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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin J. O'Connor[edit]

Martin J. O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be an entry for someone who never actually existed, and rather embarrassingly has been sitting on Wikipedia for several years. Angmering (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the article was true then this person would show up in the extensive material on the history of the BBC. But I can find no evidence of them. (Don't be tricked like I was originally by the Google Books result here. That's extracted from Wikipedia.) Tassedethe (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apparent hoax. No reliable sourcing to evidence existence, let alone notability. Creator was indefinitely blocked in 2012. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely bogus. I know enough of broadcasting history that I would know his name if he had been real. The name produces no responses on the BBC's Genome website, which decisively confirms his non-existence. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. No sources at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:43, 7 July 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hex Empires[edit]

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

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

WP:N, not a notable title. No reliable source available to prove notability AdrianGamer (talk) 05:29, 2 July 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) 00:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think it should be "Hex Empire" instead, based on the sources, but either way, the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 01:41, 5 July 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. Davewild (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colum McGuire[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a vice-president of a student organization, and resting almost entirely on sources which just glancingly namecheck his existence — only source #1 passes the "substantively about him" test. He would have to satisfy WP:GNG to make it over our inclusion rules, because the role itself does not entitle him to a notability freebie, but the sourcing that's been offered here fails to demonstrate that GNG is met. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the explanation given by the proposer. Subject of the article is mentioned by name in some good sources, but the coverage relates to him speaking in his NUS role, rather than providing support for him passing WP:GNG himself. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the nominator sums it up nicely. Article is pure promotion. Web searches turn up social media and university blogs/sites, news searches turn up more brief statements by the subject. Kraxler (talk) 17:41, 8 July 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 00:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Ifoh[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to established the. Subject WP:Notability. I found this source in the article but does not even mention the subject. I would have love to nominate it for speedy deletion per A7 but the subject of the article claimed to be a founder of Young African Leaders Forum (YALF) (considered for deletion as well). I will also consider the article creator for WP:SPI soon. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't find anything about him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is basically an advertisement for Ifoh, written in an adulatory tone, conveying very little verifiable information. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability. Almost speedy delete G11. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, Fails WP:G11. –323MU (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has not advanced a valid rationale for deletion. Discussion regarding the article in terms of getting opinions can occur on its talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Anderson (karate)[edit]

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

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

I believe the article to be notable. I want the opinions of others. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:30, 1 July 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 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You have nominated this article for deletion, yet you believe this person is notable. Please explain.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 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. Davewild (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Brazilian Journal of Chemistry[edit]

Southern Brazilian Journal of Chemistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

unclear notability Fgnievinski (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sources, no indication of notability. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 00:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 2 July 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 as blatant hoax — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Erasmus and St. Elmo's[edit]

St. Erasmus and St. Elmo's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references and unable to confirm it exists. It is categorized as fictional island and there is a note on the talk page that someone was unable to verify it. Text does not say where it is located making it even harder to attempt to confirm. so, unreferenced, orphaned, and with a long term 'insufficient context' tag. RJFJR (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - This is a hoax. There is a little island with this name in a Venice lagoon (Isola di Sant'Erasmo). It certainly was never colonized by the British nor did it have The Saint Erasmus Times. This has been around since 2006 and should go into the Hall of Shame. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The "fictional island" appears to be from a non-notable defunct pirate role-playing game, Shiver My Timber, according to this 2006 ad [1]. Perhaps this goes more to advertising than hoax, but it should go either way. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this game doesn't appear to have achieved any notoriety beyond livejournal fandom, and there's no mention of it being fictitious in the article, its inclusion in WP seems rather hoaxy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - Blatant bullshit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:06, 1 July 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. Davewild (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List Nina Dotti performance[edit]

List Nina Dotti performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a list of theatrical performance art performances, deceptively described in its body text as an episode list (as if this had been a television series), which was originally created relying entirely on a single primary source for referencing. Something like this would have to be based on reliable source coverage, not the performance artist's own website, to merit Wikipedia's attention. Some blog and press release sourcing has been added since, but the article still contains exactly zero genuinely reliable sources that would satisfy WP:GNG. And furthermore, even the main article about Nina Dotti itself is poorly referenced, and tilted noticeably in the direction of a public relations advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article — so her basic notability hasn't been properly established, let alone the separate notability of every individual performance she ever gave. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Bearcat; there isn't anything to show that this is any more than a list of performances by a barely-notable artist. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; even for clearly notable theatre actors we don't maintain lists of performances. There's no indication this list serves any useful purpose or meets the standards of WP:LISTN. Huon (talk) 17:23, 3 July 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. Davewild (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Hall[edit]

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

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

This appears to be a biography of someone completely different to the page title. It also has no references whatsoever and has very little content. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 16:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTY. As the article has been updated to read, Hall has signed a professional contract with Plymouth Argyle. However, he has not played for them yet, and it's not clear if he'll play for the first-team squad immediately, or if he'll play further ball at the academy level (or on loan to a lower-level team). At any rate, until he has a fully-professional cap, he's not notable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree, just the fact that he's been signed does not make him notable. But if we delete this one, shouldn't we delete the almost identical article on Louis Rooney, another just-signed player? ubiquity (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak

Stuart Matthew[edit]

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

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

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))

No indication of notability - having 100+ subscribers is pathetic! Launchballer 14:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nonentity I would have speedied if it hadn't been AFDed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try speedying it anyway.--Launchballer 07:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A vanity article, obviously coming nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements. I agree it could have been speedily deleted, but since it is here, and since it has already been twice deleted under a different title, we may as well let this discussion take its course to settle the matter once and for all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Undeletion This article is useful for Stuart Matthew's fans, I agree that this is under satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements.The article is also mentioned in few other article and Stuart Matthew is enough famous to be discussed about. So, I think it should not be deleted. "MarshallDSJ" (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)— MarshallDSJ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MarshallDSJ is now blocked as a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of JackWinslow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Undeletion This should not be deleted at all.Firstly, I also thought that it should be deleted but when I went through that and links provided in the article was under satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements. I'm against of the deletion of this. "WikiLoverTeam" (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)— WikiLoverTeam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WikiLoverTeam is now blocked as a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of JackWinslow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Undeletion Useful Article "JackWinslow" (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)— JackWinslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JackWinslow (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)— JackWinslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment Almost certainly sockpuppets here, I've started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JackWinslow‎. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The three accounts that !voted "Undeletion" are  Technically indistinguishable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's clearly no evidence of notability for this amateur YouTube singer. Mr Potto (talk) 13:51, 3 July 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: This is more suitable for Wiktionary, if in fact it would survive there; I will create a wiktionary entry for it and see. Tornado family is the closest I could find of terms in Wikipedia, and that has a loose definition where the tightly clustered members could be referred to as "sandwiches" but might contain more than two cyclones; so this is really a colloquial term used for media attention capture. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone sandwich[edit]

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

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

Non-notable neologism. This is what Wikipedia is not. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Cyclone Lam or Cyclone Marcia. I don't think this qualifies as a neologism. It is more like a metaphor, or one instance of a common meaning of "sandwich", which one dictionary defines as "something resembling or suggesting a sandwich... a plywood sandwich". If it was a neologism, to get its own article it would need secondary sources discussing the term itself, as opposed to simply using it. But it does seem to have been used fairly often in news reports about the 2015 cyclones in Australia, so perhaps the newspaper reference could be merged to one of those. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ____ sandwich is just a popular idiom to describe x between two y. Does not look to pass WP:NEO. If it was coined and used to refer to particular historic cyclones, no opposition to mentioning it there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - if there is anything not in the main article referenced above, take new info from this article and put it in the article that exists on this topic.

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass WP:NEO. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 23:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a neologism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 9 July 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. Davewild (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery[edit]

International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable professional organisation. Fails WP:ORG - third party sources do not establish notability. ukexpat (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article cites 9 sources. 3 of them are press releases. 3 of them are from their own website. 2 of them are text books published by them. 1 source is the website of a similar organization bragging that it offers the only certification recognized by them. I did an (admittedly brief and superficial) search for independent sources and did not find any. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was able to find two medical articles that mention the society, but one is just an update of the other:

Dermatol Surg. 2009 Mar;35(3):425-7; discussion 427-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2008.01059.x. Core competencies for hair restoration surgeons recommended by the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery. Puig CJ1, Beehner ML, Cotterill PC, Elliott VW, Haber RS, Harris JA, Martinick JH, Niedbalski RP, Rose P, Rousso DE, Shapiro RL.

Dermatol Surg. 2006 Jan;32(1):86-9, discussion 89-90. Core curriculum for hair restoration surgery, recommended by the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS). Puig CJ1, Epstein ES, Epstein JS, Farjo BK, Kabaker SS, Leonard RT Jr, Mangubat EA, Ross M, Rousso DE, Shiell RC, Stough DB, Straub PM, Unger WP; International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery.

LaMona (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the two sources I mention above as textbooks published by them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are journal articles, not textbooks. However, they aren't third-party sources, since this is information provided by ISHRS itself. I do find occasional mentions, but the literature is generally behind paywalls. I don't find enough to keep the article. Delete LaMona (talk) 15:00, 3 July 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. —SpacemanSpiff 20:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naaz Joshi[edit]

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

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

Tagged for notability concerns. This seems to be a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not the news. Most of the sources provided do not provide significant coverage and use exactly the same wording. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply being on the cover of a magazine is not a claim of notability that satisfies a Wikipedia inclusion criterion in and of itself. She might potentially qualify for an article on the basis of whatever achievement made her a person that the magazine would want to feature on its cover — but this article as written just rests her notability on the magazine cover itself, and doesn't even begin to suggest what the "why she made the cover" part of the story would be. And even the sources are all just blurbs which just describe her as a "popular transgender", without actually including any nouns to suggest what she's popular for. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually write and source a substantive article which actually makes a substantive claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BLP1E, and most of the sources are just copies of each other. WP:NOTNEWS as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As pointed out above, it's a clear case of WP:BLP1E, backed by essentially just one source. Favonian (talk) 11:41, 8 July 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. Davewild (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supermodel Africa[edit]

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

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

Too soon, not notable. Article for Tare Munzara is also suspicious. Fuddle (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, way too soon. Article even has "soon to be aired in 2015" Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Active Network, LLC. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPICO Sports[edit]

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

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

I'm not sure this company has received enough good third-party coverage to establish notability. My searches here, here, here and here found nothing outstandingly significant and notable. As an alternative to deletion, this can be moved to Active Network LLC, the now parent company since February. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources have been added to support notability. Andystarnes (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete clearly fails WP:CORP, through lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Active Network, LLC. Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 9 July 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farleon[edit]

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

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

My searches found no good coverage to suggest this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Number 1 ranked Bollywood Actor of 2014[edit]

List of Number 1 ranked Bollywood Actor of 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP: UNDUE coverage of one newspaper's ratings Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This and the other three, they should all have been combined to a single nomination. The Times Celebex ratings have received no traction except in in-house publications of the ToI group and some fansites. Nothing RS except their own coverage of this. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, it is true that one news paper is publishing the ratings, but it has been calculated on a month-to-month basis and comes from 60+ publications, 250+ TV channels, 10000+ cinema halls and millions of users across the Internet, making it one of the most scientific and comprehensive celebrity ranking system, so please keep the page. So it is eligible as a perfect resource for star ratings. Please check the adequate references added and please remove the deletion nomination. Rajeshbieee (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be all well, but the fact is no one has deemed it worthy of commenting on, and our policies require at least a grain of notability, and in this case there's none, references within the article are nothing more than a regurgitation by the same publishing house. —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. It does look like sources justify the Times Celebex ranking in general being notable, but there's no reason to spin off into separate articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary CONTENTFORK from Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating, no stand-alone article warranted. Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Number 1 ranked Bollywood Actress of 2014[edit]

List of Number 1 ranked Bollywood Actress of 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP: UNDUE coverage of one newspaper's ratings Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, it is true that one news paper is publishing the ratings, but it has been calculated on a month-to-month basis and comes from 60+ publications, 250+ TV channels, 10000+ cinema halls and millions of users across the Internet, making it one of the most scientific and comprehensive celebrity ranking system, so please keep the page.Rajeshbieee (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This and the other three, they should all have been combined to a single nomination. The Times Celebex ratings have received no traction except in in-house publications of the ToI group and some fansites. Nothing RS except their own coverage of this. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please check the adequate references added and please remove the deletion nomination.Rajeshbieee (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck your keep, please don't !vote multiple times, just state/clarify your position or address the comments. Back to your points, there is no reference to this, except within their own websites, no one else has found it worthy to comment on this ranking. In addition, even the title of this page is wrong, this is a Times Celebex ranking, not a list of numer 1 anyway. —SpacemanSpiff 04:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. It does look like sources justify the Times Celebex ranking in general being notable, but I see no reason they can't be covered together. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating no stand-alone article warranted. Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of number 1 ranked Bollywood actors of 2013[edit]

List of number 1 ranked Bollywood actors of 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP: UNDUE coverage of one newspaper's ratings Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This and the other three, they should all have been combined to a single nomination. The Times Celebex ratings have received no traction except in in-house publications of the ToI group and some fansites. Nothing RS except their own coverage of this. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. It does look like sources justify the Times Celebex ranking in general being notable, but I see no reason they can't be covered together. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary CONTENTFORK from Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating, no stand-alone article warranted. Kraxler (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 9 July 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EpicFiveTV[edit]

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

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

Page fails the notability of living persons' biographies. Contains one source, which alone does not establish article's notability. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 13:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Though I am a big EpicFiveTV fan, it definitely fails notability issues. We don't need an article about every person on YouTube. Rayukk (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He's famous and notable on YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.224.115 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to PNC Bank. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Wallet[edit]

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

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

The entire article only consists of a few sentences, and largely hasn't been updated in years. The topic isn't notable enough to warrant its own article. Dnywlsh (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not, as I expected, the general concept, but a specific app. Probably if we have a more general article somewhere we should redirect to it, especially given that between phone transactions and bitcoin it's an area that is hotting up, while the current subject of this article seems to have been left behind. Artw (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw: - Maybe a blurb could be added to the main PNC article. Even so, Virtual Wallet is more than just an app, it's a combination checking/savings account that PNC offers. I don't think it needs its own article, though, since it's just one of many accounts that the bank offers. Dnywlsh (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If this can't be kept, it's better mentioned at PNC Bank. My searches found several results here, here, here and here but it may essentially be best known for PNC. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: - I just don't believe that it's notable enough to warrant it's own page. Maybe a sentence or two in the PNC article, if that, since it's really just one of the many accounts that they offer. Dnywlsh (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge existing content to PNC Bank and then Redirect to Mobile payment on the strength of The Wallet Wars: The Battle Rages Over Virtual Wallet Technology ("If you aren’t familiar with virtual wallets, a.k.a. mobile payments, the basics are quite simple."). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to PNC Bank. Otherwise non-notable app used by one bank. Kraxler (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to PNC Bank. An app has to be more prominent to warrant its own article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 9 July 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) 17:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Baptiste Tournassoud[edit]

Jean-Baptiste Tournassoud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm hampered by my lack of French, but I was unable to verify his WP:NOTABILITY. This has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully, we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure - The best my searches (News, Books, Newspapers Archive, highbeam and thefreelibrary) was a few results at Books. It's imaginable that better sources may be French, archived and offline. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, please. Yes, this is a dismal non-article with a sorry history (starting with plagiarism). But unlike the celeb, wedding and other photographers who infest Wikipedia, this bloke is notable. Exhibit A, a book consisting of 150 plates from his collection, published in 1920 (when photobook titles came out at perhaps one hundredth the rate they come out today) in a trilingual edition and with a preface by Marshal Pétain himself; exhibit B, a booklet accompanying an exhibition of his work held at Musée Nicéphore-Niépce thirty years after his death; exhibit C, a book devoted to his work, presumably accompanying an exhibition held at some Ain departmental museum (perhaps subsequently renamed, but presumably one of these) forty years after his death. Keep. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Add to Hoary's sources a passing mention here (fr). That person was apparently not a professional photographer, but an army officer with a strong passion for photography, and he was affected to the propaganda services of WW1 because of that (Service Photographique et Cinématographique de Guerre - Photography and Filming Service for War). Note, however, that this section drifted towards art for art as opposed to propaganda.

While I think the coverage would be enough for a random photographer, the publication of his works in 1920 was most likely helped by the army or government as a patriotic stunt ("exhibit A"). There have been exhibitions of his work in minor museums but that would be on the verge of notability (especially considering the kickstart he got due to war). Friend of the Lumière brothers, but notability is not inherited. Tigraan (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. Yes, I'm sure that the 1920 publication was to a considerable degree a patriotic stunt, but Tournassoud was the person chosen for it. You (Tigraan) suggest that Musée Nicéphore-Niépce is a minor museum. Of course it's no Orsay or Pompidou, and one person's major can be another's minor; still, its website suggests that it's not negligible. (And if I were lucky enough to be near Chalon-sur-Saône, I'd want to pay it a visit.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected about the museum being "minor". Nonetheless it is devoted to the history of photography, not as photography as an art, so I am not convinced it grants much notability on "artistic" grounds (e.g. WP:NARTIST #4b/c/d).

On the other hand, the museum that made this is probably that one (it must be in Bourg en Bresse and there are not that many options). While smaller than the Nicéphore-Niépce, it is an art museum, so I think that is a better claim to artistic notability. The problem is that the sourcing is uncertain. Tigraan (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes present in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York Pathological Society[edit]

New York Pathological Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It exists and is long-standing, but I could not find enough to verify that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure - Considering this is an organization from 1844, oftentimes it can be found notable if archived and offline sources can be found. The best my searches found was a few Books, Newspapers Archive and one mention. @DGG: Considering you're in New York, would you like to comment? SwisterTwister talk 18:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep almost certainly a notable historical society. Third party sources are needed, but they should be available--early US medical societies have a substantial secondary literature. The first part, of course is a copypaste, but not copyvio since it's old enough to be securely PD-US,. It is not however acceptable style to use a direct quotation of that sort for the major part of an article--the place for such material is Wikisource. It therefore needs to be rewritten.And so information about the society since 1876 needs to be added. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite per DGG's rationale, and also given the wide range of references to its journal and meetings that can be seen in a GScholar search, indicating the actual significance of the organization. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, per above - seems like a plausible way of improving the article, someone would have to actually do it though. Artw (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing nomination per all the excellent comments above. Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 1 July 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 Soft delete. Article may be recreated by any administrator upon request. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Matrige[edit]

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

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

He seems to have had some success, but I couldn't verify that he meets WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. French article also seems of dubious notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the original page was created without header (subst in step II missing), I added ((subst:AFD2)) and used the initial nomination statement to fix the page. GermanJoe (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 June 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. Daniel (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Barrott[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability. Two of the references Chubbles added when they de-prodded the article don't even mention Barrot; the blurb on AllMusic is the only one that provides any detail at all. That's not enough to write an encyclopedia article about Barrott. Huon (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Move to Future Loop Foundation. I don't know why the article is located at this title; the musician is better known by his DJ handle than his real name. I believe the nominator's confusion over the lack of coverage is due to there being comparatively little available in musical sources under the name "Mark Barrott". (Also, this is not a shared account, for the record.) Chubbles (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough indepth sources to justify keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article now includes an Allmusic bio and an Exclaim! review (both international press), as well as two reviews from UK outlets, and a Pitchfork Media longform about Ibiza music which includes an entire section about Barrott. This, particularly with the last one, ordinarily would hurdle the sourcing/exposure requirements for bands, based on past precedent. The musician meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources now included in the article show that Barrott meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC and the WP:GNG. I also agree that the proper title for the article should be Future Loop Foundation, per WP:UCRN. — sparklism ^hey! 06:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO (those who say it passes should add which numbered section applies here), only trivial mentions, and reviews in music fanzines and promotional outlets. One mention in Allmusic does not make notability. Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It passes bullet 1. Sites like Exclaim!, The Skinny, and MusicOMH are not fanzines nor promotional outlets; they're third-party, independent music review sites. Furthermore, he's afforded several paragraphs in the Pitchfork Media article, which is, at this point, the premiere American indie-rock publisher. This !vote seems to discount a lot of what's present in the current version. Chubbles (talk) 17:36, 9 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariel Pamintuan[edit]

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

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

Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Probable autobiography of a non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: not that bad. 333-blue 23:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Article says that Pamintuan "is currently a talent of GMA Network and GMA Artist Center". The four sources currently cited in the article [2], [3], [4] and [5] are all pages belonging to GMA Network.com which makes them primary sources. WP:GNG states that sources for establishing notability should be "secondary" and "independent of the subject" which is clearly not the case at this time. Since it's possible such sources may exist, I am going to wait and see if better sources can be found before deciding my !Vote. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - the sourcing is not great, but she appears to have had plenty of supporting roles. The Philippines' media focuses mostly on the big name "Idols" (stars), and other than interviews, their media does not carry a lot of what we'd see as "stories" about lesser-known actors. Bearian (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - anything started from Beautiful Strangers our shows from GMA 7 since was an actress seen the research from person with this newspapers our new Kapuso stars, even Pamintuan was chance she is idol. Oripaypaykim (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaghayegh Bakhtiari[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability, no third-party sources, none found via Google News in either English or Farsi. Huon (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Deleteadditional source added, the links that shows her thesis for master degree from University of Art , indication of her education, reviews and article about concerts that was done by National orchestra with her name mentioned as a Tar player, supporting the fact that she was member of National orchestra. Reviews and article about concert and performance that mentioning her as Tar player, supporting her continues collaboration with other bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paryaparya (talk • contribs) 11:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added another link in regards to her performance as a tar player with Mehrbanoo band in European tour. iranianmusic (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've reviewed the sources added since the listing at AFD and I don't think they assist in any way towards reaching WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Her own thesis is not independent, and the articles which simply list her as a member of a band are not in-depth coverage about her to establish notability. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources show they exist, but no depth of coverage. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 3rd party link was added conforming the information provided in this article, the 3rd party link specifically covers the musician in the article 5 July 2015 (UTC)iranianmusic (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Paryaparya: You may only vote once, stop adding additional votes. You're allowed to continue discussing, but stop voting again. For one thing, it's a discussion and not a vote. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete Additional sources have been added information about her as a musician and her biography by other websites that specifically talk about Iranian Musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.138.106 (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Probably the article creator logged out. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry I didn't know the format, after the feedback from members I have been adding additional references to address the concerns and after positing those additional references left notes here so people could get to see that since the original article have been published I have many references and possibly change their stands or give me additional input. So you see, my intention hasn't been voting since I thought this was a discussion format. thanks again for your attention. iranianmusic (talk) 18:20, 6 July 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 Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 3). Consensus that the article does not meet the notability guidelines, but a reasonable redirect has been suggested. Davewild (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiana Guyon[edit]

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

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and the notability guidelines for models. Merely a contestant on Asia's Next Top Model, did not win. No other possible claims to notability. PROD declined without explanation by the article creator. Safiel (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiana is a thai model auditioned at Asia's Next Top Model cycle 3. She finished the 13th place at the competition.MarkHerson (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tom - I can't find any evidence of notability either so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 3). No independent notability, but a plausible search term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Narutolovehinata, sounds reasonable. Mabalu (talk) 10:10, 6 July 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) 17:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nutan Thakur[edit]

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

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

Not a notable personality. Seems to be a promotional page. Soham321 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the content doesn't look promotional at all, also there are a couple more refs given on the talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that's because i removed most of the promotional content which was present together with multiple dead links and a link to a chinese website. Her sole claim to fame now is that she is a chronic litigant in the courts. Soham321 (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this person has definite and wide contributions to the society through her multiple works. It seems this man under the garb soham321 is having some personal agenda against this woman of true respect and presence in the State of Uttar Pradesh as one of the most well-known and respected activists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronicleboy (talk • contribs) 07:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — Chronicleboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep (for now at least). This is clearly not a nomination made in good faith and as such it does not deserve to be taken seriously. A look at the article history reveals that the nominator's contributions consist of first adding a section called "Chronic litigant" and then removing all other content. --Hegvald (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I protest about the accusation of bad faith. I went about removing what i thought was promotional content--anyone who takes a look at the article history starting from when i started working on it--can see that i was removing material that was sourced to dead links or links to unreliable and unauthoritative websites stating that she is in the process of writing some book (one book was about how her husband was unfairly suspended from his job) . One piece of material was sourced to a website in chinese language. Ultimately, when i started removing what i thought was unreliable material from her biography i found there was nothing left. I remembered this lady from following Indian news because she had been described as a chronic litigant by the higher courts in India and they have penalized her for filing a huge number of frivolous public interest cases by stating that henceforth she has to deposit money in the courts before filing a case and if the court is convinced that this is not a frivolous case then the security deposit will be returned to her. And so i added this section myself. But i did not think this person deserves a wikipedia page because she does not seem to be a notable person--certainly nowhere near as notable as the journalist Bhupendra Chaubey whose wikipedia page has now been created twice (once by me) but deleted both times. One can disagree about my assessment of Nutan Thakur, and i will bow to consensus, without the bad faith accusations. Soham321 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article history shows that you began by adding the paragraph that you originally headed "Chronic litigant", and then proceeded to remove everything else, leaving in place only your own section, which on its own clearly violates WP:BLP. --Hegvald (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, i was writing from memory. I added the new section and then proceeded to remove material which i found was sourced to dead links, to a website in chinese language, and to what i considered unreliable and unauthoritative sources. Maybe what i did was not right, but if that is so it can be easily rectified; this stilll does not give you the right to make accusations of bad faith. Soham321 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- it does seem like a possibly borderline case but I did some googling and found quite a few posts on reliable Indian news sites (on at least three different topics/issues related to this person, so it's not a "known for one event" case). Apparently she was a member of the Aam Aadmi Party and it was a big deal when she resigned. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) (I have edited the article recently and added a couple new references but that's not the full extent of the sources I found, there are plenty more.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly move. The case is notable as it satisfies GNG, and as a decision of a High Court and then the Supreme Court, it also satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, because decisions of the Allahabad High Court are binding, and decisions of the Supreme Court, where this case ended, are even more strongly binding, as provided by article 141 of the Constitution: [6]. We might wish to re-purpose this to an article on the case. James500 (talk) 13:15, 5 July 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. Minimal participation in the AfD, but the only keep argument doesn't actually present any sources to establish notability, so calling this a soft delete. If anybody wants to work on this to improve it, ping me and I'll be happy to recover the current text and move it to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winged word[edit]

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

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

I question whether the concept of a "winged word" has any real notability. Its supposed current meaning, of a well-known phrase that has literary origins, seems to come from the fact that Georg Büchmann gave the name Geflügelte Worte ("Winged Words") to his 1864 book of quotations. Then, according to the article, Thomas Carlyle used the phrase similarly in an essay. Has anyone else ever referred to "winged words" in this way? Not to my knowledge, and the article doesn't say. The article consists mostly of a list of phrases; no evidence is presented that any of them have specifically been described as a "winged word".

One other option besides deletion would be to rename this article to something like "List of phrases with literary origins", although I don't know the benefit of such an article.

There's also the matter that, as the article currently stands, I think many or most of the entries in the list fail the basic definition, by either not having literary origins ("Can't see the forest for the trees"), not being a commonly-used phrase ("Ignorabimus"), or both ("You forgot Poland"). Which is ironic, given the large number of real phrases that have come from literature. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not a neologism, but not an attested term. This is an idiosyncratic usage. Carlyle's usage doesn't appear to be along these lines, and the concept supposedly described is allusion or just quotation. I try to keep the milk of human kindness and remember that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, but some are lost in the maze of schools/ And come out coxcombs Nature meant for fools. The article is about a particular German language adaptation of a Homeric image (which was also found in Irish literature). Hithladaeus (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I fail to understand the rationale. Is it "I've not heard of this, so sourcing from Thomas Carlyle is wrong"? We (as usual) have topic, title and article content. The nominator seems to have no quibble with the topic or even the content and the expression of the title is the more minor of the three. So why delete all of them, just on that basis? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a quibble with the topic: it doesn't seem to be notable. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the topic of phrases which originated in literature or public speech and have become widely used popular expressions ("have created wings") is certainly an encyclopedic subject and is very much talked about in philological circles. There must be hundreds of references to something like that. But, it is uncertain whether this subject is correctly termed "Winged word" or "Winged words" (as the German "Geflügelte Worte" is plural). Also, the current list presented in the article is an indiscrimunate mixture of such "winged words", idiomatic expressions of uncertain or known different origin, and dictionary entries without any "wings". There are different ways to handle the situation: Either userfy/move to draft and rework the article, agree on the proper name and then move back to main space; or delete per WP:TNT and wait for somebody to write an article on the subject in proper form; or relist this AfD discussion and start working on solve the problems of the article within a week. Pick one. Kraxler (talk) 18:08, 9 July 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. Whether to keep or redirect, that is.  Sandstein  11:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rican National Socialist Party[edit]

Costa Rican National Socialist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previously tagged with PROD. PROD was removed. The article is completely unsourced and has been tagged as such for close to six months w/o improvement. This was less a political party than a local overseas chapter of the Nazi Party with less than 100 members. There is no claim of any notable activity on their part. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. The article currently fails both WP:GNG and WP:V. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Neo-Nazism#Costa Rica where it is mentioned as my searches (News, Books, highbeam, thefreelibrary and Newspapers Archive) found nothing to suggest solid notability aside from one Books link. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant Redirect? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The !vote above comes across like a merge rationale to me, which is what moving content typically entails. Pinging @SwisterTwister: for clarification. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed on principal to a merge. However the material needs to be sourced which at present it is not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about a redirect actually since this is currently mentioned at that article. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I am fine with a redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a simple check of the Spanish article shows it is of sufficient length, is sourced and the real name of the party was Partido Nazi de Costa Rica (Nazi Party of Costa Rica).[7] —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see only a passing reference to the subject in the linked article. Even assuming the linked site is RS it certainly does not meet the standards requiring in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources in GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article is to reference that is the actual name, which is what should be used to do a search for sources. Additionally, the article mentions that all the members were arrested and put in concentration camps, which is notable even though they were not a political party that ran in elections. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the policy of Ignore All Rules. I favor the inclusion of articles on all political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders without regard to size or ideology. This is the sort of material that readers have reason to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any political party would be inherently notable, especially (but not necessarily) if they at least once got on the ballot. The problem here is that this "party" was never formally organized, it was a group of (at their peak) 66 Nazi sympathizer who assembled at the German Club in San José, and comprised mostly German and Italian expatriots or immigrants (with questionable right to vote). They were indeed perceived as a nuisance (according to the only source presented) but IMO can not be perceived as a political party. Kraxler (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Carrite. For every pokemon, third-rate footballer, or dubious TV show article, we should have ten articles on obscure political parties. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Based on a number of similar AfDs that I have participated in over the years. I believe the community has tended to extend presumptive notability to political parties, including small or fringe parties, provided they actually got on the ballot. Articles about micro parties that never gained ballot access have generally been deleted unless they satisfied one or more of the criteria in GNG. This party does not appear to meet GNG and there is no evidence they ever got on the ballot. While I respect the right to invoke IAR in exceptional cases, and have done so my self a couple of times, I believe that such should be done with extreme care. My approach to IAR is, with apologies to one of our former presidents, that it should be safe, legal and rare. The two IAR !votes above seem to be less about an unusual topic that is in need of a one off exception than an attempt to nullify GNG and grant blanket notability to an entire subject genre. I believe very strongly that if this were proposed as a change to the notability guidelines it would fail, probably badly. And again, based on previous experience on AfD, I do not believe that the community has shown any inclination to grant across the board notability to every micro-political party that ever existed. Thus, with regret, I must disagree with the two IAR Keep !votes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and move relevant information to Neo-Nazism#Costa Rica where the party is mentioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed on principle to a merge. The problem is that 90+% of the article is completely unsourced. So at this point I am not sure what can actually be moved. Barring a dramatic improvement in sourcing, I think a redirect, as discussed above, makes more sense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:00, 9 July 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. Davewild (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouter Abts[edit]

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

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

Delete: as non-notable artist. Quis separabit? 21:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He's mentioned in several reference books, as listedin the Dutch article[8], and another here[9]. However, he seems to be mainly known as teacher to Adriaen de Bie rather than as a painter. I can't find evidence of his works being in major Dutch museums, but maybe others can search elsewhere. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's not a very important artist, and as is typical for Renaissance artists not a lot is known about his life, but he is included in reference books and databases on Netherlandish painting. The RDK Netherlands Institute for Art History website has a brief bibliography.[10] Therefore in the interests of creating a reference work that matches other encyclopedias, we should have what information is available on him. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 24 June 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. Davewild (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

El Rodeo Mexican Restaurant[edit]

El Rodeo Mexican Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing particularly notable about this with my searches finding results here (News) here (News Archive], here (Books, very few results) and here (Highbeam), some of the same results) In 2013, it seems it started moving into Maine but there's nothing outstandingly notable about this and even an article I saved from AfD Hoss's Steak and Sea House (also Pennsylvania-based) had more attention than this. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no good target. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This chain, based on the article has only 8 locations, and is local to a portion of Pennsylvania. I could find no coverage about this chain. Confounding the search is that there are other restaurants which apparently are not part of this chain which also go by the name "El Rodeo". -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 22 June 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. Davewild (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkarsh Kulshrestha[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Autobiography of a young actor who has had minor parts in a couple of TV series - he clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR, and so it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. I have not been able to find sources that would meet WP:GNG, and the only source in the article just barely passes as a source and does not show any notability. bonadea contributions talk 11:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This was BLPPRODed and a source (albeit not the best source) was provided but the PROD was removed and could/should have been deleted by this as my first searches instantly found nothing good and there's not even an IMDb. It'd be nice if Wiki included every single actor but this looks a like personal webpage and there's not much foreseeable improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure but leaning toward Weak Delete. This is an autobiography, which is a violation of policy per Conflict of Interest. However, the auto-bio tag is less than a month old, and so we should give editors some time to improve it. However, if changes are made by the end of the month (or sooner), I would keep the article. Unfortunetly, given the current state of the article, I doubt the issues will be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comprehensively fails to pass any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). A one-year-old career consisting of alleged bit parts in two television shows, for which there is no available verification. I could find nothing about this person except self-authored social media sites. Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 2 July 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 11:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalazist[edit]

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

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

Non-English neologism, eight Google results for the Anglicised version, three for the Persian. No working sources provided. Article creator has been adding "www.kalazist.ir is a practical example of this new word" so this is most likely just oblique spam. McGeddon (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete simply because there's nothing to suggest possible improvement and my searches instantly found nothing with this particularly finding nothing good and only foreign websites (that I'm even wary of clicking). SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - even if this were a real word, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another poor quality dictionary definition/neologism. WP:NOTDICT. --Michig (talk) 13:57, 4 July 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rika Sato[edit]

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

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

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

Delete: as non-notable model, aka gravure icon. Quis separabit? 13:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just want her to have an English Wikipedia page along with other Super Sentai heroines, I will improve this article sometime Cris Balboa 22:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: She played Eri / Gosei Pink in Tensou Sentai Goseiger, she is known for that. Cris Balboa 12:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*(P.S. comments above and this one are made by the same user)--JAaron95 (Talk) 14:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Other than the one role given above, I couldn't find much coverage (reliable or not) for her either in English or Japanese (one role, unless it's a very prominent one, might not be enough to meet WP:ENTERTAINER anyway). In fact, this forum thread suggests that she's left the entertainment industry altogether. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:ENTERTAINER requires multiple, significant roles, and there is no indication that she meets either of the other two criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER.TallCorgi (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - They keep her in Japanese, so I keep her in English. Cris Balboa 13:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed out duplicate votes. Only one "vote" per person. Please understand that for articles to be on wikipedia they should be notable. WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. You wanting an article is not enough, nor is being told she played a role with no source telling us why it was a notable role. Her article being present on other wikis does not matter, we discuss articles on different wikis separately. Cowlibob (talk) 18:23, 5 July 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon Tree Hotels[edit]

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

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

No evidence of any notability. One ref is an own web-sites and the three others appear to be web-sites reproducing press releases. No evidence that any notable and reliable source has written about the company. Fails WP:CORP  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 20:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. Also, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles, as per WP:NRVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 2 Jenuly 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - enough reliable, indy refs to show company notability. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 06:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  11:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rangoon(Film)[edit]

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

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

Incorrect WP:MoS on film titles, and WP: NFF violation as principal photography on the film begins only in October Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The WP:MoS issue is an easy fix with a page move, and WP:CRYSTAL doesn't fully apply, as a film in production is easily verifiable. The article is not speculation. On the other hand, I've found many sources on this topic that I'll add to the article shortly. This appears to be a major film in India. BU Rob13 (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, only when principal photography begins, we can have an article on a film. Plus, the MoS of the article's name is incorrect, so even a redirect won't serve much purpose. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, the MoS is easily fixable by a page move after the deletion discussion is completed. Could you link to the policy regarding principal photography? I'm unable to locate it. ~ Rob^Talk 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF explicitly states that "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF states it shouldn't exist as a film, but WP:FFEVENT suggests it can be treated as an event when it has significant coverage even before principal photography, as this article does. It passes notability guidelines for an event as documented on the FFEVENT page. ~ Rob^Talk 03:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is a film and not any random "event", so despite all of its pre-filming publicity it shouldn't have an article until the filming actually begins. That's explicitly what the guideline states. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The actual planning of the movie can be an event if it meets notability criteria as such. This is very common practice. It is not only written about in the essay I referenced earlier, but you can also see practical examples in most major films, such as The Dark Knight where the article was created on March 2006, but photography began April 2007. ~ Rob^Talk 03:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate – The principal photography is yet to commence, but I don't think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON either. The project seems like confirmed. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Keep as many sources has reported that project has been finalised and locked. Principal photography is only for adding films title to artist filmography. Daan0001 (talk)

• Your second point is a clear misinterpretation of the policy. —Vensatry _(ping) 08:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Vishal Bhardwaj, Rangoon Sajid Nadiadwala, Rangoon Kangana Ranaut, Rangoon Shahid Kapoor, Rangoon