Rob^Talk 10:04, 28 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Gurita[edit]

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

The sources don't stand up to scrutiny: auction page, blog post, cruft, dead link, job application, news brief.

Also, seriously? "His art works are immaterial, consisting of experiences and human networks embedded in real life, such as getting married in 2009 as his graduation art submission." - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity cruft, sub-CV level, embarrassingly sourced. Dahn (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: you're right; upon closer inspection he seems to fail both WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In concrete terms, which (if any) of the WP:ARTIST criteria do you believe this individual passes, and what indication do you have that he has been the subject of (per WP:BASIC) "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Pointing to a search result that yields a half-dozen snippets of probably unquotable text cannot substitute for actual, quotable coverage. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is actually one solid ref in the article: the one published in L'Express about his marriage project. I would not say he is a fake. A few of his projects are artistically interesting. The problem is that they rest upon practices that are in essence deceptive. For example, it seems that the famous French artist Daniel Buren is suing one of the article subject's projects, a rejuvenation/fake copy of the IHEAP school. See Artnews article.^[1] So while there might be minimal notability to his projects, I think that including and supporting them in WP is a confusing proposition for the regualr reader. Very diffcult to find good quality refs when the basis of the artistic practice is deception!New Media Theorist (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the search engines do not show anything which would qualify this artist under notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 2 September 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. slakr^\ talk / 08:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Omar (child detainee)[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E - one of the 201 detainees who were released after being held at Guantanamo The Dissident Aggressor 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the absence of a suitable merge. Article is RS though scanty, not among the more notable detainees, but adds to the overall picture. There is another Mohammed Omar, which makes searching more difficult.Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, also it's a violation of WP:BLP policy Kraxler (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kraxler, just curious, but what is being 'soap-boxed' and how does it violate BLP?Pincrete (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME: " For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" here there's no conviction, just accusations. The article gives the impression, with blockquote and all, that the guy escaped punishment by the Americans, but was guilty as hell nevertheless, "Judgment by Journalist". Also, notability seems to have been established by having been detained by the US government which falls under WP:BLP!E. Also the title is "child detainee". Come on, 16 years-old is not a child. Also, ref 4 gives a message "forbidden", and refs 1 and 2 and 5 to 9 are dead. That leaves us with a single source, so it also fails WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found nearly all the sources, though they are mostly from a single news source, I presume 'child det' is used to distinguish from his more notorious namesake. I didn't read the article as presuming guilt, more as presuming a rather foolish young man. 'Single event' would not necessarily apply to extended incarceration. I think it would be preferable if this article could merge, but there don't seem to be contenders. Thanks for the reply though. Pincrete (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incarceration (for whatever time) without a conviction violates BLPCRIME; describing a living person as a fool violates BLP in general. Kraxler (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Re: BLPCrime, nowhere does the article suggest the subject DID commit any crime. Many of these detainees are notable precisely because of being detained/transported around the world without any credible reason for believing they had committed any crime. Neither the article nor I refer to the subject as 'a fool', the expression I used was 'a rather foolish young man', which, in the context of an AfD, has nothing to do with BLP. Pincrete (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The blockquote conveys the idea that the boy/man was certainly guilty and told lousy stories. You said that the article makes the subject look like a foolish young man, and that is a violation of BLP. As to AfD, notability can IMO not be established just by being foolish, or by being mistaken for foolish. Kraxler (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLPcrime is a 'serious consideration', not a rule, and it is clearly intended to protect the 'innocent' not the 'jailers'. 15 year olds aren't generally deemed notable for saying something foolish, but neither are they usually incarcerated for nearly 5 years for doing so. The notability lies in being locked up half-way across the world, apparently for no better reason than his fairly implausible story for his presence 'away from home'. There are several hundred WP articles on Guantanamo detainees, this is one of the less complete ones, a very significant percent of detainees were released without charge, conviction or reason ever being offered for detention, does BLPCrime apply to all those articles? I think the 'stubby' nature of this article would be better merged with a suitable parent, but I see no good reason to delete. Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia is not the Amnesty International files, hence the WP:SOAPBOX. It's really a pity that the Bush administration trampled on the human rights in their futile attempt to show action against Terror, but the question is: Makes that this one particular person notable? IMO not under the present guidelines, lacking coverage, there's only a single source. Kraxler (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree that the number of sources is not great, searching is complicated by two other notable 'Mohammed Omar's' and many similar names. I was able to find this M Omar mentioned in a number of journals, but not able to read them, possibly they were mere lists. This primary source is his release document, published on nytimes site and elsewhere, which confirms much of the article content. I'm borderline as to whether notability is established, but disagree about BLP and soapbox, which is more a matter of style than content.Pincrete (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This piece is from 'Spiegel', scroll down to 'Jihad Is When a Person Travels to another Country'.Pincrete (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment might there be 'non-English' sources? Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searching was tedious, but when you weed out the others with the same name, there is not enough about this particular individual to meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough. There were other detainees too having stories covered by media. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 04:39, 3 September 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. Overall consensus is to keep

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Bucknall[edit]

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

The article scarcely asserts significance (although I declined a speedy deletion). The subject is recently deceased and doesn't appear to meet notability for biographies. Tóraí (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who tagged the article for speedy deletion. I didn't see anything I considered significant (there are so many awards out there, I don't really consider that to give notability to a stub). I say delete. Compassionate727 (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- Being a quantity surveyor is not a high profile role, at least not in the public eye. As such a firm with 3500 staff is probably quite large. However two universities have concluded that he is significant through the award of honorary doctorates. I certainly would not suggest that the holder of an MBE would be notable by that but OBE is higher and again points to notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The OBIT IN THE BIRMINGHAM MAIL indicates significance in his professional field and region. There are obits all over the place, each of which is a presumably reliable independently-published source. Carrite (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no personal connections with David Bucknall nor do I (or ever have been) employed by Bucknall Austin. I am however employed within the construction industry, and have worked with Bucknall Austin on various projects over the years. David was a well known and respected member of the construction industry within the UK, and probably oversees as well. I am familier with Wikipedia's Notability guidelines, but they are open to some interpretation I believe. My interpretation is that his OBE for services to the construction industry, honourary degrees, his various notable roles within the RICS, and local community and charitable work, all amount to easily meeting the Wikipedia notabilty crieria. The article could be greatly expanded to demonstrate this further. Pahazzard (talk) 13:29, 26 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Griffin (politician)[edit]

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

Article about a political hopeful and has received nothing more then routine coverage in regards to a failed bid for a seat and a hopeful run for national. Until they are elected they fail WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted above, there is barely any coverage of her in reliable sources. She was not notable before either of her candidacies; her run for MLA didn't generate enough coverage, and her run for MP has not (at least not yet). —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a candidate does not make the subject notable. If she wins, then she's notable and will certainly have an article like every other MP, but until that happens, article should be deleted. Cmr08 (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As always, an unelected candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just for the fact of being a candidate — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides being a candidate, then she does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until she wins the election. This makes no such claim, however, and in fact is a likely conflict of interest if you look at the creator's username. Delete without prejudice against recreation, after the polls close on October 19, if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unelected candidate. He is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Searches showed nothing to merit notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IDV Solutions[edit]

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

This article has been through quite a bit and has improved at times but I'm concerned that my searches found nothing additional and good sources, searches here, here, here and here. Although some may consider this notable, I'm not sure if the awards can fully save this. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no clear indication of importance and unclear article: the infobox says they do GIS; the lede paragraph of article says they do business intelligence & risk visualization, the programs they describe are a sort of hybrid. The awards are minor. The refs are not substantial. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and DGG. Searches did not turn up anything to meet the notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent sources. Refs are regurgitated press releases, minor awards, and incidental mentions in larger lists of software. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 21:57, 1 September 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 Jimfbleak under G11 (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Asael[edit]

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

For an article from November 2004, this sure has stayed promotional since then and my searches found nothing to suggest better and improvement. News and Books simply found mentions for photos and the next fruitful search was this (nothing significant though). SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrah's Ak-Chin Casino[edit]

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

This seems somewhat locally notable and some sources say this has "a big impact" locally and generates a lot of revenue (see this, this and this) from my searches here, here, here, here and here. Therefore, I nominated this to get comments and consensus. It has existed since 2006 but, unfortunately, has swinged back and forth between promotional material, which if the article is kept, will need to be taken of (some precautionary measures may be good for future promotional additions). SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the nominee has not even tried to make an argument for deletion. But just for fun, I did a NewsBank search for "harrah's and ak-chin", which returned 1,491 results spanning the last 23 years. Here are some highlights from the first 50 results, which I think will demonstrate that GNG is satisfied: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Toohool (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a substantial operation—I note that another $100 million expansion has just been announced [30]—and as a general proposition these kinds of casinos tend to get articles, and there are plenty of sources as Toohool says. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are tons of sources for the article, and per Toohool above, it seems like the nominator isn't even calling for its deletion. Just because an article is promotion-y is not a good enough reason for an article to be deleted if it is notable enough to exist. Nomader (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with what's stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:44, 25 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 Rhode Island Route 7. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Turnpike[edit]

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

Adequately covered in Rhode Island Route 5, Rhode Island Route 7, and Rhode Island Route 104. No new information has come out of this article. Westroopnerd (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~. Completely worthless article, much like all of this user's creations. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to set index between the Rhode Island Route 5, Rhode Island Route 7, and Rhode Island Route 104 articles, so people searching for the term will be directed to the right articles. Dough4872 02:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a set index and move on. The user has been indefinitely blocked or WP:CIR reasons, and if we can take non-bureaucratic shortcuts to deal with the aftermath of the messes left behind, that will be much easier on all concerned. In short: why AFD when other options are much faster? Imzadi 1979 → 22:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rhode Island Route 7 More than half of the route is RI 7. It is a town road in Mass. and its history can easily be discussed in RI 7. The full name of the road Providence and Douglass Turnpike already redirects appropriately. --Polaron | Talk 16:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Please do not convert this to a set index article. I don't see what RI 5 and RI 104 have to do with this road. They just happen to briefly become concurrent with RI 7 in North Smithfield. --Polaron | Talk 16:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rhode Island Route 7 per Polaron. (Changing my previous !vote.) I agree that RI 7 seems to be the primary topic here; creating a set index solely for noting any overlaps serves no encyclopedic purpose and sets a bad precedent. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:15, 29 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Herrera[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Wizardman 02:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No sources. Should not have been created. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Yankees10 17:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Parr[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a notable supercentarian. I can't see slick.org but I don't think it's a reliable source. The single source here called her the oldest American but according to the text here (unsourced but repeated here), she was never the oldest American. She was just the oldest person in Indiana and I don't think someone who was mistakenly the oldest American or was just the oldest person in each state (including historical ones) is sufficient for notability as its own article. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like a lovely woman. 166.170.50.131 (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.50.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Block evasion by known abusive IP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether or not she was a lovely woman is really far from the point here. Even if she were at some point the oldest person in the US, that is not in my eyes an accomplishment that makes somebody inherently notable. Notability aside though, there seems to be absolutely nothing interesting that we can tell about this woman, so at best, this could be an entry in some list of old people. --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Given that, in retrospect, she was not the oldest living American, I don't think she is sufficiently notable for her own article. However, a mini biography could be created at List of supercentenarians from the United States along with the others which exist. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There isn't enough here for a separate biography; the fact that she was thought to be the oldest American and that this was found to be untrue can be included as a footnote to her name in a list. Ca2james (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE discourages the creation of a permanent stub when alternatives exist. The relevant information is already included at List of supercentenarians from the United States. ~ Rob^Talk 02:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:N's requirement of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources. Canadian Paul 17:27, 1 September 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. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 BTS Live Trilogy Episode II: The Red Bullet[edit]

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

This article is really poor and Unnecessary,Sources do not show prominent article.most of The contents of this page,is available in the Bangtan Boys's page and information that is not notable enough to be included on a normal page.I believe this page should be removed.(Pikhmikh (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

modeled it after B.A.P Live On Earth 2014 Continent Tour, and the tour isnt done yet, you never know Tigress223^t@lk 01:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- If that page has not removed still, This does not mean that is notable (B.A.P). Did you know? If you are not completely familiar with the rule of Wikipedia.This page is useless in the past Similar pages with this page, such girl's generation 2014 tour and G-Dragon 1st World Tour,Has been removed from Wikipedia ,,However, this article is not valid.(Pikhmikh (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Cited sources demonstrate sufficient coverage to meet WP:NTOUR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment:According to:"Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources." I did not find still adequate and reliable resources on this article that Show The importance of article,the article has little refrence and text of the article, does not show The importance of the tour.Notability of this article by adding multiple sources prove to be.Thanks(Pikhmikh (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

From NTOUR...Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.

The cited sources clearly satisfy those criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry,have this article "coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms"? but I did not find this,,and is sources enough?I do not think helloasia and youtube are valid(Pikhmikh (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 25 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lund Calling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Listing again for deletion. Before the question was only whether the bands may be notable (that's not particularly clear if these bands are) but there's no evidence that the album itself is notable (Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, non-charting, the two blue-linked bands are struggling to be notable themselves Kraxler (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly does not meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:34, 1 September 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 CNU (singer) redirect to B1A4 and Gongchan keep. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CNU (singer)[edit]

(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)

They (CNU (singer) and Gongchan) has no notable work outside their group.mostly their activity is Guest appearances in variety show that no reason for their notability.Furthermore it has information that is un-sourced or not notable enough to be included on a normal artist page.I believe their page should be removed.(Pikhmikh (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Redirect for CNU (singer) and Weak Redirect for Gongchan to B1A4: CNU does NOT have any activities whatsoever outside of B1A4. Gongchan does have some activities but most are non-notable for a stand-alone article. Tibbydibby (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query Why have the rest of B1A4 not been included in this AfD? None of them seem to have done much outside of the band itself (see my !vote below for the exception). Primefac (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for CNU for the reasons stated above; no indication that he's known for anything outside of the group. Weak keep for Gongchan; of the five members, he's the only one that's MC'd a TV program (though it's still in filming and don't seem to be any references). I'm on the fence about this one, but my initial thoughts are to keep the page for now. Primefac (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:52, 25 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. Been up 3 weeks and I'm 90% sure if this got relisted it would only gain another Keep so see no point dragging this on any longer (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Muliloda Datumulok[edit]

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

No reliable sources included, virtually no in text citations, and it appears his highest political post was at the municipal level, thus failing WP:NPOL. mikeman67 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not just an ordinary politician but a Maranao sultan from the Confederation of Sultanates in Lanao, southern Philippines meets WP:NR.--RioHondo (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob the Squirrel[edit]

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

Non-notable comic strip; in fact it boasts on its website that it is "the best daily comic strip no one has ever heard of." That's kind of the definition of "not notable". This article has been unreferenced since 2007. In a search for references I found only a couple of passing mentions in stories about something else. MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reliable source that covers the cartoon in-depth is the Rome Sentinel [31], which also publishes the cartoon and is therefore not independent. Unless another source can be found, it fails WP:GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found two sources, neither of which are strong enough to warrant this series having an article at this point in time. The series does appear to be mildly popular in that it has a dedicated fan base, but none of this translated into enough coverage for it to pass notability guidelines as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sorry Bob...Vrac (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with what's stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:35, 26 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. Haven't closed an AFD as NC for well over a year!, Anyway been up 4 weeks and I honestly see no point relisting for the 4th time as lets be honest we're not gonna get another !vote now so will simply close as NC, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead File[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot see the notability of this. Plus, even if it is kept, it needs to be re-written as the language is rather informal and the style is certainly non-encyclopedic. The Traditionalist (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as before. That it needs to be rewritten is not a "plus" it's a totally different issue. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are all primary, no coverage in secondary sources, this is about internal proceedings of an organization, which is not of any interest to the broad public. Kraxler (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 25 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. (WP:NPASR). After three full relistings (per the timestamp of the nomination), no consensus has formed in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Pathfinder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still no evidence of notability. Previous proposal reached no consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I did last time, I will again note that this 100 year old camp [32] is located on its own island[33] in the middle of Source Lake in Ontario's Algonquin Provincial Park; whatever the particular notability of the camp, the island itself is apparently notable per WP:GEOLAND (as a named natural feature about which verifiable content is available). So even if the camp is not notable, some of the content here would then be appropriately repurposed for an article about the island. In the last AfD an editor argued that this is a claim of "inherited notability" but I don't agree: the point is that pursuant to Wikipedia's gazetteer function that means we should maintain content about this named geographical feature.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we have any reliable, independent sources for his the island is named? Google Maps gives it as "Pathfinder Island". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of newspaper sources using "Camp Pathfinder Island": [34][35]. But now that you point it out, I've checked again and find that there do appear to be more sources using "Pathfinder Island", including on the camp's own website. [36] Given this, I would be fine with using Pathfinder Island as the title for an article about the island. (Note that there is another "Pathfinder Island" on the Oswego River near Fulton, New York. [37][38]). --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 25 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaj van der Voort[edit]

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

My searches found nothing to suggest improvement with the best being here and IMDb only lists a few things but I'm hoping we can get some Dutch insight as both the English and Dutch information look the same (not very encyclopedic). Pinging interested user @Afasmit:. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant professional history for this young career beginner. Won one minor award. Ghits reveal no major in-depth, 3rd party reliable sources. Plenty of the usual self-populated sn sites and of course U-Tube. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He may become notable at some point, but being one of the 18 boys who played the young version of the title role (the lead roles were played by adults) for a long-running musical in the Netherlands is not yet enough. Afasmit (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above editors. Searches revealed nothing to show the notability of this individual. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:31, 1 September 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzheado (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption[edit]

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

No official sources confirm Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption is a legally recognized Church in the United States of America. This was a satirical joke on a TV show and has no place on a serious encyclopedia. Alvandria talk 10:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Puh-leeze. There are plenty of references in the article which confirm that the church is a real church, legally registered as a nonprofit in the state of Texas, in addition to it obviously being part of a joke. The satire does not undo the fact that the church is a real entity, accepting donations, passing them along to Doctors without borders. In addition to sources already in article, there are sources here and even tax lawyers are talking about the issue of the tax-exempt status of churches.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are RNS and TF, which isn't credible. There isn't any govermental proof it's a Church. Without confirmation, the page shouldn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvandria (talk • contribs) 13:29, August 25, 2015‎

"Govermental [sic] proof it's a Church" isn't required for notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? http://www.mediaite.com/tv/heres-how-successful-john-olivers-tax-exempt-church-has-been-so-far/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.91.194 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 August 2015‎

Speedy keep Whether the IRS recognizes it or not, more media outlets than I can count have covered what John Oliver has done. Here's WaPo, CBS News, and Forbes. This appears to be just as serious as Colbert Super PAC, and just as easily meets WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, an article being about a joke is not a reason to delete it. The subject here more than meets WP:GNG. If you believe a phrase in an article ("is a legally recognized church") to be inaccurate, go ahead and correct it, or discuss it on the talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely notable. Plenty of sources in article, even more talked about it, U.S. national debate ensued (at least from where I'm looking) - and more to come, I'm sure. Whether that addresses the call for deletion in regards to whether it is governmentally recognized or not, I'm not sure, but I think that reason for deletion is wrong anyway. The text may be wrong in regards to it being a legal church, but that can be fixed by noting as such, and the subject and article is in fact about the claim that it is a legal church. -- Katana (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is about something notable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to follow the general notability guidelines; looks to be about as notable as the Colbert Super Pac, which has an article dedicated to it as well. Green green greenred 19:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Should the article on Scientology have been removed before it was recognized as a church by the IRS? Of course not. The issue is notability, and OLoPE is notable. Xlation (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources. Pikolas (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Correspond to wikipedia's requirements, the sources are here, legal entity confirmed, needs to be developed but not deleted. Hypersite (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually more notable than many sects. --Article editor (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody who hasn't !voted here should probable SNOW close this. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 25 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.