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. Jujutacular (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khamoshiyan (song)[edit]

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

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

Song fails WP:NSONGS for no multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. One claim is of "Mirchi Top 20" #6 position. But there is no clarity on how these charts are prepared on their website. Also, TOI publishing this top 20 list shouldn't be considered as secondary source as TOI and Radio Mirchi are part of same Times Group. Other reviews from BH, Koimoi, Rediff even if seem notable on first glance, fail NSONGS as "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability"; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Khamoshiyan: While there are some good sources and around 15 million hits on YouTube, everything can be covered in the main article. Esquivalience ^t 00:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources about the song? Where are they? And just the way our page hits don't count, YouTube's hits shouldn't count either; especially with click fraud. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Dharmadhyaksha makes compelling arguments regarding the one claim to fame, the charting. Do not believe that passes the criteria for WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Not being very knowledgeable about the Indian music scene, can someone tell me whether the Radio Mirchi list qualifies under WP:CHART? I don't see any Indian charts listed on that page, and when I search Indian music charts on Google the Radio Mirchi list is one of the first results. If the chart is calculated, say, mathematically, then I think this song probably qualifies under WP:NSONG, and there shouldn't be any independence concerns. mikeman67 (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Mirchi's website doesn't state anything about how their charts are prepared. With no clarity or transparency we can not consider it to be notable enough to match WP:CHART. Although if this can be established then we can reconsider. But recently on one occasion at the AFD of "Ainvayi Ainvayi" I discovered that Radio mirchi was media partner of the film and had launched various promotional schemes, mainly one scheme where your marriage would be sponsored by the group. The article then also claimed that the song from this film was in top 20 for 38 weeks!! Well, that's promotional much. I haven't hunted down who the media partners of this film are. One would have to see various promo videos on youtube or the film itself to see credit list. So its going to be tough to prove notability of this particular chart. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Through the merger could be an alternative option but since there is COI in sources as nominator have stated above a deletion seems to be a better option as compared to the merger. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:05, 15 October 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 obviously as there's no need for a further AfD (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Station[edit]

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

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

A very short article, has not yet been editing for about 1 month. 333-blue 23:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge any useful information into 97X Kelowna RapidBus. Just a bus stop. --Amble (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gordon railway station. Hack (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 8 October 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 obviously as there's not much for a separate article (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson Station[edit]

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

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

A very short article, has not yet been editing for about 1 month. 333-blue 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge any useful information into 97X Kelowna RapidBus. Just a bus stop. --Amble (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable per WP:BUSOUTCOMES. clpo13_(talk) 08:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  16:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Roumieu[edit]

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

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

Stub on a Canadian illustrator whose illustrations appears frequently in the big name publications: Atlantic, New York Times etc. However there is next to nothing written about him in secondary sources. I suggest that perhaps he does not meet WP:GNG. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Maybe delete for now as although "Graham Roumieu Canada" found results at Books, News and highbeam so far, there's nothing to suggest worthwhile improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I cannot find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, there appears to be quite a few reviews of books he has illustrated out there, like these - [1] [2], unfortunately my internet is extremely slow so cannot open anymore, says coolabah, asking for another seven days....Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, have updated his article with some reviews of books that he has illustrated/written and that he has won at least two silver Canadian national magazine awards. So, he may now be notable? This page [3] shows that he has won numerous other awards, whether they are seen as significant I leave for other editors to decide (where are the Canadian editors to support this guy???)Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Based on the reliable sources provided above about him, as well as [4], I think they add up to significant coverage, per WP:GNG, as well as the Canadian National Magazine Awards. Although I admit I'm not sure how long this article can be, since none of them are in great depth. mikeman67 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 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 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Kerstein[edit]

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

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

This is an article about a domain squatter, who got Microsoft to make a deal for the domain he was squatting on. This is a case of WP:BLP1E. This person does not have anything else to help meet WP:GNG and WP:BLP. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I had no problem finding sources on line, so apparently meeting WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some as examples? The only ones I could find were press releases for his company, a quotes various news outlets probably from one of his various press releases, press releases are not reliable. I cannot find anything which covers him in depth except for the stories about his squatting. I am willing to withdraw the nom. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete likely as although News, Books and highbeam all found links, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. Although it seems almost all the past commenters are either not active at all or only minimally active, I'm pinging possibly interested Starblind. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 18:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article also was created by a one-purpose account and strongly resembles Kerstein's official bio posted elsewhere, indicating to me that it was probably created for promotional purposes. Blah2 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:BLP1E. Otherwise it is just a resume. Edison (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Edwardx (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTHOST; Wikipedia is not a resumé directory. Esquivalience ^t 00:14, 7 October 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 00:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curt DiCamillo[edit]

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

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

Blatant promotion, does not seem notable for Wikipedia, cannot find sources from reliable outlets (besides his own personal pages/websites). Would like to hear opinions from other editors about the relevance of this subject for Wikipedia. Article possibly written by the subject himself. Sheroddy (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as although Books and Scholar found a few results, there's nothing to suggest likely improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure - he's listed in Who's Who, but that's the best source so far. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Some mentions, but not enough to meet WP:BASIC. Esquivalience ^t 00:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article has been at AfD for almost a month and sources are still just webpages. Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 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 00:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mace[edit]

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

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

PROD (mine) removed, without comment, by an SPA who has appeared since the original author was recently blocked for promotional edits related to the tent company. PROD rationale was "Promotional biography by somebody connected to the subject, if not the subject himself. The awards are not convincing. Some of the references are not convincing (e.g. YouTube). Much here is unconvincing. There may be a very little genuine notability but it does not seem to justify an article far less a hagiography." I have nothing much to add to that except to note that Chamber of Commerce is a type of organisation, not a single monolithic organisation, an unusual misconception that both the original author and the new SPA mysteriously seem to share. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I found nothing better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've been watching this page since shortly after it was created, and while I tried to keep the worst of the promotional spam to a minimum it seems to have slipped off my radar. Hardly any of the references actually talk about Mace himself, and the ones that do sound like press releases dripping with praise. Gala Tent may be worth having an article about, but not Mace. It doesn't help that it's the work of three (blocked) SPAs. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 8 October 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 00:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VIRUS (Cyber Fools) (film)[edit]

VIRUS (Cyber Fools) (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems like a hoax to me, as I found no sources online (other than a Facebook post) that refer to this film. Also, the article states that the film has premiered on October 29, 2015, a date yet to happen. Even if it's not a hoax, it clearly fails WP:MOVIE, specifically WP:NFF. Gparyani (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, maybe it sure a hoax. 333-blue 23:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a hoax. please see the corrected "premiers" tense. also, there are numerous youtube videos of the film's audience reaction to the film-feature, VIRUS, and an Official Trailer. the Theater website will also be updating their calendar soon to display VIRUS. Teaser Trailer Launch parties have already occured, and evidence can also be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual assassin (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Virtual assassin (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the user (talk) actually investigated the film and its events then they would understand that there is much more than a singular facebook post, but an RSVP event where more than 100 attendees are already reserved, and an entire production company that is legitimately established and promotes the film regularly until its release on October 29th. DO NOT REMOVE----Virtual assassin (Virtual assassin) 22:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Virtual assassin: Okay, so the film exists. But does it meet our inclusion criteria?

yes it does meet the criteria. it will be featured in the next slamdance film festival that has yet to occur, as well as myself being a graduating student with a BA from California State Univerysity of Long Beach. not to mention, external references have been added to the page, and artwork will also be included once i have permission. Virtual assassin (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an unreferenced article about an unreleased, unreviewed extremely low budget film. The film clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the budget is irrelevant for a digital film in 2015. if real specs were to be taken into consideration, $15,000 have been used on camera equipment, renting locations and vehicles. Please see the official trailer in the external links section before you pass judgement without doing proper research, and understand that this is a legitimate film that will have a social and cultural impact on the long beach film scene. Also because the film is so new, the article will become extremely relevant upon the first public screening of the film in under a month's time. please don't harass this page.  :@Cullen328: ----Virtual assassin (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual assassin, if you think Wikipedia ought to have an article about every film ever made, then you have a deep misunderstanding about our notability guidelines. This is an encyclopedia, not a film promotion website. We accept articles only about topics which have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For films, the most common.indicator is that the film has been reviewed by several professional film.critics, published in reliable sources. The "official trailer" is not an independent source, and therefore has no bearing on this debate. We need to evaluate sources that have nothing whatsoever to do with the filmmakers. When you say the film "will have a social and cultural impact", that is a prediction about the future which may or may not come true. We need proof of such things, and report them and take them into consideration only after they have happened. By the way, if you have a conflict of interest as someone involved with the film production, then you are obligated to disclose it, and to refrain from directly editing the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: are you getting paid to bully independent films because they do not meet the likes of Michael Bay's multi-hundred-million dollar budget and sales? or are you doing this on your own accord? i suggest you get outside and take a deep breath, and talk to a living person. there's no need for you to passive-aggressively attack a wiki article that is unimportant to you, and clearly are uneducated about the critical impact of art and its archiving significance. Virtual assassin (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors would respond with anger to your unwarranted personal attack, Virtual assassin. I will respond with the facts instead. No, I am not paid for any of my edits and I am not bullying. I have participated in thousands of Articles for Deletion debates on a very wide range of topics, as a volunteer. My only goal here is clear: To maintain the quality of the encyclopedia. I have helped save many articles on notable topics, and have expanded and referenced many articles. They are all listed on my user page. Hint for you: Impugning the motives of a highly experienced editor is not a good strategy for keeping an article. Bringing forward reliable, independent sources discussing the topic is the only thing to do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While not a hoax, this does appear to be a non-notable independent film. Per WP:NFILM all films must be the focus of independent and reliable sources such as newspaper articles or reviews in places like Twitch Film or We Got This Covered. Also, just appearing at a film festival is not something that would show notability. It's generally accepted that a film will premiere somewhere and while showing at a festival will make it more likely that there will be coverage, it is not a guarantee regardless of the film festival's notability. Also, notability is not automatically inherited by the film festival itself being notable. (WP:NOTINHERITED) When the film screens and if it receives enough coverage to pass notability guidelines this could be created, but not before then. I suppose that a copy of this could be sent to AfC, but this would need to be entirely re-written to remove the promotional tones, unsourced claims, and general casual tone of the article. In other words, there's really nothing to salvage here and this would probably benefit more from having a clean start once the film releases and gains the required coverage. On a side note, the critical reception section is supposed to be used for critics' reviews of the film - not an unsourced Q&A about the reasons for creating the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - needs independent sources, which don't seem available, to pass the bar of notability on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as being TOO SOON. When screened and IF receiving the requisite sourcing, it can be resurrected. If the author wishes it returned to him in a DRAFTSPACE as we wait, I'd say okay. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as there's simply not much. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sealed orders[edit]

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

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

Nothing more than a definition with no real possibility of expansion. The dab page should be moved back. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I would hope for expansion here. There's certainly scope for it. The UK nuclear submarines would be one direction for starters. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have expanded it. Andrew D. (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this is acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks well sourced (in the conventional sense, even). It's a nice little article that has checked all the guideline boxes. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 04:48, 11 October 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 00:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Idea (2006 film)[edit]

The Idea (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete for lack of significant coverage. The article only cites related sources (the firm's own web site and production company) or film directories like IMDB. I was unable to find any review of the film. It does not appear to have received any awards. Difficult searching given the title, but even focusing on the director did not yield a review. I did find it in directory listings, listed in the director's biography, and offered for sale. At the Institute of Contemporary Arts directory I discovered that it had been shown at the 8th BFM International Film Fest. There was a brief one sentence note in May 2006 here about its future production. That's it, basically no coverage. Fails the general notability guidelines, fails WP:NFILM. Note: The article was created in June 2006‎ by editor User:Halaqah, same name as the production company. --Bejnar (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Owen 'Alik Shahadah, if the director's article survives AfD - although that appears to be unlikely. Like Bejnar, I couldn't find anything to show that this film was ultimately notable enough for its own article. It's incredibly difficult for short films, let alone short indie films, to gain enough coverage and this film appears to be no exception. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Shorts are often difficult to source with online sources, unless they won a major film festival prize (the short film circut has dozens of minor festivals). I tried to find sources for The Idea + Owen 'Alik Shahadah but without any luck. Fails NFILM/GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

expanded searches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete, for even though this film topic is not completely unsourable,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] none of the available sources give enough analaysis or commentasry to show this film as meeting WP:NF. In this short film lacking separate notability, we do have enough verifiability to consider a sourced mention within articles on Sona Maya Jobarteh or Tunde Jegede or Halaqah Media. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 10 October 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 - straightforward A7 case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Henry Buckley[edit]

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

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

Does not state notability. Charlie the Pig (talk) 19:05, 5 October 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 00:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Mersereau[edit]

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

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

Article on a Canadian photographer. I cannot find any decent non-trivial sources to prove WP:GNG. New Media Theorist (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I found nothing better than a few links each at Books, News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I searched for sources and found some photo credits plus brief mention of his role organizing a local event. I found no significant coverage of him as an artist/photographer. He is not notable, it seems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 6 October 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. WelshWonderWoman's opinion does not address the reasons for deletion (or is in fact an argument for deletion), and the rest of the discussion clearly tends towards that.  Sandstein  18:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sports & Fitness Industry Association[edit]

Sports & Fitness Industry Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability, all references are to a company/organization website. Notability tags were added in June, no improvement since. Rwessel (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Sources exist, but the article doesn't reflect the fact. [13] Bloomberg Boston Globe It would take some work to determine if these are enough for a strong keep, however. LaMona (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete for now as WP:TNT and restart when completely better as the name is not easy to search but with some recent Books results, it's imaginable this may have better coverage (although I found none at Newspapers Archive). SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems like an interesting article, it just need more sources. WelshWonderWoman (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the www.tennisindustry.org link cited above says little other than that a name change is happening, the Bloomberg link doesn't appear to have any content about the organization at all (I'm not clear that what's displayed there isn't actually the title of that portion of Bloomberg's web site), and the Boston Globe just quotes one statistic from them, without any other indication of notability. Rwessel (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I think I'm just on the other side of the line from LaMona. Userfy if there is an interested editor, but I don't think the current article meets notability criteria, and my searches didn't turn up enough to warrant keeping. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - looks like it could be notable, but without significant independent coverage this is a delete. The article's SPA-written promotional content is another problem, which would need fixing (if sources could be found). The article does not take an uninvolved point of view, but describes the association from its own perspective. GermanJoe (talk) 20:04, 15 October 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 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Lee Cutler[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP, shading toward prosified résumé, of a writer and artist with no really strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. In addition, this is badly sourced: of the eight "references" here, seven of them directly credit the article topic as the author of the reference, making them primary sources which cannot demonstrate her notability — and the only one she didn't write herself is an interview with her on an arts organization's blog, which is still not a reliable source. A person does not get an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia just because she exists — an article is earned by demonstrating that they have been the subject of reliable source coverage which properly verifies that they pass a specific inclusion criterion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I found nothing better than some links at Books and browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:ARTIST or WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 11 October 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 nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hyde[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a writer, which makes no real claim to passing WP:AUTHOR, and which is sourced exclusively to a single commercial sales profile for one of his books on an online bookstore. A writer does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because he exists, nor does an online bookstore count as reliable source referencing — but a Google News search didn't turn up any serious indication of improved sourceability, resulting in just a small handful of glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things. Delete unless somebody knows where to find much better sourcing than I've been able to. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this Anthony Hyde has never done anything of note, although there seems to be a criminal with the same name. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I easily found links at Books and Newspapers Archive suggesting he at least got WP:GNG attention. Notifying Bearcat and Bearian. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• comment, have added book reviews to the article, also according to WorldCat his works are held by quite a number of libraries ie. [14] - The Red Fox around 1000 libraries, [15] - China Lake about 700 libraries.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I have to say, this author is as much of a mystery as the plots of his books. His first book was expected to be a big success (I can't tell if it really was), but his others seem to have gotten almost no attention. I added the review of that first book from the NYTimes, and for a short while after that he wrote a couple of book reviews for that newspaper (e.g. [16]), but that seems to be it. He has a web site, but the bio there is limited. I don't find bios anywhere else. His brother, Christopher Hyde, also wrote thrillers, but I don't find much about him either. He's got two solid reliable sources, the NYT review and the article about him in the Montreal Gazette. But shortly thereafter, the trail goes cold. LaMona (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here are some more reviews and articles written about the author Christian Science Monitor, Montreal Gazette, Joseph Finder's site, Atlas Society and both he and his brother are included in the Encyclopedia of Literature by W.H. New. There is certainly enough for WP:GNG. User:Fraserlaidlaw 01:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, the referencing's been improved enough that I'm withdrawing this. Thanks, guys. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 9 October 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 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gleemax[edit]

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

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

Completing nomination for an IP editor, whose rationale (from Talk:Gleemax) is included verbatim below. The first AFD was closed in June 2007 as a redirect to Unhinged, though that article does not mention this subject at all at present. The redirect was undone three weeks later, as a result of discussion at Talk:Unhinged (Magic: The Gathering)#Gleemax. So we know that this existed, which is good as far as it goes, but I'm not seeing any sort of reliable sourcing that discusses its impact or notability. I usually don't opine when I complete someone else's nomination, but this has sat for a good long while with little prospect of improvement. With no good options for a redirect or a merge, I think deletion is our best option at this point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion because this is a small footnote in the history of Wizards of the Coast and doesn't need a dedicated article. The website never even made it out of the alpha stage and there is little to no coverage from third party sources (the article has been tagged with this problem for the last 7 years). 37.228.231.1 (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect if this is best again as my searches found nothing better than some of the currently listed links at browser and some more at Highbeam...but nothing to suggest better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ting Chen[edit]

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

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

non-notable person - Standard searches do not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Previous AFD in 2014 closed as no consensus -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete likely as he would be best mentioned as part of another article. Pinging past users Tom Morris, Kierzek, I am One of Many, SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Perhaps rename also.  Sandstein  18:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Uloom Bolton[edit]

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

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

There are virtually no sources supporting this article. There is no notability. Even more damaging is the fact that someone took the link to the ofsted report on Jamiyah Islamiyyah and posted it here as a source. Proposing deletion and Salting FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The full name of the school seems to be something like Al Jamiatul Islamiyah Darul Uloom - which (allowing for the usual problems in transcribing from Arabic or Urdu into English) rather suggests that the Ofsted report referenced in the article has simply used a different part of the full name than was used by the article's creator. Assuming this to be the case and as we are dealing with a secondary school, the article looks as if it should be a fairly easy keep under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - even though it looks promotional enough that substantial trimming would be advisable. However, most of the references I have seen seem to be either routine or passing mentions and there seem to be several other schools with distinctly similar names in England (including one in Bury, only about five miles away) - so far as I am concerned, there is enough room for confusion that I would prefer others to check before coming to a firm conclusion. PWilkinson (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. There is indeed a lot of confusion here. Ofsted 26-27 January 2010 and SC 009423 are not relevant to the Wikipedia article's details although the postal address is given as the same. Not only is the latest Ofsted report not 'Outstanding', it is generally only 'Satisfactory' with some items judged as 'Inadequate'. I am tempted to suggest that this article is possibly a hoax. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to the planning section at bolton.gov.uk, specifically here, "AL JAMIATUL ISLAMIYAH DARUL ULOOM" was at 296 Willows Lane, Bolton, BL3 4BT at the end of 2013. It was housed in a former convent. There is a Charity Commission report of 2014 for "Al-Jamiatul Islamiyah Darul Uloom Lancashire U.K." based at Willow Lane, Deane, Bolton, BL3 4HF. That report lists a website at www.jamiah-al-islamiyyah.org.uk which appears to be down ATM and not at Wayback. There was an Ofsted report in 2004 about "Al Jamiatul Islamiya Darul Uloom" at Hospital Road, Bromley Cross, Bolton, BL7 9PY which fits the information in the article.

It just looks like a poor article to me. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to be a genuine secondary school, which we keep per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move I think the name on the OFSTED report should be used: 'Al Jamiah Al Islamiyyah' [17]. Darul uloom seems to be a generic expression which literally means "house of knowledge". Derek Andrews (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These links suggest it is at least a genuine estblishment and support the name suggested above [18][19][20] and this one provides more info though probably primary sourced [21] and has the subtitle 'INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC HIGHER EDUCATION'. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some care needs to be taken in making a move though as the name I suggested above may also be somewhat generic as there is Al-Jamiah Al-Islamiah Patiya and Al-Jamiah Al-Islamiah Obaidia Nanupur. Jamiah seems to mean the perhaps more familiar 'Madrasa'. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Move, appears to be a genuine school. Ljgua124 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 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 Open Garden. Never close on one !vote but been up 2 weeks and honestly don't think any more !votes will come so may aswell wrap ti up (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Shalunov[edit]

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

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

I can only find brief mentions of this person in reliable sources so WP:BIO is not met. His company Open Garden is notable, but he is not. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt I did find one fairly good bio article published by United Jewish Community of Ukraine this month. - Brianhe (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Open Garden in any case as I also found links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam so if there is a better article in the future, the chance is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 4 October 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 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MotorCityConnect[edit]

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

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

This may be somewhat known locally but my searches found nothing good to suggest better improvement here, here and here (only a few with this last one) and a few other searches found nothing at all, this has also hardly been changed since starting by a SPA in September 2008. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was unable to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources. Jujutacular (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no apparent notability. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  15:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agoda.com[edit]

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

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

Article creator has affiliation with company of Wiki article, and article seems advertising focused. Icematikx (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the article creator. Here are some points I'd like to highlight. Happy to discuss further.

• In light of this AFD submission, the article has been edited and tightened up as of 1 Oct 2015. A full list of references has been reinstated. Language has also been edited to be more objective. References provided in the article are purely editorial in nature from reputable media organizations.
• As the article creator of the page, I have complied with Wikipedia's paid contribution disclosure guidelines. Disclosures have been made on my talk page and edit summaries.
• Facts provided in the article reflect on the service provided by the company. It intends to provide an objective view of the nature of business. The company is also part of a public listed entity (NASDAQ:PCLN).
• The article talks about a service used by tens of thousands of people from around the world every day. The service is a household name in Southeast Asia and warrants an encyclopaedic entry.
• The original article was subject to ongoing disruptive edits by user boonchong_chua, whose history of Wikipedia contributions have focused solely on this article. Edits were inappropriate for an encyclopaedia and were in violation of several policies such as no research and vandalism.
• This AFD submission also appears to have been made by a user that appears to be suspiciously new. Edit history of multiple AFD submissions suggests motive.

asheshong (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Boonchong chua work for or get paid in any way from the Agoda company. [22] They have no edits ever other than this article. [23] All their edits seem to be edit warring with various other users, so they should be blocked from it. Dream Focus 03:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Boonchong_chua is believed to be a user of the service who has had multiple encounters with customer service. Asheshong (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I found nothing better than some Books, browser and Highbeam links. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Don't think this warrants a Delete call as the reasons provided by SwisterTwister are not aligned with the reasons for deletion according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please feel free to provide valid reasons or discuss the points stated above. Asheshong (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The secondary sources provided appear to be reliable and independent enough to satisfy the criteria at WP:NCOMPANY. It's currently neutrally worded enough, as well. I would be wary of possible WP:COI edits by boonchong_chua, but that shouldn't reflect on the article itself. clpo13_(talk) 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agoda is a major travel brand and a household name in most of South East Asia. Notable for being part of the global Priceline Group, whose companies include North American and European brands Priceline.com, Kayak.com and Booking.com. The sources cited are independent and include top tier news organizations in North America, Europe and Asia. The article will be of interest to observers of multi-national businesses operating in Asia. It seems a primary reason the article is considered for deletion is due to the ongoing disruptive edits of user Boonchong_chua. This user has consistently reverted other user contributions with little or no clear explanation, been warned against edit warring and dispruptive editing on numerous occasions, and is using the article as a soapbox to promote opinions as facts. Reykcollider ^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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCloud[edit]

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

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

Promotional article for a non-notable telecoms product and the small company that makes it. The article was created July 2010 by Duartebruno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an employee of the company. WP:PROD deleted in July 2011 ("advert written by company employee with multiple issues"). Created again by Sinequidvis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and again reads like a brochure. There is no substantial contribution by others, and neither editor has contributed to Wikipedia other than to promote this subject. The few references are dismal - one person from the company sitting on a Java Community Process committee isn't evidence that the company is notable. The other references are dead links to analyst reports. So nothing in the article can be verified independently, and there is no deep, independent coverage in reliable sources. The company fails WP:CORP and both it and the company fail WP:GNG. It's been tagged for ref improvement since October 2011 with no sign of improvement.

Note this is unrelated to OpenCloudConsortium, OpenCloudConnect and various projects like php-opencloud which do cloud computing on OpenStack. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 11:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I found no better improvement aside from a few links. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete they are no more notable than before. CoronaryKea (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  18:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Step Up For Students[edit]

Step Up For Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced. I will withdraw it once RSes are found.  Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 13:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Page was created by a now blocked user Candleabracadabra and the page was auto-patrolled.—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are sources I could find such as this, this, this and this. Seems to pass GNG. Article needs a major revamp though. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or merge to Jeb Bush as the sources are minimally but redirect if there isn't a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think it's a borderline WP:GNG keep, but appears to definitely meet WP:BASIC, since while there references which are just passing mentions, there are quite a few of those: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - based on the references above (though not the one about dancing!) I think the article could be kept, but it is just one of two organizations currently authorised to adminster the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program [24], which is subject to legal challenge,[25] so maybe a merge/move/redirect might be a more appropriate solution. See also Scholarship Tax Credit. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:56, 16 October 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 Physical restraint. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Millfields Charter[edit]

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

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Half the sources are about the problem that this group is trying to address. The other half are from a single publication, including some written by the founders of the group. (The BBC ref, like the first half of sources, doesn't mention the group by name.) I was unable to find anything better, and I can't think of a good target for a merge. I therefore believe that this group does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone article about itself, on the grounds that there aren't multiple sources that are both secondary and independent of the founders. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Millfields Charter is not yet mentioned even once at Physical restraint? Wouldn't that be an obvious target for merging? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe? There's certainly a need for information about criticism there, but is this particular group important enough to mention by name? I don't really know. I'm always in favor of a good merge, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to physical restraint and I would've merged and closed as such but considering I'm not sure how to merge any of this to that article, I'll wait but I found some links at Books and browser to easily suggest some sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to physical restraint. However, I see the sect at Physical_restraint#Misuse_and_risks_of_physical_restraints is completely unsourced. Perhaps some sources already present in this article, could be used to improve that sect. — Cirt (talk) 13:00, 12 October 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 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn (demo)[edit]

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

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It is unsourced and has no in-depth sources in any major search product. I would entertain a redirect to GeForce, where it might be a useful search term, but there isn't enough to substantiate its own, independent article. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 17:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete demos almost never gain notability unless they lead to a best-selling game (and even then, who cares about the demo?). Can't find any indication that this was anything other than a small project. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Not delete was important milestone (note the editwar, PrimeFac just wants to punish me for not agreeing with him) - please disregard that vote should there be a tie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show that this meets notability criteria as per WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm not seeing better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 9 October 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 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nalu (demo)[edit]

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

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It is unsourced and has no in-depth sources in any major search product. I would entertain a redirect to GeForce, where it might be a useful search term, but there isn't enough to substantiate its own, independent article. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 17:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete demos almost never gain notability unless they lead to a best-selling game (and even then, who cares about the demo?). Can't find any indication that this was anything other than a small project. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no signficant coverage was found on any of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm not seeing better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 9 October 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 copyright violation. I've created the redirect. Huon (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orb-3D[edit]

Orb-3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This video game lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had not have enough reviews mentioned at MobyGames to substantiate an independent article and it had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to the developer could work. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 17:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Not entirely sure how to reply but the game is actually quite important. Czar here has been culling pages and replacing them with links to the creator or manufacturer of the subject. Orb-3D while lacking information does contain some information. I think using a search engine would be more productive than vandalising the pages. The "what links here" tool is very important. Being linked to the company that made it was disorientating and I urge Czar to cease this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 17:46, 5 October 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 00:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom[edit]

Timeline of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Orphaned, practically unreadable due to the size, violates MOS:SCROLL, and under construction for years. Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I suppose illegibility is not a reason for deletion, though this one is a good argument for changing that, and I think it violates WP:COLOR as well. As for content, this is covered in List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (quite well, actually--it's an FA), and we have Template:UKPrimeMinisters, and Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, so this strikes me as an unnecessary quadruplication. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How long they lived before and after their terms in office have not attracted much interest/study. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looks like it really wants to be a graphic timeline rather than a Wikipedia article. Did you ping the original creator, User:P.hogg, to see if they want to keep a copy in userspace? --Amble (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wow-those were my eyes! Ok-this article is about the most user-unfriendly list/timeline I've seen here. But can someone more knowledgeable chime in and confirm that appalling style is valid deletion grounds? I can't find a provision for such a thing -- just verifiability, reliable sources, encyclopedic (one probably could have found a timeline like this in an old school encyclopedia), and the catch-all of notability.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Drmies above – content is already more than adequately covered in List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. This page in it's current form does not really stand up as an encyclopaedia article. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 07:41, 11 October 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. WP:CSD#G3 hoax - references are false JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishit Ashokkumar Mehta[edit]

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

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

Not an obviously notable singer. The references in the article don't seem to be about him, and a search for sources don't turn up anything else. The article seems to have been an autobiography as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In the reference, the original title is "Toshi, Sharib and Swaroop Khan perform at Rajasthan Day celebrations in Jaipur" not "Toshi, Sharib, Nishit Ashokkumar Mehta And Swaroop Khan perform at Rajasthan Day celebrations in Jaipur". The page creator created an auto-biography about himself and created the fake reference name by adding himself, as there is no mention of him in the source. This is the latest version.--The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 16:19, 5 October 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.

PS 96 (Bronx)[edit]

The result was Redirect to List of public elementary schools in New York City (non-admin closure) --  Kethrus |talk to me  10:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS 96 (Bronx) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL (WP:ORG + WP:GNG). Upon searching for the school, I wasn't able to find much (apart from the fact it exists). --  Kethrus |talk to me  16:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me  16:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me  16:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me  16:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to List of public elementary schools in New York City per guidelines and historic outcomes at AfD. John from Idegon (talk) 09:43, 6 October 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 The Ultimate Fighter: Team Hughes vs. Team Serra. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Price[edit]

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

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

MMA fighter and kickboxer, but he doesn't meet the notability criteria (WP:NMMA and WP:KICK) for either one. I don't think WP:GNG is met either because most of the sources are routine sports coverage or are not independent. I'm OK with a redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Hughes vs. Team Serra.Mdtemp (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was just created today (don't really like quicky AfD's) but it is interesting that the article Dorian Price is a redirect as suggested. I am not sure what the author was thinking or how best to handle it - since a copypaste would disrupt things. I have asked a speedy delete of the redirect before moving this article to the correct capitalisation. That said the original redirect was a be bold move but IMHO the best move so an AfD to formalise the process is a good idea.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just move the non-capital price to Price and updated the links here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator. Does not meet notability requirements.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now I suppose until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Hughes vs. Team Serra He doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. I would prefer a redirect to outright deletion, but he doesn't seem to merit an individual article at this time. Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jindal Centre for Social Innovation & Entrepreneurship[edit]

Jindal Centre for Social Innovation & Entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability of company. The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referencing the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) page specific to Non-commercial organizations^[1]: The scope of the Jindal Centre for Social Innovation & Entrepreneurship (JSiE) is both national and international in scale as evidenced from activities related to the International Social Innovation Challenge and Startup Academy. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Significant coverage includes the sources cited in the page 1) Deccan Herald 2) Business Line 3) NDTV In addition, JSiE has also been covered by the following reliable sources 1) The Telegraph (Calcutta)^[2] 2) Moneycontrol.com ^[3] 3) The_Financial_Express_(India) ^[4] Also please note that Google News Archive has been broken since 2013 as per mentioned.^[5] Jeremywade10 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this seems better acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 10 October 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 space food seems to be the overall consensus here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Food systems on space exploration missions[edit]

Food systems on space exploration missions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Substantially duplicates topics discussed in Space food. Roches (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge anything useful (and sourced) to Space food, then jettison what's left into outer deletion/redirection space. The title is somewhat misleading; "exploration missions" to me means they're boldly going where no one has gone before, whereas the topic actually also applies to astronauts/cosmonauts (sinonauts?) orbiting the Earth. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into its own section in the Space food article.--Fixuture (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful content to Space food. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 8 October 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.  Sandstein  18:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter)[edit]

Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This video game character lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The current article is an amalgamation of every time she was ever mentioned in a listicle, but none sources have gone further than superficial comments about her dress (which would fit fine in the series or individual game articles, if they are even necessary to mention anywhere). She has only passing mentions and no in-depth coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search outside of listicles and reviews of the games in which she appears. A redirect to Virtua_Fighter#Characters could be sufficient. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 13:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This video game character has a plenty of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Since 1993. And even the claim of it being "every time she was ever mentioned in a listicle" is false, which I can eaily prove by just adding more. In fact I can just give here's some incomplete and sample more print media sources in just English magazines that I own: EGM 155; Arcade 3; GameStar 1; PSM 4; GamePro 79, 88; Mean Machines Sega 48; Official Sega Saturn Magazine 12, 13, 14, 16, 18; 24; CVG 170; EGM2 18; Dreamcast USA 1, and lots more about various aspects of the character and the article. I've got it written down because I've been preparing to work on Virtua Fighter articles before the deletionist Czar started redirecting them (even the list of characters!) without any discussion. In all, another completely frivolous nomination based on false premises. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please scan those pages so we can see the articles? czar 18:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to ask about this as well. Its hard to make a call on whether or not there is significant coverage without any access to the source's content. Its not a requirement per se, but it would make it easier to support your rationale. I don't meant to doubt you, AggressiveNavel, but the article's current status looks much like how Czar describes it. Nothing but fictional, in-universe information and a reception section that merely seems to document every time a journalist has made a passing mention about her being called her sexy or a good fighter... Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what else can one possibly except from a coverage of a fighting game female character, especially a white one (which means an exotic minority character in Japan but who cares), except on how good is she in being female and/or fighting, besides sheer popularity? And in this case, the first 3D-polygonal one but her early 1990s polygoness is discussed already. How about Chun-Li, will we remove Chun-Li? Why not? Why yes? I know you'll disagree on that, but will anyone remain but Chun-Li? Ryu, let's talk Ryu then, what really is he good for? (And dear goodness, "Evil Ryu was noted to be a trope of protagonist gaming characters who reveal an evil alter-ego" - Tropes and characters are different things!) Obviously deletionism is the way, so Ryu's got to go. But OK let's see what can we get else for Sarah let me think, something popular today, like...feminist criticism? Tropes vs Women video on "fighting fucktoys" might be some 3 years late so far, but here's the original feminist criticism of video games, an apparently very influential book from the end of last century, and look who's on the very cover: http://www.amazon.com/From-Barbie-Mortal-Kombat-Computer/dp/0262531682 No, of course she's not from Mortal Kombat (let's not forget to redirect Mortal Kombat characters) but it's a silly book. Oh did I mention even the very list of Virtua Fighters characters was just redirected without any discussion? How is any of this, and all of this, improving Wikipedia in any way? It's not isolated. I'll give you some scans tommorow. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really not interested in debating anything except for its significant coverage in reliable sources, so I'll just wait for those scans then. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 22:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: http://imgur.com/a/Ehkmc/all plus [26] that's of course only some. And now let's all move away from unreasonable deletionism like that, generally speaking, please. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 18:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant coverage clearly demonstrated. AusLondonder (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: With the sources brought up here discussing the character in detail, I see no good reason for the article not to be kept. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm fine with keeping with some of the magazine articles that have been found, but please, someone clean this article up. It should be written according to some of the sources presented here, not all this GameZone voted her "best breasts" garbage that currently makes up her Reception section. (Beyond the fact that its bad writing, it'll keep us from further AFD debates on this. I do understand Czar's nomination, the article's shape is terrible as is.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is significant coverage and subject is clearly notable. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I've yet to see anyone actually explicate what out-of-universe coverage makes this character any more independently notable than the other characters she's listed beside. There's that first pin-up spread scan with a paragraph of commentary and the rest are passing mentions from articles about the game, not the character. If this is weight for anything, it's for a section or page dedicated to Virtua Fighter characters, not its own page. czar 23:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  As long as she's discussed in-depth, does it really matter if it's out-of-universe coverage? It seems a bit ridiculous to me that her own detailed article must be redirected and crammed into the page for Virtua Fighter characters, all because her coverage is not out-of-universe. WP:GNG trumps WP:INUNIVERSE anyday, which makes no mention of notability anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I do find it particularly noteworthy that she seemed to have whole article's dedicated to her in some of those scans. That is definitely more attention than most individual characters seem to get from fighting games... Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I can only see one scan (the first page, the pin-up article) that can be construed as being a whole article dedicated to her, and it would only amount to a few sentences, at most, in the WP article. (And we have no info on whether it follows/succeeds similar articles for other fighters.) The rest are covered in context of the series, usually a single sentence mention, if you'll take a closer look. My point here isn't to wipe Bryant from the encyclopedia, but to say that she should be covered with due weight. She is not known as a standalone figure but as one of the Virtua Fighter characters and should be covered alongside them (whether in a section or its own list). If she were the subject of dedicated, in-depth coverage, there would be no dispute worth having. czar 18:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with the notion that she's "just another Virtua Fighter character" (someone like Lion Rafale would be more fitting for that statement). Along with Akira Yuki, she's one of the first characters people think of when they think Virtua Fighter. In fact, she's even appeared as a guest character outside the VF series before. But as long as she gets enough coverage, it shouldn't really matter how well-known she is outside of VF. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect for Czar, and how well-known she is outside of VF does matter, from WP:VG/GL - "If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph you've referenced makes no mention of notability, just not to overly detail the article, and before that, it also says simply "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure". Kokoro20 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From your last two responses, it seemed relevant to add and I don't believe that you or others have adequately addressed Czar's concerns.

Can you explain how the scans of parts of magazine articles provided by AggressiveNavel are significant, reliable, independent coverage? [27] [28] part of larger character list, see bottom right corner, [29] don't see her on this game review, [30] don't see her, [31] [32] interviews with game creator, [33] review of gameplay, other characters are present, [34] with other videogame merchandise, [35] don't see her, [36] "showcase" with other characters, [37] "showcase" continued, don't see her here, [38] other characters on the page, [39] interview continued.

"she seemed to have whole article's dedicated to her in some of those scans", doesn't look like it to me. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The WP:VG/GL quote you used has been taken out of context and used improperly. If one was to read the entire paragraph of the guideline you linked it would become obvious that the sentence you quoted is about avoiding WP:GAMECRUFT and trivia, and completely irrelevant to notability.

In your second point, you repeatedly claim that the scans don't constitute sigcov as "other characters are present", but that's untrue. WP:GNG clearly states, and I quote, "Significant coverage [...] need not be the main topic of the source material"; thus the presence of other characters is also irrelevant. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of these images are kind of hard to see. But in any case, it doesn't matter that she's not the only character these articles discuss, because under WP:GNG, it clearly says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Kokoro20 (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of her and other characters minor <Oxford dictionary definition(what Google currently displays when you search for "word definition"): lesser in importance, seriousness, or significance> inclusion in articles that are probably game reviews, which will likely go over other aspects of the game(each scan is not a whole article), is relevant to the value of the source no matter what you say. What makes this character stand out from the other characters in the same review, other characters from other articles of the same magazine from which the source came, and the thousands of other characters being included in game reviews that are published all the time? Let's see what others think.

Just a reminder that I couldn't see this character anywhere in some of the scans and that the interviews are not independent coverage. One of the two ask a creator if Sarah is still his favorite character and that's it. For the first two scans I say it's part of a list, or something larger since it's titled "Virtually Perfect", bottom right corner says "Virtual Fox" and it begins with "Why are all our Virtual Foxes so violent?". "Virtually Perfect" appears to be a reoccurring feature in the short-lived Arcade magazine [40] , doesn't seem like a widely known or notable accomplishment. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The presence of her and other characters [...] is relevant to the value of the source no matter what you say" ....no it isn't, and it's not what "[we] say", its what Wikipedia policy says (and quite explicitly too). Point me to the policy which claims on how the presence of other characters diminishes a source's value and then I'll believe you.

The fact that Sarah Bryant doesn't appear in some scans is a non-issue as you could simply just use the ones where she does appear. Keep in mind that plenty of sources exist in the article already and it really becomes quite incredulous how a subject can have so much independent coverage and still somehow not meet sigcov. (I don't understand your argument on how Sarah needs to "stand out" from other characters so I can't respond to that.) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 05:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems to me that policies are just being made up here, and what is being said is a contradiction to what GNG says about how coverage doesn't need to necessarily be independent. As for Sarah "standing out", it could be argued that she indeed does "stand out" when she gets more coverage, compared to other Virtua Fighter characters. Kokoro20 (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it specifically say that it isn't relevant? See where we could go with that? Simply saying that it isn't doesn't convince me of anything. What I think it does do is make it less significant, explain to me how it doesn't if you disagree.

That was just general reminder, incase other users comment here, so they don't have to look through it all. There's already some agreement that the sources currently in the article are not good (Czar's nom, Sergecross73's first comment, and me]. And it doesn't matter how many sources exist for a subject if they're not good. Each scan is not a separate article, probably part of a larger game review, and other character are included, her parts in them aren't that big if you look at it this way(to me at least).

WP:GNG clearly says that: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I'm assuming you ment to say that for her one question in an interview, insignificant anyways. Remember, each scan contains other characters so it's not really more coverage compared to others and there's some agreement that the sources currently in the article re not good. The source you recently added is a mention [41]. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely, as Sergecross ultimately went with a keep vote. And you're still taking this out of context. When I said "independent", I didn't mean sources that are affiliated with the subject, like their official website or something (which is what that part of GNG is referring to), I was referring to how whole articles dedicated to her are not required. GNG also says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The sources brought up here and in the article fits the bolded criteria.

When I gave my argument about her "standing out", I meant she gets more coverage in sources in general, compared to other Virtua Fighter characters

The source I've added to the article wasn't necessarily to try and establish notability, but to just to add an opinion of Sarah Bryant as a guest character outside of Virtua Fighter. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross's earlier comment is completely valid(see what he said in his keep), until he/she says it's not, AfD is not a vote, there are no sides to this, we can have a mix of agreements and disagreements. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He just said that the article is not currently in a good state, which has no bearing in notability. While the consensus at AFDs are not determined solely by the number of votes, "keep" does overall have 3 more votes, all of which are supported by policy-based arguments. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're patently not policy-backed arguments—they're me-too single-sentence pile-ons that say the refbombed list of sources looks good, yet no one has addressed any of the source issues that Rainbow unicorn and I raised. This isn't about whether there is sourcing to say things about the fictional character—obviously there is—but WP doesn't give subjects their own page for that. This is about significance. The general notability guideline is about whether something is a topic in itself. Everything that needs to be said about this character can be said in a small section of a list. "elected her as having one of best breasts in video games"? "the third top 'girl on the Dreamcast' in 2000"? These superlatives are junk and no serious AfD would consider them substantial enough to include in an article, nevertheless be the basis for a dedicated article. The scans are the same story. czar 03:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar and Rainbow unicorn: "Patently not policy-backed arguments"? I beg to differ. Over the course of discussion we've outlined repeatedly how the coverage here meets the GNG, how it is significant coverage, and why Sarah Bryant deserves an article. Meanwhile, the arguments put forward for deleting the article are either based upon misinterpretations of policy, or are flat out wrong, or are based on subjective opinion. But since you guys still claim that we "haven't addressed your points", despite the fact that I have, repeatedly, I'll put it to you this time in dot point form, because apparently prose is too hard to understand.

• Incorrect argument for deletion: "I've yet to see anyone actually explicate what out-of-universe coverage makes this character any more independently notable than the other characters she's listed beside." This is immaterial; the only reason Sarah Bryant has an article and the other characters do not is that someone had actually bothered to make one for her. Of course, if this bothers you then you could always pitch in, help out and create articles for other characters instead of engaging in deletionism at AfDs. Additionally, this argument for deletion is backed up by no Wikipedia policy - none of the guidelines on notability mentions anything about coverage having to be "out of universe" or that the character has to be "more independently notable than other characters". If you really think that this is backed up by policy, then please supply the link to said policy!
• Incorrect argument for deletion: "how well-known she is outside of VF does matter, from WP:VG/GL - "If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." I've already said it once and I'll say it again: this quote has been taken out of context. Read the entire paragraph over at VG/GL which this quote fits into and you'll see that it is explicitly about gamecruft and completely irrelevant to notability.
• Incorrect argument for deletion: the references supplied are not usable as Sarah Bryant is listed with other characters, or in part of a game review. Again, this is backed up by absolutely no Wikipedia policy. Indeed, WP:GNG explicitly claims otherwise with the quote "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". If you still disagree then cite a policy that backs up your views, and don't forget to link to it.
• Incorrect argument for deletion: The sources present in the article are "not good" (to quote Rainbow unicorn) or "junk" (to quote Czar). Ok, I get that you don't personally like the sources, but no policy whatsoever has been supplied on why they cannot be used. They are all from reliable sources and I am absolutely fine with the sources present in the article. "No serious AfD would consider them substantial enough to include in an article" - don't worry, we are being plenty serious, I shit you not. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you're not going to respond to our breakdown of the sources, which is the only aspect worth discussing at this point IMO, then there's nothing to discuss. I think the above (patronizing) rant is unwarranted—you've already established that you read the GNG to be really permissive. If you have nothing new to add, all the above does is make third parties less likely to address the actual source concerns raised. czar 04:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but... are you serious? As a person with some experience debating IRL all that I can say is that you've pretty much done a stock standard dismissal and forced change of topic, which is 1) rude and 2) very ineffective. Please explain how I didn't respond to your "breakdown of the sources", but, more importantly please explain how you're entitled to expect us to respond to every one of your arguments (which we've tried our hardest to do, backed up by policies and all) when it's obvious that, with a comment like that, you don't give a trifle about ours? Despite being asked multiple times to provide a policy to support your arguments on how 1) Sarah Bryant being listed with other characters or in a game review makes the source worth less, or 2) why "out of universe coverage" is necessary, or even explained how the sources in the article are "crap"? You believe my "rant" to be "patronizing" (when it's actually an explanation on how I responded to your concerns, why they aren't correct, and you specifically asked for it), but what's really "patronising" here is your outright refusal to discuss points raised by other parties or even address concerns that have been asked for repeatedly. Frankly, we're being snubbed here, and you're attitude of superiority on how your source concerns are "actual" while everything else we've asked for repeatedly is "not serious" (and "patently not policy-backed") is impudent and not appreciated.

Look, I respect you and all and what you do for the wiki, but I'm not going to leave a discussion just because you say so, as you've not-so-subtly implied. Especially when my concerns are being brushed aside while I've made effort to respond to yours, including why I believe the sourcing to be useful and appropriate, backed up by policy. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 05:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? There is very clearly an impasse not just about this article but in understanding of the GNG vis-à-vis fictional characters—one that has been much better addressed in a more public venue: WT:VG#Character articles. The widespread consensus there answers your two explicit questions (re: not just aggregating mentions from sources and out-of-universe context). So unless someone is going to do a source-by-source breakdown (like Rainbow and I did) explaining how the sources cover her, in specific, in any significant depth at all—that is, not throwaway lines about her skills or breasts—there's nothing to discuss here. And even still, I'm not convinced that would be productive. As for the rest, no one asked you to "leave" and I don't consider this a "debate"—I have zero interest in debating or entertaining the above personal accusations and I hope you'll respect that. czar 15:52, 15 October 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 00:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Ríos[edit]

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

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NBOX and lacks the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Success as a junior does not matter for the purposes of notability. The only reference is to his Boxrec profile so there is no significant independent coverage of him as required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rakan 8000[edit]

Rakan 8000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a product. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 12:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Almost a speedy delete. A Youtube video with like 7 hits, fails notability, reliable sources and can hardly be verified! - Pmedema (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. No references to be found at all. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Topic had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 23:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as there's not much to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 10 October 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 no one has vehemently voted delete (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commercialization of the Internet[edit]

Commercialization of the Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I feel that the topic could be notable, but probably not in this state. For one, the article's definition of "commercialization" is vague. Plus, it is mostly from a United States point of view, which could easily be fixed, but is still a major problem. This could be merged to the History of the Internet article, but as it stands I don't think there is enough content that could be written to warrant a separate article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Userfy I think this article has potential, but it was just created today. We should give the editor at least a week to build it up. If they would like more time, it could be userfied or moved to draft space. There is MUCH to be said on this topic, and just from my own reading there will be no dearth of sources. LaMona (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve the article. --Fixuture (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but agree with LaMona that it could be userfied if that would be helpful for Thevideodrome to further along the Quality improvement process. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 October 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 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Contreras[edit]

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

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NBOX and has no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBOX, has never fought for a title, no significant news coverage. Charlie the Pig (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 02:33, 11 October 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  15:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lizard bite[edit]

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

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