< 17 July	19 July >

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 Night of the Living Dead. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Eastman[edit]

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable minor actress. Quis separabit? 23:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Night of the Living Dead obviously as this is her best known work with searches here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 16:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SwisterTwister. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:23, 25 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) 01:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Throwaways[edit]

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

The band doesn't appear to be notable. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keepable if we can source, they were on two notable indie labels. But proper sourcing would require access to contemporary paper, as they're in that non-web void just before history started in 1995 - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Keep per Shaidar - David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two albums released, some sources now supplied.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:GNG Dan arndt (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 22 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. The article has been expanded, and sources have been added. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of issue[edit]

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

If, after 9 years, no-one has shown any inclination to expand this beyond a mere dictionary definition (which it is by the author's admission), then I think this should be deleted. Adam9007 (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. Ludicrous nomination. No valid rationale for deletion. Clearly satisfies GNG with entire books on the subject. A valid stub is not a dictionary definition, and the nominator's rationale is wholly incompatible with BEFORE and our policies IMPERFECT, PRESERVE and ATD, since this clearly can be expanded beyond a definition. It is also possible to have an article that at first sight looks like a definition, but is really a restatement of rules of statute and case law. What such an article is really trying to say is that if a person does such and such, then certain legal consequences follow, but is saying it in an oblique way. So what this article is really trying to say is that, if there is a failure of issue, certain legal consquences follow (ie there are complicated rules for deciding who gets the property if there are no children). And that's no definition. In any event, it is possible for expressions, and definitions of expressions, to be notable as such, and again this is one of them. Terms of art typically are. James500 (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not talking about notability. I am talking about the article being a mere definition (it reads like one to me and the author says it is) for 9 years. If you want to improve the article, go ahead, but in its current state, its hardly worthy of a separate article. Adam9007 (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Needs expansion" has never been a valid grounds for deletion unless the article is actually incapable of being expanded (which is directly related to notability). The current state of the article, and the length of time it has been that way are an utter irrelevance. The editing and deletion policies (PRESERVE and ATD) make this very clear. AfD isn't cleanup. Nor is it an 'edit on demand' service. It is not appropriate to bring an AfD with the object of pressurising the volunteers at AfD into expanding an article that you want to see expanded but you simply cannot be bothered to work on yourself. You should withdraw this nomination and improve the article yourself (which should be easy), immediately. If you want to summon assistance, we have cleanup templates for that, we don't use AfD. James500 (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - James500 is correct. We should not be focusing on the current state of the article, but rather on its potential, which the nominator should have considered per deletion procedure. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, deletion (or the threat thereof) is not a means to improvement. So let's discuss only whether the article can be expanded beyond a definition. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I searched and there is nothing beyond the simple definition - "someone who dies without having children." I certainly did not find "entire books on the subject" - where are those books? I would guess the reason it has not been expanded in nine years is because it is an archaic term and there is not much to expand on. At best it could be mentioned in property law but I don't see the need for its own article. WP:NOTDICTIONARY would apply here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have obviously either not searched for sources at all or have completely failed to understand them. The entire book is Gifts Over of Property on Indeterminate Failure of Issue (1909). An example of coverage that is clearly not a simple definition is the passage that reads "An executory devise to take effect on an indefinite failure of issue is void for remoteness" (my emphasis) and so on and so forth in the article "failure of issue" in the 1891 edition of Black's Law Dictionary. That means, roughly, that if a will contains an instruction that says "give this piece of land to so and so if there is an indefinite failure of issue", that instruction cannot be lawfully carried out, and the will is invalid in that respect. Then it talks about how the courts apply techniques of interpretation (ie twist the words of the will to breaking point and beyond in order to hold that it does not refer to an indeterminate failure of issue) to avoid that result. That is no definition at all. It is talking about the validity of gifts of real property in wills that take effect on failure of issue. And there is plenty more where that came from. So, for example, the rule about failure of issue I mention above is explained in more detail, indeed at great length, in Bouvier's Institutes of American Law and this, to name but two of the many sources. We can easily write an article that is much more than a definition, by including an explanation of this rule, which is a purpose or use of the concept of "failure of issue". Judges and legislators generally don't create definitions that don't serve some purpose beyond mere definition. James500 (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would think all developed jurisdictions would have a body of law regarding what happens when someone dies without any heirs (does the property revert to the state, if so after how long, etc.). I don't remember seeing this term before so I don't know if it's the best title for that topic (is it archaic, is it only used in some jurisdictions), but it should be covered somewhere, if it isn't already. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not determined the complete scope of this topic or micro checked the encyclopedia to see if this topic is covered elsewhere. It appears connected with the rule against perpetuities (see this and this), the interpretation/construction of wills (a notable topic that should certainly have an article: In "The Law of Real Property", Robert Megarry called this subject "vast") and intestacy. The concept is not archaic and has been used in the United Kingdom (see section 29 of the Wills Act 1837, which was still in force in 1993: Sweet and Maxwell's Property Statutes, 6th Ed; check the Statute Law Database, and you might find it is still in force today) as well as in America and is likely to be used in all jurisdictions that have what is known as Anglo-American law (ie present and former British colonies). My view is that there is more than enough material to justify a separate article. AfD isn't really for merger proposals, or a good place to discuss them, and unless someone proposes a specific target for merger, I think we should just keep the article. And the article's talk page would still be a much better place to discuss that, at which point I would normally urge a procedural close. James500 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expanded the article -- it now includes plenty of sources to support the notability of this concept. I included a section about the historical development of the concept as well as modern application. Please feel free to edit accordingly if you think the article can be improved in any way. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:38, 22 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) 07:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty Broome[edit]

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

Could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tagged for notability since 2008. Orphan since 2008. Reads like a resume. ~Kvng (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RS coverage of any content.Pincrete (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:21, 21 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 03:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Baker[edit]

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

A person of questionable notability (WP:BIO) who works in science fiction fandom / editing. The Hugo award, in a minor category, was for the magazine she was part of the staff of, not for her as an individual. No substantial coverage in reliable published sources that I can immediately ascertain. Sandstein 21:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete as my searches found no considerable coverage aside from this and there's no good target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only primary sources, the two (non-)awards don't pass WP:ANYBIO # 1 Kraxler (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per above, I found a few more sources, I think the HUGO award is a biggie (but it was shared), not that much other attention. If other sources can be found, I may change my mind.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:28, 25 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. The only two delete !votes give "hoax" as rationale which it certainly is not. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Beira[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As others have mentioned, there's no good evidence and the current source actually never mentions this club. As also noted, the author made other questionable and unsourced edits including another I have nominated for AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Espoir Tsevie. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this club exists, likely hoax. Giant Snowman 09:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not hoax, see this new site I found called RSSSF which, when coupled with this new fangled thing called Google shows in about five seconds that they have played in the top flight of Mozambiquan football as seen here. Meets current consensus for notability for clubs per WP:FOOTYN as they have played in a national competition (and at the highest level). The fact that this initial source is for 1980 is irrelevant per WP:NTEMP. Fenix down (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per good work by Fenix down and this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:48, 24 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) 07:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Player's Gold Leaf Food Street Concert[edit]

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

A TV-hour concert video of a 3-hour 2002 street festival, created by indef banned COI account Talentforfilm. There article has no reliable sources and none appear to exist, from what I can see. As with many Talentforfilm/Kamran Qureshi-created articles (and one deleted category for 'branded' TV shows), it is also a WP:COATRACK to add promote the corporate sponsor in the article title, which in this case is John Player's Gold Leaf. Fails WP:NFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete for reasons given by Shawn in Montreal, (the director's page itself seems littered with highly questionable sources).Pincrete (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know procedure, but the director's page has twice been deleted. Pincrete

Delete This article mainly serves as promotion for the sponsor and the filmmaker, rather than the artists who performed. And reading over the many articles created by Talentforfilm in a short period of time and the associated SPI doesn't inspire confidence. I think the other article creations should probably be reviewed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Created articles are here.Pincrete (talk) 19:40, 19 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) 07:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam I Barber[edit]

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

This film producer, director, screenwriter and editor, who is credited in the article with being responsible for The Blair Witch Project, was actually the pre-production supervisor for that film. His only other credit on IMDb is producing Concert for AmericaI (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298281/?ref_=nm_flmg_prd_1) for which IMDb had no information. I speedied this article but the tag was removed and it was suggested that AfD was a better venue for considering this article's deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One work and even his IMDb only shows two things and there's not much info there; my searches found results such as this but it's obvious there's not independent notability for an article. This could've even been PROD'd but it's nice to have consensus to give it weight. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was acting based on this edit summary (diff) and since the speedy tag was removed, I don't think a PROD tag would last 7 days. And I think a discussion here will confirm my original assessment.

The one solid mention in your Google search is from The Mammoth Book of Best New Horror, Volume 11 and states a Florida producer named Sam Barber claimed that he was cheated out of an executive producer's credit on Blair Witch. I think this Wikipedia article might be a way to claim that credit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROD might have been fine, I only declined the speedy because the article stated he was known for "co-authoring and initiating production" on a notable film, making for a credible claim of significance. Sam Walton (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt was 86-ed by me on copyvio grounds originally, now its an article with no credible claim of significance. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 22 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 03:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twentythree Records[edit]

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

I struggled with this one, as it seems to have had notable artists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

delete nothing in gnews. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. (founder's article is wholly unsourced despite being a BLP).Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 16:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:07, 25 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 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Cunningham[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria for musicians or WP:GNG. agtx 17:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete unfortunately as there's no good target for moving elsewhere and my searches found no considerable coverage aside from this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 16:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked, but found no significant additional sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 22 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. Hoax Jac16888 ^Talk 19:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Betan[edit]

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

An IP user removed the speedy template, but this is an obvious speedy as both A7 and hoax. The subject does not google, and the article is clearly a joke. agtx 17:26, 18 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 03:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bajoo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Prior AFD didn't attract any !voters. Some mentions in French language review blogs but nothing significant in WP:RS. Deleted from French wikipedia at AFD here. Vrac (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing particularly good including here. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little independent coverage to suggest notability.Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software/service article of unclear notability. Only independent ref is a brief mention in a blog, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:36, 21 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 and salt. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Agarwal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since CSD-G4 has been declined on this article, I will return it to AFD for a third time, and request that the title be salted if the consensus is to delete. This mid-level functionary within the civil service of India has not been the subject of any significant coverage. The citations provided are directory listings, newspaper articles quoting Agarwal as a source, but only in passing, and the like. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per wp:Notability, as in lack of. A civil servant, so what? Note per source is "Director of International Co-operation at Youth Affairs" not Director, which makes it sound like they run the whole Ministry. "Spearheaded the establishment with 1,800 personnel reporting to me," is telling. Likely autobiography. 220 of ^Borg 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt Non notable. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: The article is merely a CV of a man-with-a-job; no evidence of biographical notability. (Incidentally, one of the articles linked at a previous AfD is about an IIM graduate working at Barclays Capital rather than this government employee.) There appears to be an unwillingness to accept community consensus: should there ever be 3 AfDs under variant names in less than one month? AllyD (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Probably autobiographical.Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Per above. In its current state, this almost qualifies for speedy deletion as purely promotional. Makes one's teeth hurt. 2601:188:0:ABE6:3CF7:E4A2:6CC5:354F (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sulabhvarshney (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.Shyamsunder (talk) 09:52, 22 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. Something something WP:NOTFACEBOOK §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oluremi sogbetun[edit]

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

Article is essentially a series of journal entries documenting the author's trip/vacation in violation of WP:NOTESSAY. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --OluwaCurtis The King : talk to me 15:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at all suitable.--Ipigott (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion. WP:A7. WP is not a place to post your personal diary. --Randykitty (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely inappropriate for WP, looks like someone just copied and pasted their school report or something -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 18 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. Sandstein 20:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Fox Carraway[edit]

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

Non notable. Trivial award DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has a major impact within the Mormon community. She has coverage from sources that are neither in Salt Lake City nor LDS Church owned.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and which sourceis that? DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Author-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article falls within 2 enduringly-problematic AFD categories: individuals chiefly notable for their social media presence & individuals notable within an bordered ideological, ethnic, or sectarian community. Carraway has palpable popularity on Facebook 61,000 followers. This does not count towards WP Notability, but WP begins to look foolish when it deletes article on individual with that kind of celebrity. She also has extensive coverage in Deseret News. This is AFD problematic because Deseret is affiliated with the Mormon Church and, therefore, is not regarded as an independent source on coverage of Mormons. On the other hand, having followed a number of Mormonism-related AFD discussions, I have begun to wonder about the basis of this argument. The BBC, after all, is funded by the British government. And I have seen no one argue that BBC articles whould therefore be discounted in AFD debates on Great Britain related topics. Leaving that aside, I think she passes - albeit marginally - because of coverage in RS other than Deseret, some of which are now cite in-line on page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret News could be reliable for facts, but it is not an independent source when it promotes their LSD affiliates and employees. Cavarrone 14:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, Carraway does not appear to be an LDS employee. I do not read policy to preclude regarding Deseret coverage of Mormons as an indication of notability. Indeed, I do not recall seeing it regarded this way in previous AFDs of Mormons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she is an LDS' Mormon Channel employee according the first ref in the article. And she is a regular speaker at LDS-organizated events according several other sources. Cavarrone 19:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BBC is NOT funded by the UK Govt., it is funded by licence fees which the Govt collects and passes on. While no media could ever be considered 100% independent of the country in which it is based, it would be difficult to imagine any organisation which had more frequently proved its independence from Govt. than the BBC. A wholly invalid analogy.Pincrete (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Cavarrone has either displayed true ignorance of the subject at hand, or extreme bigotry by saying LSD. Also, has ignored the fact that the Ogden Standard-Examiner is neither LDS owned nor in any way LDS related. The fact that Carraway is a vocal advocate for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its truth claims cannot be used to class her as unnotable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, plain and simple the coverage does not justify a claim of notability, she is just non-notable outside a few regional, LDS-biased sources. Lacks independent reliable sourcing. SUre, she has extensive coverage in Deseret News, but that's unsurprising considering she is a regular speaker at LDS Church events and works for the Mormon Channel (owned by the same Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). And let alone that articles like this one just read more as blatant proselytism than as genuine, independent journalism. 61,000 FB followers is not an impressive number, we deleted dozens of articles about youtubers who had 300,000 or 600,000 followers. More eligible for Mormonpedia or some other wikias, not for an encyclopedia. Cavarrone 14:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cavarrone, Your argument is basically Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, or, otherstuffdoesn'texist. But even there you are inaccurate. Bloggers, Youtube celebrities have articles - or don't - depending on whether reliable news media write their blogs up. Multiple RS profiles of Carraway are on the page. Moreover, in her case, the argument that Deseret is not an independent source doesn't apply, since she is not an employee of the Mormon church. At least, I don't find that she is. It appears to be more a case of she converted; started a blog; the blog went viral among Mormons; and Deseret wrote a profile, then another, and another, then gave her lots more coverage, and reprinted at least one blog post. Probably because she's popular and sells papers in Utah. All papers behave this way. The Miami Herald covers Cuba and Latin America intensely; the LA Times covers Hollywood intensely; The New York Times covers Jewish issues and Israel because NYC has a large Jewsis population, the Boston globe gives more space to Irish culture and Ireland than other American papers, the Detroit Free Press covers Arabs in America more intensely than other American papers because the Detroit area has a large population of Middle Eastern descent, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution covers race and black culture better than other America papers. In Utah papers cover Mormons. Of course Utah papers are "regional" and "LDS-biased" - all news is local. But we are not here to judge the news focus of media, only to gauge the extent of reliably sourced coverage. So, yes, Deseret knows that upbeat stories about Mormoms sell papers. That doesn't mean that we dismiss profiles in Deseret because it is owned by a holding company of the Church. As for your other assertion - that she works for the Mormon channel, I only met her today, and I assume that people on blogspot.com are independent bloggers. If you have evidence that she is employed by the MommonChannel it would affect the use of Mormon Channel as evidence of notability. Do you have evidence that she works for them?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, your reference to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a nonsense, as long as I never used such an argument, it was you who argued that 61,000 followers on FB were a sign of notability. Second, the point is that DN is not INDEPENDENT reliable sourcing. Being profiled, and promoted, and used for laudatory articles like the one I linked above by a newspaper owned by an organization (religious in this case, but it could be political, or economic, or something else) for which you are connected and even works for is hardly a sign of notability. Apparently, you have problem to understand what an independent source means, but that's not the place to discuss that, the closer will review the sources and will weight the arguments. Cavarrone 19:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you have no evidence that she works for the LDS Church, as you asserted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, I think you missed my response here. Cavarrone 19:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being a regular speaker in churches of any denomination would not make you non-indeoendant of a church newspaper. Working for a Mormon Church publication does. My reassessment below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being a regular speaker in LDS-events which are regularly promoted by the LDS-newspaper owned by the LDS organization which organizes such events.... I see some connections, frankly. Cavarrone 19:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just fyi, Religion News Service is neither LDS-biased nor Utah-based.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Cavarrone's whole argument is flawed by not accepting how much Kellerism (see here [1] for a good explanation of what Kellerism is) has distorted and misdirected the focus on most "main-stream" journalism in the United States. For Wikipedia to maintain a truly neutral point-of-view it has to stop treating anti-institutionalism as somehow a "neutral" point of view, and stop assuming that publications that engage in blatant and heavy Kellerism, to the point of willingly hiding the identity of some people to save their jobs for their deception, are somehow neutral. If Wikipedia wants to be a truly useful, representative source that is not limited to just usefulness to those who live in the Bos-Wash corridor and California, it has to stop biasing its analysis of sources in a way that presumes the correctness of anti-institutionalism. The sources demonstrate that Carraway is impactful within a large community, and her creations and actions get notice. The doctrines of Kellerism that dominate so many newsrooms in the United States work against any possiblity of certain publications ever taking note of her. Kellerism predisposes publications to take note only of things that reinforce their stereotypes, and a tatooed person simultaneously proclaiming love for all and the truth claims of a conservative religious institution does not fit the sight lines of Kellerism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still thinking its a keeper. I now see that she is employed by a LDS Church organ, the Mormon Channel. This makes Church publications non-independent sources in her case, useful on facts, but not to be counted as evidence of notability. The entirely independent sources that support notability are Religion News Service, the Standard Examiner and the Daily Herald. Deseret is in an odd position. It is a genuine big city daily. As has been hashed out in previous AFDs, like this one [2] on Kent F. Richards Deseret (which has run several profiles and many articles on Carraway) carries less weight in an AFD than an independent, for-profit paper like the Standard-Examiner, but more weight than a purely Church publication, like LDS Living. The Standard-Examiner profile here:[3] is sufficient, together with Deseret, Religion News Service and the mentions in the Daily Herald to justify an article. I will add a few other extensive Standard Examiner articles on Carraday to the articleE.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. She appears to be a novelty as a "tattooed" convert who is merely getting local attention. Even Standard profile does not seem truly independent of the church, for example the non-neutral statement that "Her co-workers even made her watch terrible videos of the LDS church." (Whose definition of "terrible" is being applied here?) —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- independent just to be clear , the Standard-Examiner, the 3rd largest newspaper by circulation in Utah, is owned by Sandusky Newspapers [4] and is not church affiliated. Several other sources are equally independent of the Church. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for reasons given by Cavarrone and Мандичка, no evidence of notability in independent sources.Pincrete (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now with no obvious target for moving elsewhere - My searches which only found this and this being the best results. SwisterTwister talk 16:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect target would be Mormon Channel. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that earlier and I suppose it would be the best target even though it only mentions her under "contributor". SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "contributor" nor "associate producer" is sufficient justification for a redirect. In fact, she should be removed from the "contributors" section there--she;'s the only person listed,as if she were the sole contributor. If it was intended to list her as she was the only one with a WP article, it won;'t be appropriate to incldue her once the article here gets deleted. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LDS Living should be counted as an independent source, unless we are engaging in bigotry. The argument in the past has been the Church News cannot be used because it is owned by the LDS Church. LDS living is not owned by the LDS Church, thus it meets our standard definition of independent. Excluding all publications aimed at the LDS market would be unprecedented. What next, will we delete all articles on African-Americans only heavily covered by Jet and Ebony?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing everyone of bigotry, when it is just a question of lack of notability and independent sourcing. About your source, LSD Living is just a content aggregator, the LDS living "article" is nothing more than a brief sneak peek of this KSL article (it also ends with "Read the rest of this story at ksl.com") and KSL is is owned by the LDS Church. Definitely not an independent source. I would also point that it is sufficent to actually READ such sources to see their lack of neutrality and independence, eg. this one is blatantly promotional and just reads like a press release. Cavarrone 15:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, alot of what happens in Utah about Mormonism is only going to be (or at least a majority) by Mormon-led sources such as the The Deseret News. I agree that this can be acceptable but better sources is good also. At best, this could've been selectively merged and redirected elsewhere but, as shown, there's no other good target so it's probably still best to delete for now (as I mentioned above). SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 26 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wladimir Cárcamo Soto[edit]

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

Creative professional and academic that lack of notability (WP:BIO). No evidence W. Cáracamo Soto would pass the professor test or that his creative work have had a large impact. Dentren | ^Talk 09:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Ok all right when I dance" seemed laughable as the title of an investigation... in fact it does not exist... --Diego Grez (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite mistaken about that, see here, the book was published with the Spanish title Ok. Todo bien cuando bailo which translates literally as "Ok. all right when I dance". Kraxler (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a published author and anthropologist, no doubt about that, but despite the above mentioned work and this, there are no reviews to pass WP:AUTHOR, and his notability seems to be very much restricted to his hometown, where he might be a minor local celebrity. Kraxler (talk) 15:35, 18 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. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Museum (Malacca)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. A tiny museum, only primary sources provided LibStar (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Malacca is a historic place with lots of museums. These are notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Melaka History and Heritage in Museums. There may be some scope for merger, especially for those which are housed in the same building complex but, per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, this would not be done by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've recycled this same argument in various afds but fail to show in-depth coverage about this specific museum. WP:PRESERVE does not override if an article is not notable. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this toy museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a general survey of Malacca's museums and so was a good starting point for the numerous identical AFDs about these topics. For a detailed source about this particular place see The Brunei Times. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search online finds no reliable sources supporting notability. Neither reference in the article is authoritative.--Rpclod (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added another 2 reference from Utusan Online and Kosmo (in Malay language). Added its website link, opening time, Facebook page, museum owner. More info was added on its introductory description, info of it being the 2nd toy museum in Malaysia after the one in Penang, total number of toy figures displayed, more history of its original establishment date & its relocation to its current location. Added to another 2 Wikipedia articles category based on its establishment year. Chongkian (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

adding article categories, opening time and Facebook page has no bearing on notability. LibStar (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources this would not qualify as reliable source as it is merely hosting a rather amateur brochure of the museum. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found these two sources from online news websites [5][6], which I believe demonstrate significant coverage. Altamel (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added more information of its history and exhibitions. The museum interior photo also has been added. Chongkian (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

photos do not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for reasons given by LibStar and Rpclod. Insufficient independent RS.Pincrete (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ struck double vote, see below - added another 2 references from myMetro online newspaper (Malay language) and Wisata Malaysia (Indonesian language). Chongkian (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chongkian, per WP:AFDFORMAT: "do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." Please delete your duplicate !votes.--Rpclod (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete: Please explain your !vote. Why are the two references I pointed out insufficient? Altamel (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altamel, what is difficult to understand? Two references is not very many, and only one is new (the other is Andrew Davidson's).Pincrete (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your expedient reply.According to the timestamps, I mentioned the Brunei Times on July 12 and Andrew Davidson mentioned it on July 19. But furthermore, Chongkian added two references to Kosmo Online and Utusan. That's four references, and I think that should be enough. WP:SIGCOV says there is no fixed number of sources needed, only specifying that it should be "multiple" sources, so I don't see why four should not suffice. Altamel (talk) 16:47, 20 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 Utrop. MBisanz ^talk 20:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Majoran Vivekananthan[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Just because he's the editor of an online newspaper doesn't make him notable. Whilst the newspaper has an article in WP I'd say it also has questionable notability LibStar (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local news only; fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Utrop - I'm not a Norwegian speaker so I don't know what these sources say but it's best I found, but I'm more convinced to delete as it's unlikely there's independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Utrop - fails WP:GNG.Pincrete (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only, as I am a too seldom user of en-wp to know about rules and standards here. It should be noted though that Utrop is not only an online newspaper, it is also a regularly published paper paper (twice a month). I would say it is a rather visible/audible voice in the Norwegian media world when it comes to matters like immigration, integration and equal opportunities – and has been so for several years. But naturally, if the standard for minor media like this is to merge the editor(s) into the media article, so will be acceptable here, too. Regards, GAD (talk) 12:55, 20 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. There is a weak consensus that while the article does not meet the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline there is sufficient coverage to meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yanaki Smirnov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that this version of the article is sufficiently different from the one deleted in 2012. However, Yanaki Smirnov has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Fails NFOOTBALL as competitor one rung below top league of professionals, but has been frequently featured in Bulgarian press as a top junior and the top scorer in the B league [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. From the sources noted above, I can see one interview of decent length and one other article that is longer than a couple of paragraphs. The fact that he is 22 and playing for a reserve team suggests it is WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for further sources? (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fails NFOOTBALL, but meet GNG with becoming a top scorer of B group and now is playing for Ludogorets. Thats why i made the article. No point to be deleted now and be remade again after month or 2. Have made that and with other articles, like Aleksandar Kolev, and i feel the case is just the same. Article have all the needed refs, so it could stay. K.belev (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument for keeping the article, and there is a long standing consensus against applying WP:NSPORT prematurely in anticipation of potential future appearances. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, still meet GNG, which for me is enough for keeping the article. K.belev (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that he fails sport notability guidelines; he meets GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown GNG, simply an interview , one other article and a number of short clippings. As the sources are not in English it would help if you could outline what the sources say and help out a bit more than simply reposting the source search, it's not possible for many of us to separate routine transfer talk and match reporting from genuine significant coverage. I am happy to change my vote if this can be shown and take your word on the content of articles, but per WP:BURDEN, not only am I not able to do so because of the language barrier, I am not obligated to. Fenix down (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it's your duty to actually do a search before you declare someone doesn't meet GNG. Also any literate person can tell whether an article is about the subject even if you can't actually read it (esp using Google Chrome or browser with built in translation). I search for sources all the time in languages I can't read, so I don't see why you're "not able to so," unless you are also blind, in which case I'm sorry for your affliction. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Мандичка passes WP:GNG through it fails WP:NFOOTY and also this article in Bulgarian Wikipedia.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources cited include one interview and several individually-focused news pieces on the subject. I find the sources from the Bulgarian article unconvincing because they focus on the team, but the sources cited in this discussion focus specifically on the player. That's enough for GNG. agtx 17:49, 23 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) 07:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of duplicate file finders[edit]

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

This is a list of duplicate file finders, virtually none of which have (or are ever likely to have) Wikipedia articles. The descriptions and features have no source other than the repositories. Chunks of it are spammy. Hell, the entire thing is spammy. The only ones with articles are the ones not in the feature comparison. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though it may be superficially spammy, from a pragmatic standpoint this list is helpful for learning about existing duplicate file finding programs and in the worst case is not harming Wikipedia by simply existing. Granted, the listing could be cleaned up a lot; having the name of each program in the last field and the implementation language in the first isn't all that great, but that's also not a reason for outright deletion. Is there a reason for deletion that is more substantial than "[in my opinion] this is spammy?" Daivox (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a software directory and has an external linking policy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Once all the spam/linkfarm ELs are removed, we will be left with a short list, but with 4+ notable entries, it would meet WP:CSC for lists, and we have quite a few software list articles where all of the entires are notable.Dialectric (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not a software directory, or product comparison guide. Reyk _YO! 11:34, 23 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. Although a rename to Hobart Bus Mall sounds like it is in order. kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hobart Bus Station[edit]

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

Non notable bus station - There's nothing at all on Google or High Beam. Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 16:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename - central public transport station in an Australian capital city, which in my opinion automatically grants notability. It possibly has the significance of a central train station since Hobart has no trains or trams. Finally: the article name seems to be a poor choice. I'm not from Hobart, but a quick google suggests "Hobart Bus Mall" is the common name, while "Hobart City" is the official name on the timetables. So it should probably be renamed to one of them. Adpete (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Hobart Bus Mall. just as adpete said southern Tasmania has nothing but busses, no trams or trains. They are doing a large remodel too on the bus mall. [12] Most exciting, assaults on Taz bus drivers are down 50%! [13] Alec Station (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a street with bus stops on it. Not a proper bus station. There are thousands of the former in cities all over the world; they don't have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the transit mall which is significant (and not a station). It is being given a $2million revitalisation project that is very significant.[14] [15] Alec Station (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've looked at it on Google Streetview. It's just a few bus stops on a street. I've seen larger bus stations in small towns in Europe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transport_in_Hobart#Public_Transport. Not notable, not interesting, but information on the bus system as a whole belongs at the target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Alec Station's references. The development has received significant coverage in multiple independent sources, so the subject passes WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transport_in_Hobart#Public_Transport. No sources verify anything important or significant beyond the mere existence and function of this bus station. AadaamS (talk) 18:11, 18 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. No support for deletion apart from the nominator. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demang Abdul Ghani Gallery[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. The Malay version of this article is unreferenced LibStar (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Malay (ms) version of the article has 2 references already. Chongkian (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

some of the additonal sources are not reliable, there's a youtube reference and this appears an advertorial site. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added some other references (for both English & Malay version of the article), such as from Kosmo (Malaysian online magazine/newspaper?) & Utusan Online (Malaysian online newspaper). Chongkian (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found another reference from this book. Chongkian (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added another reference from Utusan Online (Malay language). Chongkian (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was the subject of a study on the museum's authenticity [16] and an online newsmagazine article [17]. Altamel (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the book reference appears to be just a one line mention on p.43. LibStar (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:LibStar: No, it's not. On page 42, top of the second column, the source reads, "The Penghulu (chieftain) Abdul Ghani bin Abdul Majid House in Merlimau, is among the oldest Melaka houses which still stands tall..." and then it goes on to talk about the furniture and size of the house. Also, on page 43, the source reads, "The data were collected in Demang Abdul Ghani Gallery", so all the data from the survey responses which follow are also about the museum. Altamel (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you commented on many more AfDs than I have, could clear up a point of confusion for me? If the discussion is relisted, do are replies to !votes made before the relist supposed to go before the relist or after? Altamel (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to old comments may be made above the "relisted" message, to keep the discussion together. New comments should be made, as the message says, below. It doesn't make any difference for the overall result of the discussion whether something was placed above or below. Kraxler (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added another reference from Brunei Times. Chongkian (talk) 01:02, 23 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 Lil Wayne. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Carter V[edit]

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

Not much context, may fail WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS and contains no references to prove notability. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The actual article was just moved to Draft:Tha Carter V a few days ago. Koala15 (talk) 18:01, 19 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. Davewild (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Garia[edit]

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

one big listing of overly detailed busroutes The Banner talk 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom is only concerned with the over-emphasis on transportation and not with notability. It's a designated population center[18] that even has its own train station.[19] Problems with the article is a matter of editing, not deletion per WP:DEL-CONTENT.--Oakshade (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Three brief mentions that such a place exists, all three in reference to a bus stop finally coming there, doesn't qualify as substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Oakshade above says "keep" on the basis of the same guideline, but that guideline isn't satisfied. If Oakshade is convinced there is substantial coverage of the neighborhood, as a neighborhood, and what it's notable for, by all means please show us those sources. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
False. I said "Keep" because the nom's only stated rationale to delete because of current article state, not notability, and that it's a designated population center, so much so there's even a train station. Such a neighborhood in the United States or UK would never even be considered for deletion. Is this a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without the bus routes you have no realistic content left. The Banner talk 23:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More than just buses. New Garia is going to be the terminus of the New Garia-Airport Metro line on the Kolkata Metro from Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport to New Garia.[20][21][22] No government spends equivalent to USD$4 billion for metros to non-notable places. --Oakshade (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will not stop you from changing this bus book into a proper article. The Banner talk 09:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been reduced to a stub and not longer "one big listing of overly detailed busroutes," the only stated criteria for this Afd.--Oakshade (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, as expected the IP has restored the route information The Banner talk 13:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I reverted the totally unsourced content addition. This is an issue with a problem editor, not notability. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup is a worthwhile essay. --Oakshade (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade - Don't mean to sound like a dick but the nom should've just removed the list ... Not sent a village article here because of the list. List has been removed so no reason to delete .–Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was stubified but the IP has restored the route information... The Banner talk 13:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - So why not revert the IP ? .... You sent an article here because an IP added a whole load of shit anyone could've and should've reverted ?, It just seems rather silly but there we go. –Davey2010^Talk 19:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Appears to meet the first point of WP:GEOLAND. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 26 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 has been on for nearly a month now and with only the creator and an IP are arguing to keep, the reasoned arguments of the nominator and CactusWriter are sufficient to delete. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Lovgreen[edit]

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

Simply a CV listing this entrepreneur's various companies he has co-founded during his career. The tiny amount of biographical info (and date of birth) is uncited. Lovgreen is quoted in some news sources, but the coverage listed here is about the companies, not him. Being named on a list as 55th most influential technology investor in 2011 isn't really going to push him over the WP:GNG threshold in my view. AME Info (which he co-founded in 1993) seems to be notable enough, and maybe a good course of action would be to redirect this article to that target. Overall, lacks any journalistic coverage about him and fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree deleting the article - the coverage where he is quoted is obviously about the companies he has founded and run - and it is what makes an entrepreneur/business person. I agree it lacks personal info and citation there. The seed investment in Tradeshift is quite significant to back up the investor statement from 2011 - these things does not happen over night. His latest company GivingTales seems to involve quite a few interesting components including Kiloo as a partner as also mentioned in the Guardian article - this is definitely notable. Wikikaylov — Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Note: Wikikaylov is the creator of this article.[reply]

Keep Lack of citation does not equal lack of sources ("Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article"), a quick Google shows 1000's of potential sources. Sionk should either remove uncited information or attempt to find a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.99.114 (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE -- — 88.209.99.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - both the above contributions seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Being a businessman is not in itself a qualification for a write-up in an encyclopedia. Neither is his appearance in a Google search of the internet. As I stated in my intro, there is no evidence of significant reliable secondary coverage about Lovgreen. Please point me to a couple of news articles or other reliable secondary coverage about Klaus Lovgreen (rather than the businesses he co-created). Sionk (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only two !votes are the creator and an IP, not enough input to decide.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was based in the Middle East for nearly 20 years and quoted and interviewed in many regional newspapers and magazines as a leader in his field and a driver of technology in the region.

Here are some articles http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/general/regional-market-for-pdas-expected-to-grow-rapidly-1.351165

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/reality-check-207291.html

http://www.itp.net/489636-the-e-achievers/

http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=2231&t=1

https://books.google.fr/books?id=K-N7zOHsQHUC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=%22klaus+lovgreen%22+the+national&source=bl&ots=KXmKgWKOSZ&sig=FynHY_7tBtJMD8aa8R_eLlhaVK4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBGoVChMI_-GriabbxgIVB8cUCh0NPARy#v=onepage&q=%22klaus%20lovgreen%22%20the%20national&f=false

http://www.albawaba.com/news/‘digitisation-will-make-piracy-irrelevant’-say-directors-new-multi-media-fund

https://wam.ae/en/news/business/1395226368912.html

http://www.gulfnews.com/business/sectors/technology/cd-sales-music-stores-strike-poor-chords-1.636790

http://www.albayan.ae/economy/1125289807867-2005-09-07-1.96616

http://www.albayan.ae/economy/ameinfo-avantgo-2001-04-18-1.1137380

https://books.google.ae/books?id=d3P2soRhNcIC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=كلاوس+ameInfo&source=bl&ots=ctDt-_p-kg&sig=zZ5cdNT7DM90uPMYtg4JJf4e6gg&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBzgKahUKEwiqjJD7qdvGAhXH1hQKHYY4Djc#v=onepage&q=كلاوس%20ameInfo&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=d3P2soRhNcIC&pg=PA16&dq=klaus+lovgreen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAmoVChMI6OaV0KrbxgIVS8AUCh3J_Qs4#v=onepage&q=klaus%20lovgreen&f=false

Founding Member IT Forum in UAE http://www.zu.ac.ae/iti/itforum/biography.html

Perhaps you can suggest some content based on the above so we can get the page up to the standard required? Appreciate your help - I am trying to add content from areas I have some knowledge about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikaylov (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE -- fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG for significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The refs in the article and those provided above are trivial mentions or quotes by Lovgreen in relation to a business -- but the coverage is entirely about the business, usually AME Info. None of the articles are about Lovgreen himself. I also found no coverage of Lovgreen in the major Danish sources. The article should be deleted, then redirected to AMEinfo.com. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~-KEEP-~~ Once again I disagree - you seem to just dismiss media outlets you are not familiar with as not "reliable". The book about Dubai is not mentioned in this these arguments either - and the drive of the internet and and business in the Middle East by someone from Denmark back in 1996 is not insignificant and he is continuing to innovate and start new projects. He is not mentioned in the danish press as he has lived abroad most of his life if you read the background. I fail to understand why these achievements are being reduced to a "CV" and should be redirected to just his first project. Wikikaylov (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikikaylov, first, it is standard practice in Wikipedia deletion discussions to state a !vote only once -- and thereafter discuss without stating another !vote. This is why your latest "keep" has been struck. As to your above comment: it is not "reliability" that is the issue. As both the nominator and I have stated it is the lack of significant coverage and the independence of sources that is the problem. IMO, the book -- a personal memoir by a partner at AMEinfo -- is not an independent source for a BLP on Lovgreen. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:03, 23 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 InformationWeek. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The BrainYard[edit]

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

Prod was removed from this article about a news website that no longer exists. Although the website appears to have won an industry award a few years ago, the secondary source coverage appears to be entirely of the press-release type. Article was of questionable notability at best when the website existed, and now that it does not exist anymore, I think we can decide conclusively that it is not notable. Agtx (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with InformationWeek ~GottaGoFast ^{Step^{it^up}} 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably selective merge (and only this rather than redirect because it is not actually fully mentioned at InformationWeek; my searches found nothing to suggest improvement or good notability here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:07, 18 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. The consensus is that while this is a nice, well-written, article, unfortunately there is a lack of verification of notability. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Conley[edit]

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

Nice and worthy article but not notable in Wikipedia terms. References are very local and not from any significant sources. No doubt important for the church and the area where he worked but that doesn't make him notable here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the nom sums it up nicely. The sources alone are too local and really primary in nature. Nothing else exists that even approaches significant coverage. Interesting, well written and formatted, but not notable via WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing any significant results in Google Books, etc. The claim "was a significant influence on higher education" could indicate notability, but it would need to be found in reliable sources. The reference provided does not mention Conley. St Anselm (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches (and believe me, I searched several times with different details) found nothing at all to suggest improvement or better notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
preserve - http://madisoncountyal.gov/mcrc/searchprobate.php I'm not a Wikipedia editor, nor am I an expert. However, I did find more than a dozen articles on obscure New England religious figures of similar provincial relevance. These were WASP figures in a circumstance in which accurate records were kept, but even then there were numerous speculative statements regarding their relevance. As mixed race person, the figure Jonas Conley could not even be counted as human being for some 20 years after the Civil War ended. It should be considered that the Huntsville Library archives revealed this figure did in fact lead the CME Church in the region, clearly evidenced by the church and graveyard recognized by the Alabama Historical Commission. However, the Huntsville library does not offer web access to those records. The figure owned property on which two of the historically black colleges in the region are located, but this was in violation of state law which prohibited land ownership by persons of 1/32 African origin. The land records show a white citizen had to sign the Madison County documents on behalf of Mr. Conley. The Huntsville archives: http://digitalarchives.hmcpl.org/ Madison County Property Records Center http://madisoncountyal.gov/mcrc/searchprobate.php CASE 8122 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhistory (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Madisonhistory, this is the only edit you have made on Wikipedia, and you appear to have created your account on 17 or 18 July, 2015 (depending on time zones). I am curious as to what brought you here to this rather obscure corner of WP. It's an odd place to start. LaMona (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I do not really know enough of American history to be sure, but I get the feeling that this man played a significnat role in the struggle for equality. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to above searches (which I repeated myself), I've also searched ProQuest's historical newspaper database to see if anything shows up, and nothing did. Even if the subject is notable, we can't verify it. agtx 17:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Conley family where he's already mentioned, unless I am mistaken. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:13, 27 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. I looked at the article and both sides of the discussion, and I feel that in its current state, the article has met the notability and verifiability thresholds. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. Elmo Futrell, Jr.[edit]

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

Mayor of a town of less than 15,000 people. IMHO there is nothing here that fufills WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Article is also largely based on obituaries and Find a Grave which both fail WP:RS. ...William 18:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is very serious, we need to get the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate blacklisted as unreliable as quickly as possible. We should immediately delete the several hundred references used in Wikipedia from the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate. We may have to delete those articles too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete at first I thought the article sounded plausable, but without additional outside secondary sources discussing impact (could be newspaper coverage of the election, for example), it doesn't meet GNG... too many of the sources don't meet RS and are used to highlight material broader than basic factual information. Sadads (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject was Louisiana Mayor of the Year in 1964. Qualifies under "local politician". Other sources are off-line, as he left office in the spring of 1966. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "local politician" criterion requires that you show significantly more press coverage than has been offered here, and winning a "mayor of the year" award isn't a criterion that gets a mayor over WP:NPOL in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the seven sources here, two of them are covering him specifically in the context of his death rather than any actual career coverage, two are obituaries of his son and wife (thus entirely failing to constitute any sort of coverage of him), two are on completely invalid user-generated content sites that cannot support his notability, and the only one that counts for anything toward getting him past WP:GNG just namechecks his existence rather than being about him. Even the mayor of a city ten or 100 times this size would not be entitled to keep a Wikipedia article based on that piss-poor quality of sourcing — and winning a "mayor of the year" award confers no kind of notability freebie whatsoever on a person who can't be sourced better than this either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New info found on term as mayor. I will look for more; most would be off-line, as he left office 49 years ago. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls far short of notability guidelines. Mayor of the year for a state no more makes a person notable than being teacher of the year for a state. If it did my 5th grade teacher would have an article in Wikipedia. Also at the time Futrell was mayor the city had less than 10,000 residents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the comments for deletion of Jerry D. Roe, you wrote: Keep That Michiganian of the year award seems enough. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC); so why is Michiganian of the Year" notable but not a statewide "Mayor of the Year" in Louisiana? Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The press coverage seems sufficient to meet the requirement for a mayor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was the mayor in the 60s, so you're not going to find many sources online. Ever heard of this? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in this discussion said that the sources had to be online, or that newspaper sourcing was unacceptable. I use non-web print-only sourcing all the time. But newspaper sourcing still has to be cited in the article — it is not enough to merely assert that newspaper coverage might exist, if you don't actually show your work. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are eight newspaper sources and a total of fifteen sources for one who left office in 1966. This is more sourcing than many articles have. The article Thomas "Tommy" Nelson, former mayor of New Roads (population under 5,000) has one source about Nelson's indictment, presumably awaiting expansion by someone. The article does not even have the years Nelson was mayor. There is nothing in the rules about population of cities and mayors though some keep referring to this. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sketchy sourcing and failing GNG with stretches per Sadads. The Dissident Aggressor 13:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources regarding a political figure who left office almost 50 years ago. The level of detail and sourcing provided by User:Billy Hathorn goes well beyond the minimums of the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Good job, Billy_Hathorn. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Notability is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing the WP:BASIC met, and the ideas presented in WP:HEY also apply. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:09, 27 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 A10 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing South Indian films worldwide[edit]

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

Cinema of South India (and I'd guess this page) is a combination of film industries in four different languages. This is basically List of highest-grossing Tamil films plus other languages within India but not including List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. It's an odd distinction to have. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really seeing a deletion rationale here, particularly since it's not really an "odd distinction" when reliable sources use it (as seen in Cinema of South India) and the "South Indian film" grouping is formally organized within the industry. postdlf (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is the other film articles are organized by country (see Template:Lists of box office number-one films) and organizing a list of these films is not necessary and could instead be merged into List of highest-grossing Indian films. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see even List of highest-grossing Bollywood films has been merged there (though just recently), so that makes sense. postdlf (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as A-10 attempt to POV fork off List of highest-grossing Indian films created by an inappropriate cut and paste copyright violation from some previous article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 21 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Akil[edit]

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

Article appears to be a vanity page. A Google search turns up Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and this article. Google News produces 7 hits, but this individual is not actually the subject of any of them. Subject was interviewed by "Your Middle East" two years ago, but I could not ascertain the significance of this web site. Subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines of WP:ARTIST. KDS4444^Talk 21:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article, fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A google search shows a verified page along with articles talking about this individual such as Vice magazine, also many articles you can find it in his reference section under the individual's article on Wikipedia.

The Vice magazine "reference" is a photo credit with his name on it. He himself is not even mentioned in the article. Sources need to provide in-depth coverage of the subject and should be tied to specific points in the article which they are supporting. Look, I can tell you worked hard on this article, and I can understand you will be upset if it eventually gets deleted. It will really help you in the long run if you become familiar with Wikipedia's notability criteria and with the process of article creation before investing so much time and effort in an article which might not survive a deletion discussion. This is what causes many potential editors to sour on Wikipedia and not come back. Your contributions are welcome! They just have to meet some specific criteria first. KDS4444^Talk 05:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is his biography from a reliable source Foto Fest international discoveries 5 , Also you can read this interview with Ham&High magazine and Reorient Magazine http://www.reorientmag.com/2012/09/khaled-akil/ , http://www.hamhigh.co.uk ,

On the other hand, please visit his Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/khaledakil which has a blue badge, I think Facebook does't give the blue badge if the individual is not internationally known !.lora 09:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Devon (talk • contribs) 07:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly: You are not signing your talk page entries with four tildes like this: ~~~~. Do you think you could work on this? This would be very helpful! Next, if the references you mentioned above are valid, you should put them in the article following the standard Wikipedia in-line citation format so that other editors can quickly check them (see WP:REFERENCE for more info on how to put in a reference). Last, nothing on Facebook counts for anything on Wikipedia! Facebook is considered a "primary source" and does not provide editorial oversight for its content— Wikipedia can only consider sources that are truly independent of the subject, which Facebook is not, is never, will never be. The Facebook "blue badge" means nothing. We need to see at least two reliable, independent, secondary sources with editorial oversight that cover the subject in depth, and we need to see them in the article itself so we can verify their relevance. Can you do this? KDS4444^Talk 09:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also: please understand that I am highly sympathetic to Mr. Akil's political perspective and the tone and intent of his work. Syria is a troubled place, and I applaud his attempt to look at its problems with sincerity. My only concern here is as a Wikipedia editor, and this concern has only to do with his notability. I hope this is clear. Sometimes in deletion discussions things like this get lost. KDS4444^Talk 10:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I may by mistake deleted so comments of User:Joseph2302, please be patient on me, I'm still new here and trying to figure out how to use the shortcuts. as for the signature I'm sorry for that and it's gonna be fine. sorry User:Joseph2302 David (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded my comments in the correct place, no harm done. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the required references, hopefully it'll support the Bio and other materials. Does adding photographs make any different ? David (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding photographs makes no difference. All that will make a difference is evidence of published, verifiable, independent, in-depth (non-trivial) coverage from multiple reliable sources. The references that have been added are still not formatted correctly, and are not "inline" citations (they are not connected to specific parts of the article they are intended to support (see WP:INCITE for information about how and why to do this), but, by looking them over, it appears you may have made the case for this person's notability after all, and I am withdrawing my nomination to delete as a result.KDS4444 ^Talk 19:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft/userfy or simply draft/userfy if wished; my searches found nothing considerably good aside from some of the current links here (browser) but nothing at News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary. There's not much for an article now, SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'ts hard to relay on News and Books as sources for most of artists from the Middle east, because they put their news in their native language and the war going there from 5 years, generally not all artist has books or news, usually they only make interviews and they write articles about them, and that's doesn't mean that the individual is not known, Despite that the individual in the article is a well known artist and had a plenty of exhibitions worldwide talking about the war in his country and the middle east, he is the grandson of Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi, and that's one of the reasons I've created this article for, to let people know the descendants of this important public figure , User:SwisterTwister please check the Resources provided in the article.David (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with AfD nominator KDS4444 (who has withdrawn the AfD nomination) that David Devon has established with sources like Reorient,Hamhigh, and Your Middle East that Khaled Akil is notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. In addition to the English-language sources in the article, there are likely non-English sources about the subject that are offline or are difficult to find for people who do not read and write Arabic. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Generally a nominator can withdraw "If no-one else has supported the deletion proposal..." See WP:WDAFD. Here Joseph2302 and SwisterTwister appear to have supported the deletion proposal.

But the Original nominator he withdraw this request, plus there is a recourse in the bio already exist on Wikipedia like Reorient , please Joseph2302 and SwisterTwister we need an answer from you.David (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. Above, David tells us that the individual in the article is a well known artist and had a plenty of exhibitions worldwide talking about the war in his country and the middle east. Good. Then where is the evidence for these exhibitions? Also, that I'ts hard to relay on News and Books as sources for most of artists from the Middle east, because they put their news in their native language and the war going there from 5 years, generally not all artist has books or news, usually they only make interviews and they write articles about them. Okay, then where is the evidence in Arabic, Turkish, Hebrew, or any of the other languages that are used thereabouts; or in French or any of the other languages widely used for discussion of photography; or indeed in any other language? Meanwhile, here is his website. As I view it, it's in English, with no visible option to switch languages. It has internal links to three "exhibitions", but neither of the two I clicked on seems to mention any actual exhibitions in the normal sense (photos stuck on walls in places where interested people may choose to go). And unlike most websites of photographers, there's no list of exhibitions, of publications by the photographer, of publications about the photographer, of links to discussions in the more incisive among photography blogs, etc. Am I missing something here? If my browser were set up to have Arabic as the most preferred language, would I see something different? -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hoary 1: "Evidences", it seems you didn't open the resources in the article, please open them all and I'm sure you will find out that half of them are talking about the exhibitions, 2: Evidence in Arabic and Turkish, again it seems you didn't do your homework well, actually the most sources you can find for this artist is in Turkish, and Arabic, Even on of the links in the article will take you to an interview with a Turkish TV, Also you can find an interview for the artist in Sky News Arabic, 3: It's not true that you can't find list of exhibitions in his website, go to his website and you will see above Exhibition, under it the exhibitions with years!, you missing a lot of things.David (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the "exhibitions" tab on his website seems to suggest that there was an exhibition of title X in year Y, but it doesn't say where this was or link to anything about it. Nevertheless, keep, thanks to the piece by Hester Keijser and another I clicked on within the list that now appears within the WP article. -- Hoary (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:00, 18 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. Once you strip away the mountains of off-topic commentary, there is reasonably good consensus here that insufficient high-quality sources exist to establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Aid Society of Orange County[edit]

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

I tried to improve this article but I'm not not sure if it's even marginally notable given that there aren't that many good sources and most of it was for the homelessness defense case and the others passing, primary or for a "Legal Aid Society of Orange County, Florida" (not entirely sure if it's related). My searches were here, here, here, here and here (note that I started adding "California" at the end to sort the relevant results). SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. Twister's searches indicate insufficient coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ I am prepared to accept this satisfies GNG. Seems large. In any event, I would have thought the possibility of merger/redirection into a broader article on the area, perhaps on the legal system of the area, or on this type of society, would preclude deletion. James500 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my !vote above, not because I think this topic is not notable (it is notable), but because this AfD needs to end as soon as possible to prevent it from being used as a forum for off topic comments and personal attacks, and I want to remove any obstacle to it ending. James500 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how does it satisfy GNG? Most of the coverage is not in-depth or primary. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Most", in that context, isn't a valid argument for deletion. If any of the coverage is both secondary and significant, that will suffice, even if the rest isn't. James500 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can you please point to actual coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easily. Start with the magazine article on OC lawyers presently cited in our article. Then, there is another magazine article in GBooks which covers their litigation in favour of some kind of right to sleep rough. James500 (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a large LSA for a big, diverse county/metro area. At first, I thought it was for Orange County, New York, which I would have voted to delete. With a little more digging, sources should be easy to find. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the real guideline (NRVE) says that an article is not to be deleted if it is likely that adequate sources exist, whether or not they are actually produced. James500 (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this article should be deleted, because it is unlikely that adequate sources exist. Because, you know, people have looked and come up empty-handed. Reyk _YO! 13:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not come up empty handed. I said so in express words above. James500 (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So where are they? Reyk _YO! 13:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Keep voters assert that there must be sources out there somewhere, yet the sources don't seem to be out there anywhere. I've looked, nominator has looked, and there's just nothing substantial. Reyk _YO! 13:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I did not claim that sources must be out there somewhere. I expressly claimed to have personally found, seen and read sources that contain significant coverage etc that satisfy GNG. What do you think "I ... accept this satisfies GNG" means? James500 (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your previous antics here and elsewhere, I do not believe you've found anything. I don't believe you've even looked. I think you just indiscriminately vote keep on every AfD you see. Reyk _YO! 13:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your previous antics, I'd say that was a bad faith lie, that you have deliberately said something about me that you know to be factually false. You must know, just from looking at the archives of DSLAW to begin with, that I do not !vote in every AfD I see; nor do I !vote indiscriminately. I have a very straightforward standard that I apply consistently: significant coverage is a decent sized paragraph in one source or coverage that adds up to one in multiple sources that do not individually contain significant coverage. You must also know that there is a magazine article cited in Legal Aid Society of Orange County that contains significant coverage: this one. I suspect you know that the other article I referred to above was this one. And you must know that there are other sources that discuss the society if you have looked at GNews and GBooks. If you read the edit notice that appears when you try to edit an AfD, you will notice that it instructs you to comment on the merits of the article and not on other editors. Kindly follow that instruction in future both in this discussion and all other AfDs. James500 (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you've belatedly decided to look for sources just now, even if it took my rather pointed criticism for you to finally do it, but I guess I'm just not as impressed by trivial name drops and run-of-the-mill puff pieces as you are. As for WP:SPADE, no, I think I will continue to speak my mind and call out what I see as duplicitous behaviour in future. If you do not like that, you know the way to WP:ANI. Reyk _YO! 12:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These false accusations that you are making ought to stop as they constitute a personal attack. You know perfectly well that I was aware of these sources before I !voted (one of them was actually cited in the article, so there is no way that anyone could have failed to be aware of it: your claim to have imagined that I was not aware of it is completely implausible, because even a small child would have immediately realised that was not the case). It is clear to me, from the nature of your comments and our previous history, that the sole purpose of your false comments is to annoy me as much as possible, because you know that I find this kind of nonsense infuriating. James500 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: if you do not like me speaking my mind, ANI is thataway. I don't say things that I don't believe, and if I criticise someone's behaviour it's not because I want to annoy them but because I think their behaviour has genuinely been questionable. If my willingness to indulge bullshit is less than it was, it's from years of being hectored by wikilawyers and ultra-defensive screamers, and I see you doing a lot of that these days. Reyk _YO! 21:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James, I get the impression that you attempt to annoy others in Afds, with ludicrous arguments such as snow keep and ineligible for deletion which is clearly not the case. Otherwise it's a case of lacking competency which others have previously raised. A number of editors have expressed concern about your argumentative style but you stubbornly continue. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, I get the impression that you and Reyk have for some time been following me around and trying to provoke me by saying very nasty things about me personally, many of which are wholly off topic, since a certain MfD that you started. You certainly followed me to two unrelated RfCs that were improperly advertised there and then (in LibStar's case) to my user talk page. Now you are both 'popping up' over and over again on a deletion sorting list that I normally edit and, as far as I can remember, you don't. The number of editors you refer to is the pair of you and perhaps one other who seem to be seeking, and by the look of all your recent police force AfDs of obvious redirects which you know I am going to see because they are on this deletion sorting list, now engineering, confrontations with me. (You also omit to mention that other editors have commented on your behaviour). I get the impression that your behaviour is an attempt to prosecute The Holy War against non-deletionists. You seem to have a thing against me because I have in the past !voted to keep articles you would like to see deleted, especially a certain article on bilateral relations whose failed AfD was the precursor of the MfD. You would like to drive me out of AfD because I'm not sufficiently deletionist for your taste. Or you would like to silence my opinions because they are different to yours. The accusations you are making against me are obviously not being advanced in good faith because they are too absurd. I would be grateful if you would stop trying to shove deletionism down my throat. Why not just stop making personal attacks and trying to annoy me? Just accept that my opinions about notability are different to yours? Just agree to disagree? You know perfectly well that I have never advanced any argument at AfD that I did not believe to be correct. James500 (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

following you around? I was the first person to vote here and you popped up yesterday as the first person to comment on my AfD nomination. Seems like you are following me around. WP:KETTLE if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I reached this, and the others, via DSLAW. But I don't understand how you suddenly started reaching AfDs on judges, law journals and lawyers. They do not appear on the organisations deletion sorting list from which you could have reached this one. James500 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and you have a sudden interest in Malaysian galleries? LibStar (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is on WP:DSLAW because it is the museum of a police force. I did not add it to that deletion sorting list, Necrothesp did. Nor did I argue that the museum should be kept, which puts paid to your accusations of bad faith. I'm sure you know that. How did you get to the AfDs on the Canadian tax judge, the Groningen law journal and the lawyer, nominated by Paperwario, whose name is something like Arkady Bush? James500 (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to ban LibStar or myself from AfDs that you have edited, go to ANI and propose a topic ban. You seem to be enthusiastic about trying to restrict who can participate at AfD and what they can say, so at least that would be consistent. Nobody who writes ridiculous idiotic bilge like that essay has any right to complain that others are shoving their ideology down his throat. Of course, if you did propose a topic ban you'd have to then explain how LibStar is "following" you to AfDs he edited before you did, or why there's anything wrong with keeping an eye on a hyper-inclusionist editor who has begun trying to invalidate perfectly proper AfDs with a lot of bizarre and erroneous wikilawyering. We wouldn't want anyone to be fooled by it. Reyk _YO! 10:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) DELREF2015 contains no recommendations whatsoever; it is just a brainstorming exercise that lists everything that might conceivably be done ("blue skies thinking"), the merits of which have yet to be investigated even by me. I might end up personally opposing many of those ideas upon further reflection. And an attempt to generate a proposal is not an essay. And, since I have never invoked it at any AfD, or anywhere else, it is not relevant in any way. Nor can I be accused of hypocrisy on the basis of that as I have not and am not now asking you to refrain from drafting or making deletionist proposals for new rules through the proposal process. (2) Having nominated several hundred articles for speedy deletion I could not possibly be called inclusionist, let alone hyper inclusionist. And should LibStar be followed because he is a hyper-deletionist who, amongst other things, persistently erroneously ignores ATD when voting? (3) If I remember correctly, I edited each of the three AfDs I mentioned first, and he could follow me to DSLAW itself, rather than specific AfDs. The ones he edited first seem to be on the organisations list, which I agree adequately explains his presence. The aforementioned three I edited first do not seem to have been on that list though. (4) I have advanced no bizarre or erroneous arguments anywhere at any time. (5) Some of the comments that are being made by LibStar about me are wholly off topic. They have nothing to do even with the merits of my opinions. In fact, some of them could serve no purpose except provocation and to annoy me as much as possible such as [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. (6) I am not asking anyone to stop editing AfDs. What I expect is a certain level of courtesy that is still not forthcoming at the moment from either of you. That means no false accusations, ad hominems, or other personal attacks or other comments, bearing no relation to the topic in question, whose sole purpose is to be as aggravating as possible. I don't expect you to refrain from !voting in accordance with your opinions, however unfortunate those opinions might be (there being no clear rule against that), I expect you to refrain from being as singularly rude, nasty and unpleasant, to me, as possible, for the sake of it, in the process. James500 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR. Reyk _YO! 19:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes James500 , if you don't like my participation ask for a topic ban, you won't have much to stand on given your history of editing and writing the longest responses I've ever seen in afds, as per WP:BLUDGEON. Otherwise I will contribute to AfDs like any editor may. LibStar (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLUDGEON is only an essay and see my comments above. James500 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's an essay that perfectly describes you. You consistently try to shout down opposing views with very long responses in afds. It's a deliberate tactic. I'm sure you'll respond with some long winded excuse ridden rant now LibStar (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I think you are already aware, I do not use any 'tactics' whatsoever anywhere or try to do any such thing. I certainly never 'rant'. If I was becoming angry, my comments would become shorter, not longer. If you must accuse me of something, I think it would have to be either being more intelligent than others (in the sense of having more thoughts to communicate in the first place) or being more diligent (in the sense of giving an adequate explanation when others don't). I don't think my comments are generally particularly verbose and there are many editors who are far more 'long winded', as you put it, than me. I note that you also frequently accuse me of not saying enough, about as often as you accuse me of saying too much, so I don't think you are being consistent either. And I could just as easily argue that your accusations of 'you talk too much' are themselves a deliberate tactic to silence opinions you don't like, or to win arguments by silencing the other side, by stopping the full facts from coming out, by stopping relevant arguments from being advanced (like putting someone on trial but not allowing anyone to speak properly in their defence). James500 (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I was becoming angry, my comments would become shorter, not longer. Another ludicrous statement. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yeesh, I can't believe my rather innocuous delete !vote was enough to provoke this much yelling. I'm going to disengage now, because the long winded ranting has reached the point of self-parody and nothing productive will come of continuing this conversation; plus, I'm weary of grappling with these immense walls of text. Reyk _YO! 14:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote wasn't innocuous, it misrepresented something that I said, and you followed that up by attacking me by expressly falsely accusing me of something I had not done (not looking for sources). And you and LibStar have kept adding more attacks in a (largely successful) subtle bid to change the subject from "Reyk, what you said about me was obviously not true, and you must know it wasn't true, so please do the decent thing: withdraw it and apologise". James500 (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the-WP:MILL, WP:ROUTINE announcements, no significant coverage in RS, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word about the lengthy discussion above: James500 is probably the foremost ultra-inclusionist active on Wikipedia these days, see his AfD stats (96 keep/speedy keep vs. 2 delete). During the last month he cast a lot of !votes without bolding them (which is required under WP:AFDFORMAT "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text") so the bot can't parse them. There were quite a few "keep" votes in AfDs which ended with a verdict of "delete". Kraxler (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well spotted kraxler, James500 is deliberately not bolding votes to avoid detection. And when you add all the other behaviour it certainly adds up. Expect a long winded excuse ridden rant why he doesn't bold. LibStar (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been explained to you elsewhere, LibStar, at great length. And it has no relevance to whether Reyk had any business calling me a liar on strength of no evidence whatsoever. James500 (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kraxler: The word "usually" does not imply a requirement. Saying that I am an ultra inclusionist is an invalid ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with the merits of the topic. Saying that my !votes have not always matched the outcomes of AfDs in the past is an invalid ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with the merits of the topic. It is wholly improper to invoke those statistics in an AfD as they have nothing to do with whether this topic satisfies GNG. Nor, for that matter, does it have anything to do with the discussion above. If you read the edit notice that appears when you try to edit an AfD, you'll notice that it says that commenting on another participant, instead of on the merits of the article, is a personal attack and is considered disruptive. James500 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question, why don't you bold your votes like every single editor does? LibStar (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Every single editor does not do that. You know perfectly well that I explained that on the talk page of the other user who asked. I will not explain twice. (2) This nonsense has continued long enough. Stop making off topic comments. Stop commenting on other editors. You are not supposed to be doing this at AfD. (3) Since I have struck my !vote, you have no reason to communicate with me here again. James500 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

let's see if you can't resist responding again. Remember more words means less angry. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE User:James500: You're mistaken, the bolding is required. I quote again "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text" And now let's parse it: "Usually editors recommend a course of action" but sometimes editors only reply to other editors, or post a question, or relist, or close a discussion. The "usually" qualifies that there are other options than to recommend a course of action. And now back to the text "... a course of action in bold text, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" or other view. Some bots and tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words, so following this convention is highly recommended.". That means that the "bold text" is inseparable from the course of action recommended. Once you decide to recommend a course of action (like "keep") it should be bolded. Period. The only reason not to do that is to escape bot parsing, as the guideline clearly states. So why do you refuse to do something that is "highly recommended"? Would you like to discuss this at WP:ANI? Kraxler (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well said Kraxler. Deliberately and persistently avoiding community practice may be cause for WP:ANI. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 26 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. Whatever the size of the museum, or the depth of coverage, not a single !voter has appeared in three weeks to support deletion. A merger of the three museums should be debated on the talk page of any one of them. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Museum[edit]

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

Fails WP.:ORG . Another tiny museum from malacca that is housed on only one level. The article is based on 2 primary sources. Also nominating in the same building for the same reasons:

People's Museum

*Kite Museum LibStar (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Malacca is a historic place with lots of museums. These are notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Melaka History and Heritage in Museums. There may be some scope for merger, especially for those which are housed in the same building complex but, per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, this would not be done by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've recycled this same argument in various afds but fail to show in-depth coverage about these specific museums. WP:PRESERVE does not override if an article is not notable. LibStar (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this beauty, people's or kite museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are all listed on page 86 which discusses the Dutch enclave in Malacca where these museums are co-located. There's perhaps some scope for merger, where they form part of the same complex or building but that's not done by deletion. This is the key point of WP:PRESERVE and our other policies — that we should first look for sensible alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the alternative to deletion is perhaps merge, but there is little justification for keep on the basis of poor availablity of sources. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all When I decided to write these 3 museums (Beauty Museum, People's Museum and Kite Museum), I was thinking to write it only as one article; 'People's Museum' might be the one name that can cover all. But then again, from all of the sources I've found and from visiting the museum directly, they do 'officially' divide the building into 3 different museums (with 3 different opening/officiating date for each of them). Even the transportation area in front of the building belongs to the People's Museum, not Kite nor Beauty Museums. Even if they were to be merged, I have no idea on which name to use to represent those 3 museums. This museum is housed in a 3-story building, thus it is not tiny. Besides, that is the characteristics of most of the museums in Malacca, they are not gigantic like the Forbidden City or the Louvre, there is nothing I can do about it. The Beauty Museum now has 5 references already. Chongkian (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't addressed how WP:ORG is met. I could have nominated them separately too. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added another 5 references for the Beauty Museum article which are non-Youtube link, non-tourism website and non-blog. Chongkian (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References 2 to 7 are all used in the first sentence and merely used to confirm existence of museum. LibStar (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm moving out the kite museum to its own AfD as I think it has particularly low notability. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all subject to possible merge of all 3 into 1 article. Sufficient evidence exists to validate this as a significant and notable Malacca tourist attraction; see for example [29][30] and I also have some concern about the systemic geographic bias inherent in deleting a subject like this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:55, 18 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 to delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 809[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Not in a catalogue of note to amateurs (Bayer or Flamsteed), not visible to the naked eye, not discovered before 1850, and no significant coverage in studies. 23 light-years distant is not close enough to be notable for that reason. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: the star actually shows up in quite a few papers, but it's almost always as a data point with no descriptive text. It has been in group studies as a candidate flare star, and just in general as a nearby M-type star. But I wasn't able to find enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the Wikipedia article describes a star relatively close at hand to earth. This description of the star appears to be a WP:RS. Nominator's rationale fails to convince me that deleting this article improves the encyclopedia. Jus da fax 14:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page you link to is the very definition of a database entry, just containing info on the basic properties of the star, with no indication of why it is relevant or notable per WP:GNG. GNG requires significant coverage, which the source you mention lacks. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree the policy you cite "requires" stars to be written about like they are people. At some point you have to be reasonable, and apply WP:IAR. Deleting this article does not improve the encyclopedia, it reduces human access to knowledge. Repeat: your nomination does not improve the encyclopedia. Jus da fax 00:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you and I differ on what it means to improve the encyclopedia; I believe that in nearly all cases an article that can be written entirely from boilerplate text is not notable and does not benefit the encyclopedia. And besides, the argument that you think something is a useful subject doesn't mean anything in a deletion discussion, but rather the guideline WP:NASTRO and the policy WP:GNG are what matters. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At less than 25 light-years from the Sun, this is a nearby star. The only reasonable alternative is to move it to a list that includes stars 16-30 light years from the Sun. If it was more than 30 light-years away I would not be as concerned. -- Kheider (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly support a provision in NASTRO allowing for objects within a certain distance to be notable. However, I feel that 25 light-years is a bit too far and includes some obviously otherwise non-notable objects. I personally adhere to a 20 light-year (in at least 2 studies) cutoff for notability, as I think it's a reasonable compromise between those who want larger distances and those who want no distance clause. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are 74 stars within 16.2 light years, so that would extrapolate to 470 within 30 light years. It wouldn't be any great burden to maintain that number of articles. But, in the case of faint red dwarfs, I'm not convinced that's a reliable metric for notability. Praemonitus (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this star and its planets were just featured in last night's National Geographic TV's animated documentary about space exploration. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something is clearly wrong there, because I cannot find a single source demonstrating that this star has planets. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:54, 18 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. Sandstein 20:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Office management software[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of User:Rubbish computer (per [31]). ~~I have no opinion on whether the article should be deleted or not.~~ I have !voted below. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~This article serves no purpose other than the promotion of its content. If it were to be trimmed of promotional content, none would remain. Rubbish computer 18:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)~~Editor has changed to keep below--JAaron95 ^Talk 14:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google Books search shows that many books devote significant coverage to the topic. Here is an example. The solution to the current poor state of the article is to improve it, not to delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book you cited does not really make clear what it means by "office management software." It seems to be talking about something like MS Office and its competitors. I expect that we have an article already on this topic. Borock (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and "Office suite" redirects to Productivity software. That and a bookkeeping program, like Quickbooks, would probably be enough to manage an office. But like I said in my vote they don't seem to come packaged together.Borock (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst I agree this current article is rubbish, there's lots of sources out there about it, so it can pass WP:GNG. Needs complete rewrite though, I'd consider nominating it for WP:TAFI. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've changed my mind; I've worked on it a bit and it does provide some information. Rubbish computer 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with your changes, Rubbish computer, I don't tyhink anyting signifiocant from tejh current version would survive into a properly cited, properly WP:POV, proeprly written version. The topic is clearly notable, but I think this is a case for WP:TNT. DES ^(talk) 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not properly explain its scope or purpose. "Office management software" may be a Wictionary entry. This is now a short list of random alleged such items. I suppose there are other articles which describe Word, Excel, Powerpoint, outlook etc. and there is Category:Software. TNT is the best option. Kraxler (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - might work as a disambig page, or category. But as others have said, it's not clear exactly what the scope of this would be from the article's text, nor from what I can see in a search of "Office management software". At the moment, it appears to include other categories of software like Word processors and Personal information managers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expected to vote to keep from the title, but it seems (from what's in the article itself) that there is not really any software package specifically designed to manage an office.Borock (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've looked at the article now and WP:TNT seems like the best option. The topic sounds vaguely notable but the article provides absolutely no evidence that it is, and doesn't contain any content worth including. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:59, 18 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RagTime (computer program)[edit]

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

Article lacks notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up a borderline RS, http://www.educationupdate.com/archives/2004/july/html/tech-comgrafix.htm, and a number of reprinted press releases. This level of coverage is insufficient to establish notability, but suggests there may be other refs including print publications from the late 1990s that cover this software. Dialectric (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thirty year old software should be leaving a bigger footprint if it's really notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:49, 18 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) 01:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Canter[edit]

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

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

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

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

Makes no assertion of notability. The subject founded a company that was later merged to form Macromedia, then bought out by Adobe. Though the company might be considered mildly notable, the founders need their own secondary coverage in order for they themselves to be considered notable. The sources in this article are either written by the subject himself or insignificant (i.e. a newsgroup, short mention in a newspaper, or a small blog). This article lacks significant coverage by secondary sources independent of the subject, and thus should be deleted per GNG. Richard Ye^talk 09:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - confounding Macromedia is not "mildly notable". Artw (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Richard must not remember the Internet prior to 2005. Brianmarx (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I agree with Artw. The inventor of desktop video is a pretty significant influence. Brought to us the technology behind Flash and ultimately YouTube. Scott Truesdell (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This subject seems notable and my searches found results to confirm this here, here and here and passing mentions here. If not notable, I would've said to move to one of the companies but it seems he has independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blmurch (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you frickin' kiddin'??? - some WP:BEFORE would be useful here but regardless, this article has some problems with tone and promotion and editing by naive editors, but the notability of this giant of the Internet (figuratively and perhaps literally) is not in question. Major mentions in reliable sources bla bla bla. Grow up. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Notable and significant in many distinct roles and companies, deserving of his own page. Brianmarx (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Marc is notable; the page content does need some cleanup though. I've cut most of the overly-attentive intro bio, plus softened a questionable claim about tribe.net. DanBri (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can understand how kids like Richard Ye who weren't around decades before the multimedia revolution begin, who didn't surf through the dot com bubble inflation and explosion, who take blogging and podcasting and desktop publishing for granted, and who never attended many of the multimedia and web publishing conferences in the bay area and around the world year after year, may not understand how well known and influential Marc Canter has always been, but they certainly should be able to read about it on Wikipedia. Xardox (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - davewiner Marc is a historic figure in the development of personal computer software and the Internet. He led the development of Macromind Director, which was the seminal product of what was then called the "multimedia industry." This, along with Hypercard, and Unix, became the foundation for the web. However, the article here does not reflect that influence. Someone is going to have to do some serious work to get this story right. Marc's accomplishments have very little if anything to do with the company he founded. He's a creative master, and his creative process led to a lot of what we use today on the web. Removing him from Wikipedia would be a big loss for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davewiner (talk • contribs) 13:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC) — Davewiner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep although Marc has not been as active lately, he was a notable driver of multimedia and later internet technology. DickHardt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can think of no more notable figure in the history of multimedia. Let's work to improve the article and its sourcing, keeping in mind that the most significant period of his influence/activity predates the web, so sourcing may take more work. Dig We Must! Raines (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThere was a moment when Marc Canter and digital multimedia were nearly synonymous. Without disrespect to his more recent work, it's important to keep his entry as a reminder of the days when a CD-ROM was absolutely the coolest thing someone could be working on (and that someone was probably using software Marc Canter helped pioneer).Akma (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Marc has been at the centre of several computer revolutions. Notable. --ESP (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marc was very important in multimedia and publishing. This article needs a lot of work (Marc has been referenced in much more notable publications than the ones currently cited) but should be kept. Myelin (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable, important figure in software industries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndaweinman (talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC) — Lyndaweinman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paranet Continuum[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. No evidence of notice independent of UFO true believers. jps (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note See related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Corbin. jps (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only reliable source I found is a blurb in Billboard.[32] I'm not sure that this is enough to pass WP:RPRGM. Are there any others? - Location (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable sourcing, fringe. Ogress _smash! 03:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with jps and Ogress. In reliable sources, there is only one brief mention. - Location (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing convincingly good at all aside from some links for Michael Corbin's death and such. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 19 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. And move as discussed. Sandstein 20:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logical partition[edit]

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

Delete per WP:TWODAB: Because there are only two entries (one of them has less than half a line worth of info) using hatnote disambiguation is more convenient. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move only entry with article to primary topic with hatnote to entry meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; that is actually what I ultimately intended by this nomination: "Logical partition" dab page gets deleted, "Logical partition (virtual computing platform)" is moved to "Logical partition" and a ((for|disk partition type|Disk partitioning#Extended partition)) tag is placed on top of the new "Logical partition". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move precisely per nom. bd2412 T 04:47, 19 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. Davewild (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Bragg[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Prod was removed because of the article in Variety, but I don't think the few paragraphs there is enough to confer notability. Agtx (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article in Variety is more than just passing coverage. Yes it is only one but still coverage in a major publication. WP:GNG requires significant coverage independent of subject and this one meets that. At this point in time WP:ENT is strictly not met because only one role that could be classed as major. However The Outfield, an upcoming movie shows him in a starring role and that would meet the multiple significant roles guideline. The article needs more references, that is true, but we should leave it and let it grow. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I concur with Geraldo Perez (talk), the major publication coverage alone is sufficient and the additional film pending is independent support. Let the article develop and re-assess in time if it doesn't improve regarding citations. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:46, 18 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Lee Martin[edit]

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

No usable source. Could not establish notability through other means. COI issue. Resume. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing apparent to suggest improvement or notability and although the article has improved since this, the article is unfortunately unacceptable at this state. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: do you think there's a possibility of improving the article to an acceptable state? I could not find any sources to establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not as there's no evidence of even the slightest good sources. SwisterTwister talk 16:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sign of notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 06:17, 24 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) 10:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio (game)[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources. Seems to fail WP:V, if not a hoax. Adam9007 (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find anything to show that this exists either. I don't think it's a hoax necessarily, but I do think that it's likely something that someone came up with one day so it might be speedyable under WP:A11. I'll hold off on doing this just to see if anyone else has any luck finding anything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The closest I've been able to find is this, but even this has significant differences to the game described in this article . Adam9007 (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately nothing in the slightest to improve sourcing and, although it sounds like a nice game, there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:44, 18 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) 10:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relymedia[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, all I can find are press releases, no significant coverage in WP:RS. Prod contested by probable COI user (who removed AFD notice). Vrac (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because all my searches found nothing in the slightest third-party coverage (primary, business listings, etc.). SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:42, 18 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 03:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Karim[edit]

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

Doesn't appear likely to be notable (see cited sources) [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 07:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are two directory listings and an article that may not even mention Karim but clearly does not have him as its subject. Plus the whole tone of this article is entirely unencyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not much at this time with my searches here and here (not sure if this one is him). SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 19 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 as WP:AUTHOR is met. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah R. Brock[edit]

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

Although the article claims "major contributions," I couldn't really find anything to back that up. There is a published book review, but I still don't think the subject meets WP:PROF. Agtx (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 06:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Books offers plenty of publications citing Deborah Brock's works. These books cover different areas of academic research, from social criminology to cultural studies. The article is missing half of Brock's bibliography; on top of that, it is also lacking all the references about Brock's works published in the Left History peer-reviewed academic journal. Left History is/was indexed in America: History and Life (an academic journal from ABC-CLIO), Historical Abstracts (another academic journal from ABC-CLIO), Sociological Abstracts (formerly a Cambridge Scientific Abstracts journal, is now a ProQuest division), and the Alternative Press Index (an EBSCO bibliographic database of academic journals). There is no need to delete the aforementioned article, just to improve its sources (which I'm going to do as soon as possible). Toffanin (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't find much. Yes, her book does get referenced, but it has a poor showing in G-Scholar (138 cites). I found one review of the book, although not in what I would call a major journal (Article: Brock, Deborah R. "Making Work, Making Trouble" (Book Review) Author:

Caulfield, Stephen Journal:Canadian journal of urban research ISSN: 1188-3774 Date: 12/01/2000 Volume: 9 Issue: 2 Page: 219). So I hope that Toffanin has better sources. I'll check back. LaMona (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Found evidence she has published several books, such as here on Amazon (although to date there are no customer reviews). Could not find much by way of secondary sources to establish notability. My media sweeps such as this one turned up other Deborah Brocks (there is a movie director with the same name) but not much on the academic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Changing to Keep as per Joe Decker in comment below.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:AUTHOR # 1 and 3, possibly also 2, her pragmatic approach to prostitution is maybe not "new" but it is an important dissenting voice in the overall panic approach in certain countries. Her books are widely cited (hundreds of citations), and there are reviews like here, here, here, here, here and here. Kraxler (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ASA and G&M cites Kraxler cites are by themselves sufficient for AUTHOR. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep though the article needs more sources Sofiamar (talk) 23:54, 27 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 HelloWallet. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fellowes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable, and promotional. I started removing some of the promotional excess, but I've realized there's nothing left. The references are either to his own talks, or press releases. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP subject is not notable, and current article content is entirely promotional. --FeralOink (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and I would've said redirect to HelloWallet but I'm not sure if that one is notable as it has sourcing issues as well. The only sure sources I found for Matt are this and I'm not sure about this. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 19 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Trick[edit]

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

Fails the notability requirements of WP:BAND; has only been the subject of one publication by an arguably reliable source (No Depression magazine), and meets none of the other notability requirements. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apart from the Significato magazine, the subject has also been covered by The Boston Globe, No Depression magazine (interview), Music Times (passing by mention), Boston (passing by mention) and several other websites which may not meet Wikipedia's reliability norms individually but together prove notability of the musician (several websites that report in music industry are widely used but do not pass Wikipedia reliability check). Disc.: I'm the creator of the page. Mr RD (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The pieces from Boston.com and The Boston Globe are the same "article". The piece actually isn't even an article; it is merely an ad for a program that was put on by a church, where Jim Trick was one of a dozen or so people to perform. The subject is merely mentioned in passing, and the "article" amounts to little more than a press release. The Music Times piece merely lists him as one of dozens of artists who would play at SoulFest 2013. The Significato "magazine" piece appears to be nothing more than a CD review from a blog run by a husband and wife. Thus, he has only been the subject of one non-trivial published work that appeared in a reliable source (No Depression magazine), and the subject fails the other criteria of WP:BAND (and additionally WP:GNG). It is also worth noting that in addition to being the creator of the page, Mr RD has disclosed that he was monetarily compensated to create the page. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete comes no where close to meeting the notability requirements for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather promotional (subject is described as a "motivational speaker", trying to drum up an audience?, and paying for it [see above]?), fails all criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage in independent RS, refs are primary, blogs, trivial mentions or almost empty discographies... Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 26 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source Protection Committees[edit]

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

The longest unchanged article after User:Giraffedata's "comprised of" fix, done on 23 February 2009. Oh, and Source Protection Committees are completely unimportant civic committees to discuss clean water in Ontario, Canada. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[33] This shows the page where I found out Source Protection Committees was the longest unchanged page since Giraffedata made his trademark edit. You will just have to trust me it said "current" at the time I saw it. But you can go back in time over Giraffedata's contributions and you won't find any older edits that are still current, besides some user pages he was practicing on in the beginning. An additional interesting note is that after Giraffedata changed "who are comprised of" to ", with", he made an actual substantive edit. [34] Some may say that disqualifies my first reason for AfD, but then they would be comprised of even more pedantry than Giraffedata, plus they can find the next oldest and AfD that themselves. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:37, 18 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. There are no !votes at all, just the nomination and a comment. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Volleyball Magazine[edit]

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

While the magazine has a credible claim to notability as being Australia's only magazine dedicated to volleyball (at least while it was still being published), other than a few mentions online I failed to find enough significant reliable coverage for the magazine. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jshster69 (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Sorry if I'm not doing this the right way. Are you questioning whether the magazine existed? I can provide photos of the magazine itself if required. Does it need to me "notable" to be on Wikipedia? Does State Library of Victoria records suffice?? http://search.slv.vic.gov.au/primo_library/libweb/action/dlSearch.do?dscnt=1&ct=facet&fctN=facet_creationdate&fctV=[2001%20TO%20null]&onCampus=false&query=any%2Ccontains%2Cspike%20volleyball%20magazine&bulkSize=20&tab=default_tab&group=ALL&vid=MAIN&institution=SLVPRIMO&fromLogin=true&search_scope=Everything[reply]

It was never stated that the magazine doesn't exist (it did). What we are discussing here is if the magazine is notable enough for a Wikipedia article; that is, if it meets our general notability guidelines. Also, remember that existence ≠ notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. does not appear to meet WP:GNG, a google search brings up a few trivial mentions only eg. it is held in the national library of australia per their collection policy, and some other Australian libraries. But, it did receive the 2006-07 Best Media Coverage Award from Volleyball Australia[35], is that a "major award" re WP:NBOOK? Coolabahapple (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: Honestly I doubt it. For one thing, as far as I know volleyball isn't popular in Australia, so I guess Volleyball Australia is hard-pressed to find nominees, let alone winners. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:37, 18 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Literacy Partners[edit]

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

I PRODed this way back in 2011 for not having any sources and being promotional, and didn't think anymore about it. It seems that a raft of links were added to justify dePRODing, but checking them today I find that apart from an interview in NYT, all the others are either dead links, primary sources or just not relevant. So I did some searching and all Ghits came up with were more primary sources and the usual clutch of sn sites. IMO it still fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kudpung, I'm a bit surprised you never revisited or added this to your watchlist (several users will so they can watch the activity and like this, when the PROD is removed). My searches found nothing particularly good and it's likely some of the coverage is because it's in New York, this (first article is for a gala event featuring Tom Brokaw), this and this. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another NGO, no claim of notability in the article, no significant coverage, fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Kraxler (talk) 15:44, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nasalevtsi: Poor vs. Rich[edit]

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

deprodded without comment by article creator, my concern remains that this future film fails WP:NFILM and WP:FFNOTE at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cleaned it up but there is just insufficient news coverage at this time. Nothing in the BG press at all. I have also nominated for deletion two related articles about the supposed star and director (Mimo Garcia, age 17) and his podcast (Radio Serial (by Mimo Garcia)). —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: the Mimo article may be a result of poor translation, it specifically states "Mimo Garcia was born on 02.16.1998 in the capital of Bulgaria - Sofia. He never used birth names and said that hates them. He changed his name in court at 18." So just how could anyone being 17 have changed (past tense) his name a year later??? Either he owns a time machine or we have a very poor translation. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficient notability as per @Wikimandia. Quis separabit? 23:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian:(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)

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

Soft delete per (still) being TOO SOON. It is not at surprising that an incomplete, non-English, Bulgarian film has no English language coverage, but it does have some Bulgarian-language coverage. Allow undeletion once we have release and MORE actual coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:06, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novotel Orisha Cotonou[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. When the only sources are travel guides it doesn't indicate notability. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft/userfy if willing - I acknowledge the sources but mostly it's all guides and such, with my searches finding nothing convincingly good, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another Novotel, one of 400 hotels and resorts in 60 countries, no claim to notability in the article, no coverage in secondary sources Kraxler (talk) 15:48, 26 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 merger to List of E-book software. Ignoring the inappropriate attacks on the nominator, the nominator asks the proper policy question: are there reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. First, the subject is the reader so the links to the author (or his personal website or whatever) are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a source to market or advertise or spread the word for independent open source software; it's to report on software of that type if reliable sources have found it notable (i.e. we're going to behind the eight ball on certain subjects, so be it). The volume of coverage is irrelevant considering that sites like this are not independent reliable sources and the editors arguing solely on volume do not seem to have reviewed the material in line with policy. The evidence supports that the reader exists and it seems like it's mostly trivial mentions (one of many E-book reader software) but that's not the same as significant coverage. The history of the program itself (i.e. the material in the article that isn't going to be a mere trivial mention elsewhere) comes from (1) this source (a dead link to the software's website so not independent); (2) this source (a 10-year online bulletin board) and two links to GitHub which don't actually say a word. Removing that, we have a list of features based off two reviews [36][37] both of which only re-hash the same information that can be placed in a mention at the List of E-book readers page. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to overturn to no consensus with original result retained per Deletion review. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FBReader[edit]

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

expired PROD that was recreated, but no new sources were added. the sources for the article include internet forums and revisions on GitHub. I challenge the notability of the subject. Shii (tock) 09:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no new sources were added
— Shii

Shii is making a attempt to mislead with untruths.
FBReader is essential for epub reading on Linux, only other choice is CoolReader for non-KDE

FBReader & CoolReader are more android focused.

~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how the links you've offered, to Sourceforge and various wikis, relate to this discussion of sourcing. Shii (tock) 23:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many new sources were added to FBReader as references, User:Shii saying they were not is UNTRUE ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_E-book_software. I couldn't find any quality sources (I mainly looked for independent reviews), but did find it in various lists of ebook reading software, so that seems to be where it belongs. I would actually like to see a non-list article on this topic, but so far there is only an article that covers devices - E-reader. LaMona (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search site:the-digital-reader.com FBReader will show a lot of independent reviews and general press coverage of FBReader~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the digital reader" is a blog, and blogs are not considered reliable sources. We need a source like a newspaper or magazine. LaMona (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a better sourced article on E-book software than: Okular, CoolReader, STDU Viewer, Blio, and Kitabu, yet there is an attempt to repeatedly delete this one. This is an open source project with proprietary uses by its creators, who seem to want to close-source it.~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I attempted to delete the Kitabu article as well. Both that article and this one lack reliable sources and are of dubious notability. Shii (tock) 09:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's notable, don't be ridiculous. This is what I hate about Wikipedia, every time I turn around someone is trying to delete a perfectly reasonable and useful article.

I came to this article just now because I'm doing research on EPUB readers, and this is one of the few in existence. And of course this thing that I turn to for valuable information is up for deletion.

Why don't you go delete the article on English or World War II or something. Dougmerritt (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could be doing research on minor Star Wars characters, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article for every such character. Shii (tock) 10:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least 700 articles discuss it[38][39][40][41], Linux [42], print mags [43]; ships by default on several Vodafone, Chinese and Russian YotaPhone[44][45] devices; National Tréasure[46] ; surveillance self-defense [47][48][49]; engages in battle[50]. Endorsed by Free Software Foundation [51]; (primary but) other corps ship it[52], Toshiba [53], BeBook[54], Pocketbook[55], Pandigital[56], non-android vendors ship it by default as well[57] and a metric tonne of others; notable for being early in the Google game[58]. Notability is not established by sources provided in article, but by their mere existence elsewhere: wp:N. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 13:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of these are mentions in lists (and some are not about the software at all), but two of them - [59] and [60] - are substantial reviews. That said, does anyone know of any policy that would make it possible to decide if two reviews makes a piece of software notable? I'm still tending toward merge, as I !voted before. LaMona (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are helpful, not all there is to it. It is independently developed open source software, not a product of an OEM, nor coupled to an operating system vendor, yet ships in production on millions of devices around the globe. I know of no other open source software with a similar claim - at least in the realm of mobile; that in and of itself is quite notable. It is one of the few which isn't malware infested and spying on the user for corporate Gestapo; there is something to be said for Free Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation endorsements on those grounds as well. Stories about 3rd-party eBook readers don't exactly drive a lot of page views for the click-bait, advertising driven media. Software is somewhat niche area, open source even more so. You'll never see an article on something like GNU wget in the The New York Times for example. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The large number of references for this open source tool speak for themselves.

I also strongly call for the permanent ban of people who call for the deletion of useful articles like this. To you wiki gnomes it seems like no big deal, but out here in the Real World it is well-known that this kind of **CRAP** attitude is what drives off the average person who originally just wanted to help wikipedia.

Yes, I am pissed about this. Deletion should not be a matter of "guilty until proven innocent", but for year after year after year, that's what I see here on wikipedia. Any random schmuck who is ignorant or who has an attitude, insists on deletion, and since careful wiki gnomes are rare in the general public, the motion usually carries. That's just wrong.

/rant

Deletion suggestions should begin with a cited indication that something is not notable, not with just a random unsupported claim that it is not notable. Dougmerritt (talk)

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. G11. Was a speedy candidate before creator removed the tag. Speedy G11 is still applicable. —SpacemanSpiff 08:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab solar summit 2015[edit]

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

This article is entirely promotional and reads like the contents of a brochure. I CSD'd this article twice but the creator removed the tag both times, despite warnings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Obvious G11 case; "first of its kind ever", "common platform", "the future" and other marketing speak and that's just in the lede. That would have to be rewritten completely, from scratch, to work as an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Agreed with the deletion rationale, the article creator could contest the CSD but he did not. The article is nothing more than an advertisement and I could not find anything notable related to the article by a Google search. Faizan (talk) 20:13, 18 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amey Nerkar[edit]

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

Teenage student who got this coverage for a helmet sensor, but that's about it. Michig (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unfortunately as my searches found nothing at all aside from the one article. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an article on a 17 year old who has had some thoughts about science but in no way made any recognized scholarly contributions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:07, 25 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 but move back to Disappearance of Charles Bothuell V which was the original title of this article. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bothuell V[edit]

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

Alleged to be csd eligible on db-person grounds, however I think an afd here may be a better approach to the article. While the event in question does make the person seem ineligable on WP:ONEEVENT grounds, the overall incident may be more notable, in which case this article could be folded into a broader subject covering the investigation in general as opposed to the person specifically. To do that, though, we need community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Retitle to Disappearance of Charles Bothuell V - While Bothuell himself might not be notable, I feel that his disappearance is notable. I started an article at Disappearance of Charles Bothuell V, but after it got moved, I chose my battles and left the article at that title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IFF the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected to 2015_in_the_United_States#February per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a feeling that when the second trial is over, this may turn out to have been a storm in a teacup. There is coverage, but what I see on Google looks to be somewhat sensationalist, and not a vast amount at that. I feel that the dismissal of the torture case should be mentioned right now, as without that, the article is not up to date and liable to be regarded as biased. On the whole, while the case has its peculiarities - and there may have been two conflicting agendas at work - I think that BLP1E does come in, and that possibly we may need a new policy BLP1NE with the N standing for 'non'. Peridon (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the dismissal of the torture charge. Peridon (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure. If kept, it should be renamed as Jax 0677 has suggested. When things like this make it into People, it suggests that there is some notability, or at least interest, beyond what we would considered routine news coverage. - Location (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and rename per suggestions above. I see no reason for deletion. Per GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Per Jax 0677. The person is not notable, but the disappearance sure is at the moment. DisuseKid (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Disappearance of Charles Bothuell V. Bothuell is not notable, the crime and related trial are notable. Still, living in Metro-Detroit I may be biased to think this is bigger than it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 26 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 03:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consultation (object-oriented programming)[edit]

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

No reliable sources for this decade-old article, which appears to be a fringe POV fork. greenrd (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Ruud 11:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing any possible improvement and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced programming concept/term article of unclear notability. A search turned up no significant coverage of this concept.Dialectric (talk) 02:33, 24 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 Neon Light (disambiguation). Consensus is to redirect, Anyone wanting to merge should probably go the talkpage first. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Lights[edit]

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

Weird because I created it, but know it is redundant with Neon Light (disambiguation). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 10:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 10:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neon Light (disambiguation). It might be redundant as a disambiguation, but it'd be helpful as a redirect for someone looking for something titled "Neon Lights". -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neon Light (disambiguation) which I've just amended to clarify scope, ie includes plural. PamD 08:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many valid entries; merging the two similarly named dabs would just waste people's time reading through it all. Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - short disambiguation pages on virtually the same name. bd2412 T 12:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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. The consensus is that there is just enough sources to meet the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tadashi Abe[edit]

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

Non-notable person Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNotable for being the first person to regularly teach Aikido in the west.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Pioneer of Aikido to the west. This is documented. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being the first in something doesn't necessarily mean your notable, especially if it's just in a different location.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Changing vote.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

forward to aikido although aikido is an ineffective martial art with a strange cult like following. This guy should be on its page. 172.56.34.233 (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally true for example first person to teach in Germany, Easter US, etc. What we are talking about is the first person to be officially sent to bring Aikido to the west. That is a huge thing in the expansion of aikido outside of Japan and why I think the person who did that is notable. It turns out that 8 years ago the first edit was by myself but I think I was helping someone else move it into article space which is ironic considering that if I was really paranoid, the nomination may be a revenge AfD. I was glad that the references have been improved since the AfD nomination.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you brought this into better view. I choose sometimes random article deletion topics to get a broad scope on subjects, but sometimes I make mistakes. I will change my vote to keep per your argument .TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several non-RS were in use. They've been removed. Lack of significant coverage by reliable 3rd party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I question the removal of several of those sources. AikiNews/AikiJournal are pretty reliable 3rd party sources. These were published in print form for years and have a very good reputation for accuracy.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not notice that I restored them. I disagree, but it's not worth fighting. Even with them, I don't see the coverage needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well they weren't but I did. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Established to be an influential figure in a field by multiple reliable sources. —innotata 07:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not support (WP:GNG). Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 09:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources found and Innotata, also the fact that this is a pre-internet, mostly foreign language person, the sources found in English are enough. GuzzyG (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though more sources would be good. Sofiamar (talk) 23:24, 27 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blogger (disambiguation)[edit]

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

It is redundant, per WP:TWODAB. Hatnote disambiguation is faster. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I notice that the hatnote is already in place. St Anselm (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi again. @@StAnselm:, @BD2412:: There is a similar AfD (same nature) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logical partition which is relisted to due no participation. Do you mind if you look at that too? Thanks in advance. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:37, 19 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) Mz7 (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Huhn[edit]

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

very weak notability, limited internet links presented are over 15 years old - WP:BLP concerns - there are controversial details being inserted, a stassi informer, and elements of an attack page for a low notable person, Currently there are three supporting externals - http://www.focus.de/magazin/archiv/ddr-journalist-klaus-huhn-war-stasi-spitzel_aid_154495.html, this one from 20 years ago - this one from 14 years ago http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/buecher/rezension-sachbuch-held-der-beinarbeit-11269834.html - the third one is this http://www.bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/wer-war-wer-in-der-ddr-%2363%3B-1424.html?ID=3603 - and is also not good independent reliable source Govindaharihari (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding ge.wiki article: [61] seems quite extensive and is supported by no less than 17 sources, all of which seem to be WP:RS. There is no reason why they can't be used to expand this article. The fact that they are in German is irrelevant. Kuhn seems to be sufficiently notable in his field. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the reasons stated .above by Martinevans123. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article is carefully presented and has nothing of an attack about it. Four sources for someone of minor notability should be fine, plus the three listed books. I see no reason to delete this. Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One cannot write a biography on a controversial subject without mentioning the controversy. Our article maintains NPOV, simply mentions it, as it should be. The Focus piece, which is cited states he was "one of the most influential journalists in the GDR", other sources on this page and the German page indicate the same, that he was widely influential. Circumstances have changed, but that does not diminish his one time significant importance. The argument that the sources are dated has no merit. Sources on all historical figures are dated. SusunW (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absurd nom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rebuke User:Govindaharihari for spurious nomination and for aggression, incivility on the article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 19 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. Michig (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big House Publishing[edit]

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

The article has been deleted twice before due to a lack of notability and apparent advertising/promotion. Like a phoenix, it keeps rising from the ashes, and like a good arsonist, Flat Out (talk · contribs) was there with with a can of gasoline and a book of matches (its just in this case I happened to be faster on the trigger :) Anyway, no apparent notability, no credible claim of significance, and it still reads in the ad/promo vein, so here it is, and whatever happens, happens. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article whose previous submissions by the same editor have been through two G11 speedy-deletion cycles, so it is probably appropriate that it has come to AfD for a decision. The given references demonstrate that the firm has issued press releases. Highbeam and Questia searches return nothing, Google returns only the usual listings on social media and directories. I am seeing nothing to demonstrate that the firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt All the sources are just self-published or primary, press releases, etc. Article is promotional. Notability is irrelevant, because we delete promotion and WP:NOTRS everywhere we find it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - My searches found nothing even in the slightest good and third-party and it's not surprising it's all PR for a recently founded company. For a future article, I strongly suggest WP:AFC but only when it's come closer to notability and better sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - all of the above and hat tip to TomStar81. Flat Out (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt for all the reasons already rehearsed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 22 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. Hoax. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschgramm[edit]

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

The current source makes no actual mention of this and my searches even the simplest ones (see here) found no good results so either this is a very obscure weight measure or this is a joke. Nothing at all to suggest keeping this. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable, independent sources found, or indeed any sources at all. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Faked interwikis, faked reference ... — Ben Ben ^(talk) 23:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious hoax. PianoDan (talk) 20:33, 21 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. Michig (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Masucci[edit]

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

Article fails to establish any kind of notability and is scarce in sources. I could not find any references outside Wikipedia. Astros4477 (Talk) 04:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 ^Talk 04:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 ^Talk 04:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 ^Talk 04:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article as of now does not establish notability, and is written in a too low quality. Article can easily be restructured given it's size (Of-course when notability guidelines are met).. So, delete..--JAaron95 ^Talk 04:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this used to be much bigger with references, look in the history. However it looks as if the content was counted as dubious, and someone who looks to be the subject of this removed most of the content claiming "This is completely a lie, was written by malicious family". So if indeed most of the content was wrong/misleading then this should get the chop. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, looking at the history, the subject still doesn't meet notability guidelines. Most of the sources pointed to YouTube and I'm not sure those would suffice for the subject's notability. Even looking at the *previous* version, still delete.. Regards--JAaron95 ^Talk 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly G11 - The lack of sources is not the only issue here; even the approved version has issues with promotional/glowing tone, which begs the question of whether the reviewer actually read the draft. (No offense intended to the reviewer.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is the LA Times, and there seem to be some print sources listed in this edit (though not with enough details to look them up). Masucci might well be notable, but the article would have to be rewritten almost entirely, with no unproblematic version to revert to. WP:TNT may apply. Huon (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the most recent edits have done nothing ti improve things. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:41, 21 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang, Pleasure Island[edit]

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

This is a mass-produced ride that is not unique or different. Article fails to shown any notability or references. A similar article was also put up for deletion a while ago. Astros4477 (Talk) 03:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - This ride isn't any different from any of the other many "Boomerang" roller coasters all over the world. ~Euphoria42 05:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the WP:MILL, unsourced, no claim to notability in the article Kraxler (talk) 16:53, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise (Alton Towers)[edit]

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

This is a mass-produced ride that is not unique or different. Article fails to shown any notability or references. Astros4477 (Talk) 03:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't separately notable it should be merged or redirected to the article about the model. Peter James (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the WP:MILL, unsourced, no claim to notability in the article Kraxler (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and no evidence of individual notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:34, 26 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. Michig (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MC Dementor[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines as far as I can see for GNG and musician. My greatest concern is that this whole article is a BLP lacking citations and also an editor removing maintence templates without improvement. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 16:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 16:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Given the article's state (more information than sources) and my searches finding nothing good aside from this, there's nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - This is promotional. Couldn't find much via simple Google. Am in Ghana, this fails notability. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 20:39, 24 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 Faramarz Aslani#Discography. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of The Heart (Ageh Ye Rooz)[edit]

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

Album does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NALBUMS. I attempted to convert the article into a redirect several times but another editor/ the creator of the article, Ultimate1220, has repeatedly reverted these edits. I brought the issue to mediation here and was told that a discussion at WP:AfD would be more appropriate with a redirect to the artist as a preferred outcome. The references that have been added to the article since its inception (iTunes links and a fansite) do not meet the requirements of WP:INDEPENDENT. Failing the appearance of substantive, reliable, independent, verifiable sources, I propose that the article be turned into a redirect per WP:NALBUMS and that it be protected from further editing for a period of time in order to prevent this from simply being reverted again. KDS4444^Talk 20:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I originally closed this under a false assumption, but it's been pointed out to me and I'll re-open and relist this AfD. ansh 666 02:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist. I searched under this title, and what seems the more commonly used "Age Ye Rooz" and didn't find anything that could be used to expand the article. As this is an Iranian album it's quite possible that there's coverage out there that I'm not going to find from a Google search, but even if this is a highly notable album, the amount of verifiable information we have indicates that this is better covered in the article on the artist rather than in an article dedicated to the album. --Michig (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Faramarz Aslani#Discography, per WP:NALBUM "A standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." Kraxler (talk) 17:01, 25 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 List of Home and Away characters#B. MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter baker home and away[edit]

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

As of now there are no sources are given regarding significance of the fictional character or even notability of a TV program in which character features. Speedy deletion tag was removed by another user. Human3015 knock knock • 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the speedy tag because, as I understand it, A7 only applies to real people, whereas this article is about a TV character. Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I can tell, Home and Away is a notable Australian soap opera, and this character was portrayed by notable actor Nicholas Bishop. However, I cannot speak to the notability of the character Peter Baker. Natg 19 (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing suggests that the character is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of Home and Away characters#B where the character is listed. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I do not think this should be deleted because most of the other characters from this show have their own articles, and there are a lot of characters. I do think the page requires a great deal of work, however.Hippychick (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the line item at List_of_Home_and_Away_characters#B is not supported by a citation, so I would not advocate redirection ... though a better reason not to redirect is that the title of the page is not in line with our article titling guidelines; it should be (if retained) Peter Baker (Home and Away character). Note that on the Peter Baker disambiguation page, the line item links to the B-section of the list of characters. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:02, 25 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 Aberdeen Airport#Bus. MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

80 Dyce Airlink[edit]

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

Non notable bus service - Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aberdeen Airport#Bus - although maybe we don't need all this detail. Some content can probably be referenced to local press or council website. Individual bus routes are very rarely notable, unless they serve major world cities and have a long history or particular cultural importance. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to indicate that this bus service is notable. And, incidentally, factually incorrect – the article says the service started in 2008, but it was certainly running a decade before that as I was a regular passenger. No problem with merging the essential detail to Aberdeen Airport#Bus if suitably sourced. --Deskford (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 18 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Lehr[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: He meets the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker#Biography article notability criteria of having won a WSOP event, and he has won two. He is on the list World Series of Poker multiple bracelet winners and most others who have won two have articles. And this (not in the article) looks like significant coverage. SchreiberBike | ⌨

Keep he is a two time World Series of Poker bracelet winner with over $2 million in live career tournament winnings the article could stand improvement much as SchreiberBike made but he is definitely notable.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 11:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems the criterion for the basis for a keep is not based in WP, but instead a notion by a project page, a notion by the way that would include literally thousands of people who would otherwise fail WP:GNG completely. All coverage, even the 'notable' instance above seems seems very much WP:ROUTINE and I'd ask that before this discussion is closed to get input not only on the policy mentioned above, but to get it from editors not involved directly with the Wikipedia poker project. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Two-time world bracelet winner makes for notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete The acceptance of WP guidelines depends on their acceptance by the general community. I do not think this one has such acceptance, and I do not think it ought to have. Part of the problem is the rise in number of qualifying events--according to the article World_Series_of_Poker_bracelet there were originally 10; now there are 71. The only way to find out is to nominate people at the borderline, or conduct an RfC. This may be above the borderline, since he has won two events. I would suggest nominating a few who have only one, and no other notability--that's the best way to determine consensus. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I added another tournament win, and there are some sources (blogs or poker-related news) which talk about him being caught on videotape while cheating back in 2003 or 2004 and subsequently being barred from entering Hollywood Casino in Shreveport?, Louisiana, see here; he's ceratinly talked about... Kraxler (talk) 17:30, 25 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 per WP:SNOW. I can find no mention of this book anywhere, meaning that it's either a hoax or (more likely) it's some self-published work that someone has yet to put out. Since there's already a copy of this at Draft:Toby Goes to the Zoo, I'm going to go ahead and delete this for a lack of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toby goes to the zoo[edit]

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

Sources, if they exist, are elusive. This doesn't appear to be it. Fails notability at the very least, possibly a hoax. Adam9007 (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to indicate that this novel ever existed, let alone to prove its notability. Celestialghost (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All my searches found absolutely nothing and there are Thomas Masons but no Toby Goes to the Zoo. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 18 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. Michig (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaine Cook[edit]

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Additionally, fails WP:NCOLLATH. There was plenty of shallow local coverage in college, but nothing regional or national, and minor local coverage for a college athlete does not establish notability. ~ Rob^Talk 19:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and BU Rob13. Cbl62 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding lots of local coverage but nothing on the regional or national level. There is little notable about an athlete that didn't make it to the professional level, and I'm not finding any significant awards. Certainly a good career and athlete, but doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion in this particular encyclopedia. An online sports almanac would welcome the entry. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable former college football player and would-be pro player. Insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, and never received a major college award to satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH. No question of satisfying the specific notability guideline for professional football players because subject never played in a regular season NFL or CFL game per WP:NGRIDIRON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:23, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suresoft Technologies, Inc[edit]

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

marginally notable, many WP:PRODUCT failing product pages created. probable PR/COI. Has a fewsources, but are in korean, so difficult to evaluate quality. opening it up to wider audience. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete No WP:Notable significance within the software testing industry. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More inclined to delete and draft/userfy (if wished) as although I'm not a Korean speaker, my searches found nothing to convince there's a better shot at improvement and notability here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 18 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 03:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CODESCROLL code inspector[edit]

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

WP:PRODUCT Gaijin42 (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

delete No WP:Notable significance within the software testing industry. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 18 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 03:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CODESCROLL controller tester[edit]

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

WP:PRODUCT Gaijin42 (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

delete No WP:Notable significance within the software testing industry. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:52, 18 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. Michig (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PH Games[edit]

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

Vastly outdated, unsourced predictions, and possibly even a hoax, for I cannot find any evidence of the subject's existence, or that of any of the games the article mentions, the engines, or the subject's competitor; I cannot find anything to confirm any of what this article claims. Adam9007 (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable, independent sources, and Google gives nothing but false positives. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Appears to be a total hoax. The only Google references found for games listed here (such as Devastation II: Desert's Sandstorms, Lawscaper: The Chase Begins, and Revolution: Sangre Gang Chronicles) are in this article. Likewise, supposed innovations such as the "Envir On Gameplay" system appear nowhere on the Web. If PH Games had actually had a 50.93% market share in India at any point in time, both the company and its games would be widely discussed online. Moreover, many of the article's concepts don't make sense (for example, a "tabletop game" played with coin flips and dice rolls does not, by definition, use a "gameplay engine"). Calamondin12 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Them having a "virtual monopoly" also seems implausible to me. I'm amazed this has survived since November 2007. Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as my searches including the simplest ones found absolutely nothing. I'm impulsed to tag it but for the benefit of the doubt, it may have closed shortly after inception. The user seemed to have been from India and mostly made minor edits so I'm not sure why they made this. SwisterTwister talk 03:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax - I could not find any further references on Google, and this article also has excessive redlinks. Racer-Ωmegα 08:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax - Some of the statements in this article are very hard to believe and a simple google search doesn't return anything related to the subject in question. The vast amount of red links and non-existent sources may also hint this. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 12:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 18 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. Michig (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Danko[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation later. The Slovak Super Liga is a fully professional league according to WikiProject Football's list, so if he *does* play in the upcoming season, he will meet the guideline then. But, he doesn't meet it now. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MFK Zemplín Michalovce - if he's on the current roster it's a valid search term, and that way the article can easily be recreated if he does play in the upcoming season. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Disagree with the notion of a redirect, as this could create problems if he moves clubs before becoming notable. Fenix down (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:23, 21 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 userfy. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of iranian photography[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY Adam9007 (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user space This topic is clearly notable. It's just that the article needs some work to get it to the right tone/format to be here. Send this one to user space to allow the user some time to work on it. agtx 00:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd prefer moving to userpace but it'd just get bigger and bigger and it won't ever be improved beyond what it is now, So personally I think it's better to Blow it up & start over from scratch. –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Meh perhaps I was harsh, Who knows someone may improve it and if they don't the creator hopefully can so meh Userfy. –Davey2010^Talk 23:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy (ASAP) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)—Мандичка^YO 😜

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userify -- At presetn this article starts with the origins of Iran. This is too far back. It should start with the usual lead section, summarising the article. This should them be followed by a brief narrative of the use of photogrtaphy in Iran. The auther needs to concertrate on providing sources and making sure they are accurately cited. The subject is potentially a significant one, but the article needs more work before it is readdy to go into main space; and I do not mean making it longer. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy with encouragement and warning. It's a highly worthwhile subject. But a quote from the article (started July 2015): "During the 1880s the camera leaves the confines of the palace." And a quote from "Editorial" (by Reza Sheikh and Carmen Pérez González, published 2013): "Through a trickle-down process, the camera leaves the confines of the palace." I don't think that the resemblance is coincidental. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 19 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.