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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Javed[edit]

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

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

Too soon with only one role so far done as per WP:TOOSOON and the most discussing part of this article is that it does not have even a single source. This means so sign of notability per WP:N. The article was created on 17 July 2015 and I don't understand why didn't anybody watched this article for 1 and a half months and nominated the article for deletion. ЖunalForYou ^☎️📝 15:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as he's obviously not notable and there's nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A preliminary WP:BEFORE search reveals very little. Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Mkdw^talk 00:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect to Ek Nayi Ummeed - Roshni. --Human3015^TALK  01:10, 7 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. Sorry, Jimbo, but there's not a single "delete" !vote here. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June Swann[edit]

June Swann (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 actually a biography, and unlikely that we can gather enough information to make it into a biography Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If she is indeed "the world's leading authority on historic shoes" and a museum curator, surely there are biographical details publicly available somewhere, perhaps from institutions where she has been employed or from the publisher of her books that are noted in the article. Deli nk (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Shoe history is rather an obscure field, but she's a major figure in it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Search for "footwear historian" returns only this article. Considering the other comments, i don't have an opinion for deletion but if she is the only footwear historian, she may need a different description that doesn't appear made up. --DHeyward (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It all depends on what we want to consider "significant coverage". this article in The Independent, this feature on her in National Geographic, this article in the Toronto Star, the Barcelona Metropolitan called her "an acclaimed shoe historian", The Baltimore Sun interviewed her briefly in this article, and finally The New York Times has two paragraphs about her in this article and quote her as stating that "she is the world authority on the history of shoe fashions". According to VADS, it refers to her by name and title, M.B.E., suggesting she's a Dame. I wouldn't necessarily call this a home run, but perhaps in the niche world of shoemaking and history, she may be a prominent person. Mkdw^talk 03:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mkdw^talk 20:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mkdw, it appears significant coverage in reliable sources does exist to support an article per WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am wondering if the page nominator could share with us just how he came across this article, and why despite rather good sourcing in the Independent and National Geographic, among others, he decided to nominate. Has the subject herself requested deletion? Tarc (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have discussed elsewhere, I have a shortcut on my toolbar to take me to a random article in the category "British Women Writers". At the time of nomination, the article was a single paragraph. I wouldn't call the sourcing "rather good" at all - it's quite thin and, as I said in the nomination, the article was not actually a biography. I expressed doubt as to whether we can create a good biography. Mkdw has done an admirable job of gathering sources, and so it seems likely that the article can be improved to an acceptable state.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, even I as a passionate deletionist at least look around for sources before nominating an article. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per MKDW - Before nominating any article editors are expected to search for sources which judging by this AFD the nominator clearly hasn't done that!, Anyway article's been expanded and judging by MKDW's findings i'd say notability's certainly there. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MKDW by application of GNG. Hlevy2 (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:GNG, multiple references available and WP:ANYBIO, Swann being a widely recognises shoe (history) expert. Here are more (some may be deemed trivial?) references:

[1] - History, "in the roof we found a child's leather shoe - dated 1880 by shoe expert June Swann."

[2] - International Council Of Museums Costume News 2015:1, an obituary and shoe book reviews written by Swann.

[3] - Archaeological Leather Group Newsletter No. 33 March 2011, shows Swann attending and contributing to the Groups 17th Annual General Meeting, also has an article on shoe terminology and a shoe book review by Swann.

[4] - Fit for the Court Lady Ribblesdale's Shoes, 1797 By Noreen McGuire, Victoria & Albert Museum, Swann cited throughout and 2 of her books included in bibliography

[5] - Mystery of the shoe in the wall, "The study of concealed shoes began in 1957 when June Swann, keeper of the boot and shoe collection at the Northampton Museum, and a fellow curator each received a half-dozen shoes for identification. Most had been hidden near chimneys. Swann could find no literature on shoes concealed in houses. She wrote in a 1996 article in Costume Society Journal about how her curiosity was piqued especially by the discovery of a pair of child's boots in the thatched roof of a cottage in Northamptonshire. "I had this vision of a tiny child on the thatched roof," Swann, now 79 and retired, told the Star, "and I wondered, `What kind of family does this?' ... Not being superstitious, it took me a long while to convince myself that all my finds were (put there deliberately)." "

[6] - Secrets of an old shoe, "an online article by British shoe historian June Swann confirmed that in Britain, in particular, it was not uncommon for a shoe to be hidden somewhere in a house to bring stability and good luck to the household."

[7] - Characteristics of the Chukka boot, "However, in studying what shoe historian June Swann had to say about the boots and ..."

[8] - The Funeral Effigies of Westminster Abbey, a book review "The expertise of a distinguished group of international specialists has been drawn upon for this book; they are ... June Swann."

[9] - The World According to Shoes, news article quotes Swann.

[10] - Stepping Out, Footwear at UC Davis (Exhibition Review), one of Swann's books in recommended reading list. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, time to close this, or for Nom to withdraw it. She is notable in an actual field of study.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 10 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 Merge to Craig Russell (British author). Early close as nominator: no real need for an AfD in this case. Slashme (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Fabel[edit]

Jan Fabel (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 article makes no claim of notability, and only a self-published site as a reference. Slashme (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with Slashme, no claim of notability. samtar^{(leave me a message)} 22:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thoughts, I'm going to Merge and redirect it to Craig Russell (British author) and then do an early close of this discussion. Sorry for the waste of time! --Slashme (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closed early per WP:SNOW. The article will be protected against recreation given the BLP concerns. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Garrison[edit]

Ben Garrison (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 reliable source coverage whatsoever. AfDing instead of PRODding because I'm hoping for a speedy SNOW close on this. Brustopher (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improve sources and keep. Examples: The Nib, Online Hate Prevention Institute (Australia) (includes fair use image), Radix, Vice News '''tAD''' (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Nib is a a blog on medium, radix is a journal run by white supremacists and the OHPI source is written by Garrison about himself. That only leaves the VICE source. Still not notable. Brustopher (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OHPI find his story to be a relevant to their cause from the other side of the world '''tAD''' (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I looked for sources in the past and didn't find much. The OHPI has discussed Garrison's cartoons prior to the primary source mentioned above (summary, Scribd link). The report shows his cartoons and several examples of how they are defaced, but the report is more about social media and the role of memes and cartoons in antisemitism than it is about him as an artist. I believe The Nib is edited by Matt Bors who is an established cartoon journalist/editor, but it's still not really solid as a source for meeting WP:BIO. Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - fails WP:BIO - again. ukexpat (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt, clearly does not meet the WP:GNG, page is also a magnet for trolling and defamation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete and Salt Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines, WP:NAUTHOR. Article has been recreated after being deleted as an Attack page and serious BLP violations are continuing per [11] Jbh^Talk 13:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:BIO. Given the nature of the subject and the abysmal sourcing used currently, there may be an appropriate CSD, but a WP:SNOW delete and salt is probably most straightforward. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So he's a cartoonist and was trolled, doesn't make him notable. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Given the various BLP concerns, it's probably worth noting that the article creator has another copy of this in his/her sandbox: User:Rossbawse/sandbox. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Subject severely fails WP:BIO. Given the above commentary I also support a WP:SNOW close. No need to drag this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business Intelligence Transformation Model[edit]

Business Intelligence Transformation Model (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 business model. Original editor has admitted that this is part of something he is designing for a client. It's not quite blatant spam, but it's certainly original research. No reliable sources have written about this model. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bgwhite (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches found nothin' better. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - both original research (see above) and a neologism. Wikipedia is not here to create new stuff. Bearian (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nuestra Belleza México corona al mérito winners[edit]

List of Nuestra Belleza México corona al mérito winners (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:LISTCRUFT, unsourced list of winners of an award that is not notable of its own. The Banner talk 21:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I thought at first this was just a list of winners of a notable pageant, but it's apparently a separate award or recognition given by the pageant to former winners. At most the fact the award exists could be mentioned in the parent pageant article, but we should probably expect secondary coverage even for that, and a standalone list of all is excessive detail either way unless it could be shown that the award is independently notable. Otherwise such awards are arguably a form of puffery for the subjects ("look at how awesome we think our past winners are") and not encyclopedic information. Note that "unsourced" is not at all a valid deletion rationale, and I'd urge the nominator to stop including that irrelevant assertion in every deletion nomination, but to consider and discuss instead whether the information can be sourced, as is expected per WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above commentary; I would have to concur with the "unsourced" comment too - at least show that sources HAVE been searched for. Mabalu (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have ignored most of the SPA !votes, which were not policy based and basically argued WP:ILIKEIT. Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Project Management Association[edit]

International Project Management 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)

Promotional with borderline notability at best. Conceivably notable, though there is no evidence for that other than inclusion in a list of organisations. Until recently it was an inconspicuous factual article that might never have been noticed, but now expanded 500% into a absurdly over-detailed promotional press release. If there is any actual source for notability, it could of course be trimmed back and protected against the addition of such material. . (A listing in the infobox such as the present Employees: 51-200 is a sure sign of being taken from a database that just puts the material submitted by the organisations into categories without critical review. I've been noticing similar elsewhere, and all such articles need to be looked at. ) DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• I support this nomination. Trim back or delete this indeed "over-detailed promotional press release." -- Mdd (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Simply performed an update to the page, which was outdated in many regards. Maybe to wordy, but as a Not-for-Profit Organisation we do not have experts doing this, why a deletion could be perceived as discrimination of our volunteers all over the world. RW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:63:2715:5E3B:290A:8635:9BC9:77F (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC) — 2003:63:2715:5E3B:290A:8635:9BC9:77F (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• I do not support this deletion which seems driven by an alterior motive. IPMA is the World's oldest PM Institution and has credible international standing in over 55 countries world wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isdsharpe (talk • contribs) 11:37, 6 September 2015‎ (UTC) — Isdsharpe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• I do not support the deletion of this article. The original article in question has been cleaned up. Thank you for raising this issue and bringing this to the attention of IPMA. This now looks similar to the other PM association's wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psm-canada (talk • contribs) 11:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC) — Psm-canada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Thank you for raising this issue. I do not support the deletion of thie article. However, there is a need for the article to be streamlined, enriched and improved. I have made few suggestions in the "talk" section. ChB,Cnbredillet (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)— Cnbredillet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Note I have reverted the improper addition back to a cleaner version with a couple references which are not their own website. There have been an abundance of POV pushers and COI editors coming out of the woodwork this week. I would like to remind User:Psm-canada, User:Cnbredillet and User:2003:63:2715:5E3B:290A:8635:9BC9:77F that the Wikipedia community frowns upon editing articles in which you have a conflict of interest in, and could lead to a blocking of your accounts.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not support the deletion of IPMA article. IPMA is worldwide recognized and respected voluntary based non-profit organization. It would be a great shame for the objectives of Wikipedia if you take IPMA out of WP. Please do not delete this article. -joxi-PMAF-— 195.156.22.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I do not support the deletion of IPMA article. IPMA is worldwide recognized and respected voluntary based non-profit organization, existing in more than 55 countries. References to this organization is placed in thousands of books and articles world wide. 81.198.169.235 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)LNPVA (Latvian National Project Management Association) — 81.198.169.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Commment It'saless promotional article, but there remains no evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not support the deletion of IPMA article. IPMA is the only global non-for-profit organization of that size (circa 60 national member association across the 6 continents) which has the the mission to develop and promote the project management discipline. References to this organization are placed in numerous publications, university curricula and professional coaching and training consultancies. In some countries (e.g. Croatia) IPMA's certificate credentials are recognized by law as the necessary requirement for managing public projects.Please do not delete this page. Croatian Association for Project Management, MVMvukoman (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)— Mvukoman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note to closing admin A CU was conducted to investigate the SPA and IPs involved in this discussion.The SPAs were found not to be technically related, but it's likely a case of WP:MEATPUPPETRY and therefore as per the policy, it is my recommendation the accounts be treated as a single voice in this discussion. Mkdw^talk 05:21, 10 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24SevenOffice[edit]

24SevenOffice (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)

Fourth nom. No reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. It was kept to be rewritten twice in the period 2005-2006, deleted once, and forgotten since. Nobody has improved it, and the keep arguments from back then are laughable ("WP:ITSNOTABLE" because WP:ITSIMPORTANT/"it comes up in google"). Sigh. Let's throw this garbage where it belongs: in the deletion bin. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with nom. The previous "debate" was entirely laughable. My own searches turned up nothing useful, just a few "and this company also sells one" kind of mentions. I could find absolutely nothing that might remotely be described multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail as required by WP:GNG. If someone is more successful than I was and can find the necessary sources, I'm happy to revise my !vote. Msnicki (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Okay, I'm satisfied by the new sources. Msnicki (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft keep Here's the issue I'm seeing with this one: it's a Norwegian company based in Norway and most of the good, reliable sources you'll find might be in Norwegian. You can look at the company's Google News listing and see a bunch of Norwegian-language sources. The article as it stands doesn't have any references, but I'm sure there's something in those Norwegian sources to be found. Even a basic Google web search brings up a ton of Norwegian language sources. My argument isn't that the company appears in Google searches, it's that the company appears extensively in Norwegian language websites. Of course, this is a "soft keep" because I don't know how good those Norwegian sources are, and it doesn't appear that anyone's actually looked into those sources. Gargleafg (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gargleafg: I am all for non-English sources, and globalization, and such, but we cannot AGF the existence of sources (AGF is for editors, not content). You will see that Talk:24SevenOffice contains WP:NORWAY template. If that project is active enough that they have deletion notifications, and if someone comments here, good. Otherwise, we cannot keep it "because maybe there are Norwegian sources, but no Norwegian editor cares to comment". May I suggest that you invite members of that WikiProject from their talk page directly, and we will see if and what they say? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:GNG due to ample press coverage. A search in Atekst shows 111 printed newspaper articles since 2004, and a significant number of these seem to be non-trivial. I have added three examples which should in themselves suffice in establishing notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as I remarked in my edit summary when I reinstated the notability tag, I'm not satisfied. These new cites look like routine coverage of the company's press releases. It would help if there was even one good source in any language that we could all examine. Msnicki (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three references in question were chosen because there were feature articles in high-circulation newspapers/magazines written by staff journalists. Don't worry, there were ample to chose between. They are all lengthy articles (Kongsnes for instance is 430 words in length) and none are, as you claim, "routine coverage of the company's press releases". There is no requirement that notability be established through the use of English-language sources nor that it be available online. To quote WP:N, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My objection has nothing to do with the language or whether the source is online or not. It has everything to do with the poor quality of the sources you've offered. They appear to me to be routine coverage of the company's press releases. Note, for example, that they are very heavy on quotes from the principals, always suggestive that the material is just routine coverage.

Per WP:CORPDEPTH, Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ... brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, ... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.

And from WP:ORGIND, Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[3] except for the following: ... other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.

I appreciate that you disagree and you have a right to your opinion but I have a right to mine as well. I am simply not convinced by your sources. You do what you like but I'm still !voting delete. Msnicki (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers, blue-linked in the article, look reliable. Now, I can't read Norwegian, so User:Arsenikk, could you provide a brief summary of the sources? What is their primary topic, how many sentences do they devote to the article, are they quoting/reprinting press releases or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, all three articles are staff-written, signed articles. None of them bear sign of being rewritten press releases. The first two are feature-like, i.e. they are telling a broad story without much "newness", while Lyche's article is a clear news story. Kongsnes is 430 words and entirely dedicated to telling the story of the company. It goes to a fair detail through the company's history, business model, recent development and future plans. It is as objective as any normal newspaper article, with no particular bias either for or against the company. This article is exactly the kind of coverage which WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND is claiming establishes notability. Okkelmo is 1722 words, and a general coverage of Norwegian companies expanding to the UK. About a fifth of the article is dedicated to the company in question. Again, it presents a general history of the company and aspects related to the UK expansion. I used it as a reference because it had relevant information, not because it necessarily in itself establishes notability. I have added two more references, with Stenseng being 936 words and Edvardsen being 517. Again, staff-written, signed feature articles giving a presentation of the company, its production, operations, history and plans. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that's only 430 or even 1722 words (especially when only about 350 of them are about the subject) and only tells just the kind of stuff a company would report on its "about us" page or in a press release is not "feature-like". More important, to be a WP:SECONDARY source, it must provide the author's own thinking and the author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas. What you've described doesn't do that. Msnicki (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be of some value here if people were aware that Dagens Næringsliv and Stavanger Aftenblad, to mention two of the sources used, practice what has become the widespread norm over here namely to post online only a small foretaste of the entire article found in print and e-print. Counting words in the online articles is an exercise in futility. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article appears to have been copied originally from the Norwegian Wikipedia article (translated here). They don't have any sources there, either. Msnicki (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and Msnicki. Searches showed nothing to indicate the notability of this company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:HEY, hang on! -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and that's a very clear keep: there are sources available to establish notability far above the minimum WP:NCORP. I'll be working on the article when time permits. There are at least 20 more refs currently in my source stack to be added. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I expanded "this garbage" four days ago with the further addition of some 50-60 references. Sources for 2009-2015 are abundantly available. May we have some feedback from Piotrus and onel5969? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, very good job. If I was voting, I'd change to abstain, but as the nom I am not sure what I can do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you've decided the new sources are satisfactory, you may withdraw your nomination and either close it yourself or let someone else do it. For example, here's one I withdrew in a similar situation. Msnicki (talk) 15:29, 10 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. Salted. Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph DiDonato[edit]

Joseph DiDonato (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 autobiography of a 13-year old does not have the references to establish or verify notability. A google search does not reveal any independent coverage. ubiquity (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt. I couldn't find any reliable sources to add, fails WP:BASIC. Article has been A7 deleted thrice, last time was two weeks ago on August 18.[12] -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than the usual websites and the message isn't going through that this needs better improvement until it is accepted. At best, once better, this can be sent to WP:AFC. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt – Not finding coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Salt because an article about this non-notable subject (per Wikipedia's standards) has been created and deleted three times before [13]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Part Hoax, part simply not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tijuana (disambiguation)[edit]

Tijuana (disambiguation) (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)

Created by a banned editor. Ignoring this as it is allegedly useful, none of the current links are known as "Tijuana" alone (example: "Tijuana"). As neither of the enlisted terms is known as "Tijuana" the page loses its function of disambiguation page. For a further reference, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:PTM as nothing else is known as "Tijuana". -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing rationale to keep, because Kraxler makes good points that are impossible to ignore. The disambiguation is useful, so it's not helping anyone by deleting it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As Tavix notes, don't close a discussion for a still-existing article unless the close is "keep" or "no consensus". A "deleted" close isn't a good idea until/unless the article's deleted, simply because deletion hasn't happened and can be opposed. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PTM which expressly allows entries "if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context" - That's exactly the case here:
• Tijuana, evidently
• Tijuana Municipality, may be referred to as Tijuana without the "municipality", both by being uncertain about the exact location within or outside the actual city limits, or by talking about the region, including area more than just the city
• Tijuana metropolitan area, similar to the above, saying like "Greater Tijuana" or the "Tijuana region" has x inhabitants, for example, omitting the awkward "metropolitan area" or just the "metropolitan" part for brevity
• Tijuana River, rivers are many times referred to as "the [river name]" as in "The Tijuana flows into the Pacific Ocean."

The other three entries (Playas de Tijuana, Tijuana River Estuary, Tijuana Cartel), and assorted partial matches may be listed in the "See also" section. Kraxler (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree with the arguments made by Kraxler. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kraxler; I've reformatted the page as a dab page where there exists a primary topoic. PamD 21:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK # 1. Kraxler (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)} Kraxler (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek[edit]

List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek (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 fail to see how this passes wp:GNG and wp:FORK, as the topic is the only 12 tributaries for a just 50-km long creek that is not famous for anything in particular. Nergaal (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep disruptive nomination of an article that the nominator himself admits is long enough for featured list. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC) addendum: This also quite clearly meets Wikipedia's gazetteering functions as a list of notable geographical features. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I should mention that I wrote the said article, for transparency's sake. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep disruptive and pointy behaviour yet again from the bad faith nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how does your statement clarifies that this passes GNG. Nergaal (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how your nomination actually passes a cursory glance. GNG has already been established, time for you to stop disrupting Wikipedia, discouraging editors, and making points which aren't actually valid. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, let's encourage editors to work even more on pointless forks that nobody will ever open to read. Let's make sure that actually meaningful lists don't have the chance to receive any reviewer comments by continuously flooding FLC with such completely useless compiled data. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on the presence of credible sources, not whether you find it useful or not. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Preliminary keep: There are six sources, none of which look unreliable to me. Enough to pass GNG, and this bulky list is not particularly suited for the parent article either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arendelle (programming language)[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. Article cites no third-party sources, nor can I find any using DuckDuckGo, GScholar or GBooks. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to write in here I guess. Recently I was in a school and a friend of mine was teaching kids programming with Arendelle. I remember they were motivated by their teachers that if you code good maybe your year photo goes to Wikipedia. I understand your concerns. Well Arendelle is a tool used in some schools and universities here in Iran. Some stuff like flowgorithm or the book Create your own programming language... likes it (if you know about computing you sure know about CoffeeScript or maybe Fancy they are both featured in the book as well as Arendelle. And at least Coffee is one of the most important languages around. And honestly I bet if you search web you don't find anything. Really do a search, search "Fancy Language" and only thing you find is this link: http://rubini.us/2011/02/23/introduction-to-fancy/ but that doesn't mean it's cheap. It's worthless or something. I know many people who code in Fancy. Fancy is in GitHub's official languages and it is RosettaCode. For a language you really need nothing more than having one of these to say it's popular. But I remember I tried to fix the book (https://www.gitbook.com/book/kary/infancy/details) as there was nothing to read about and for god's sake review their references) and it Arendelle there are books, a hell lots of compilers and interpreters (even most of the coolest languages have one, there are 3 for Arendelle. nothing not well known reaches this) and there are so many stuff written for Arendelle that even the most famous ones don't. I may be emotional about Arendelle because I'm a part of the project but seriously if you know or knew anything about languages you could never find it "not notable". I'm sad that the page is going to be lost because I've seen people getting to excited about it. For our not well know community it was such a confidence and now that it is going to be done I feel we may even face serious consequences and well maybe those kiddos never find themselves in Wikipedia.

P.S[ 1 ]: References for Arendelle are the best. Because they are "Official References" for it. A language is not something you do blogs, press and books for it's features or stuff. A language is a "standard" and you have to check the official standard reference for it. Arendelle's features are written on standard formats is it's book, it's website, and most importantly it's source code. If I write a blog or CNET do it, non of them are even reliable for understanding Arendelle. And well if you just check the article there is nothing as "OMG Arendelle is soooooo coool!! it has this or that, just 34.34$" even Apple page has that but if you just check Arendelle's page you see nothing but some technical details about Arendelle. I'm sure people who wrote the document and me are all Arendelle super fans, but honestly, it's one of the most impartially written Wiki pages, I don't see even see adjectives but stuff like domain-specific which are language attributes. So I think for that matter the references are not just fine, but the best possible. (For just a sec, Imagine there is this giant page about an ISO standard, and the references are press and media... I have nothing more to say). just once try Arendelle or something else and after you know programming you will never say that the references are bad.

P.S[ 2 ]: I don't know if you ever had people who look up to you. But here there are. And after Arendelle being destroyed they will all just think "What they do is not important" and well next time I see them I can tell that well that something as trying so hard to be able to expose nudity is important but well what you do is exactly marked "meaningless" and "not notable". Honestly I didn't even care about a page like this on the web. But well I wrote all this because I just started thinking that was the most offensive way to call something or someone "not notable", at least change the name or something.

Karux (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love Arendelle. It's just sad --Thechosendragon (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC) — Thechosendragon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for your support! very kind of you

Karux (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I care about Arendelle and I don't think it should be removed ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.9.127.206 (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC) — 85.9.127.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for your support! very kind of you

Karux (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

arendelle is one of the most gorgeous programming language I've ever known and i really support it— Dukehamid (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC) — Dukehamid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks Hamid, I wish others see this and help us express Arendelle matters to us

Karux (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karux, Thechosendragon, Dukehamid: this is not about whether you like the topic of the article under discussion. If you want to salvage it, come up with reliable sources to establish notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. It's hard to argue with someone who has lots of articles. I have only fixed words and stuff in here never page creating or so. However I don't think this page ever gets to live and I don't have the energy to help that. Go on delete it. Arendelle also is in other pages try not to forgot to remove those. I've spent past week keeping the page safe. Talking to others, fixing what they thought was bad for wikipedia and I'm tired now. I think Arendelle has more and more reliable notable sources than many other pages. (make sure you read my first comment). and that was all I had to say. I hope that you can dream. Have fun cleaning...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karux (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karux, there's nobody here that particularly wants to delete the article, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not everything in the world is a suitable topic. Specifically subjects must be notable in Wikipedia's special sense. This does not mean subjects failing those criteria are worthless, just that they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. For software, there are further guidelines at WP:NSOFT. What we need is for someone, who is a reliable source, other than the people intimately involved in the project, to establish its notability. Surely if this is worth an encyclopedia article someone will have written about it. Primary sources are not generally acceptable, except for basic facts - for example question regarding the syntax of the language. But other that *you're* assertion, and you're admitted not being impartial, why should there be an article? Rwessel (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Easy call. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources discussing the topic in detail to demonstrate notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling the web and books turned up absolutely nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT#OR #2. Could someone also clean up the mess Karux and Thechosendragon left in several other articles? —Ruud 09:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got some of them, but I think the additions to the various "comparison of programming language (x)" need to stay unless the article is actually removed. Rwessel (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think we can invoke the snowball clause here. Or just not forget to do it after the AfD is over. —Ruud 11:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your heavenly words. I will fix it myself 31.59.239.7 (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Karux or Thechosendragon? If so please consistently log-in when editing. It make things hard to follow if you don't. Thank you. Rwessel (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well who cares the importance is fixing Wikipedia and it was me --Karux (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm fixing everything. And I will list the pages I fixed here:

* List of programming languages

* List_of_programming_languages_by_type#Educational_languages

* List_of_educational_programming_languages#Children

* Comparison of programming languages (array)

* Comparison of programming languages (syntax)

* Comparison of programming languages (strings)

* Arendelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.59.225.119 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't have the authorization to remove this one:

* Computer_Programming/Hello_world

I'm searching to see if there is any other page and don't you worry I will clean them up. (Just use nice words please) Karux (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless some evidence of notability shows up. My comments above apply. Rwessel (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I originally suggested this be speedied as spam. There is plenty of evidence here that the language exists, but none that it is notable. People make up new languages everyday. I've made up three myself, but I don't believe they belong here on Wikipedia. Karux's contention that the kind of coverage we're looking for doesn't exist for computer languages seems bizarre to me. There is plenty of coverage for notable languages like java, swift, C, and so on. ubiquity (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

তিন ব্যক্তির গুহার মধ্যে আটকে পড়ার ঘটনা[edit]

তিন ব্যক্তির গুহার মধ্যে আটকে পড়ার ঘটনা (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-english content, links to a bible passage. No real point to having this page. IsraphelMac (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just tagged the only link for deletion.--ABCDEFAD_✉ 19:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ABCDEFAD_✉ 19:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article title reads "the incident of three people trapped in a cave". It is a duplicate of Bukhari 2272 and 3 byaktir guhar moddhey atika porar ghotona. DrKiernan (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there are simply no signs of improvement at this time and although I found results such as this, this is a good example of WP:TNT and is best restarted anew. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per CSD A3. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 16:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bukhari 2272[edit]

Bukhari 2272 (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 passage is a bible reading. ABCDEFAD_✉ 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 2008 Dutch Caribbean Age Group Championships. Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Dutch Caribbean championships[edit]

2008 Dutch Caribbean championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Is a copy of here. Don't think it needs to be merged as everything in the article is already covered by the other article. TheEditor867 (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - you can redirect this article to the other one yourself if you think it's appropriate, you don't need AFD to do that. shoy (reactions) 14:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Shoy: the article is likely reported at AfD to have the article and the link deleted, so that it is not left as a redirect. Probably the name is totally wrong or something. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without leaving a redirect, since it clearly is a much shorter version of an already existing article which also seems to have a more correct name than this one. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 22:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chimango Chirwa[edit]

Chimango Chirwa (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 enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines, WP:ANYBIO etc. Ambassadors do not have inherent notability and while his name shows up in many news articles I could find only one that is not simply a trivial mention. There might be some information on him in regional newspapers since he is referred to as an 'outspoken critic of the government'. Right now all coverage falls under WP:BLP1E for his appointment as Ambassador. Jbh^Talk 16:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Malawi's ambassador to the African Union is a very important position in a small, non-western country like Malawi. Given that the article is on a non-western prominent person (see WP:BIAS on our collective bias) and that the article is only a week old, it is too soon to delete.--TM 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete created by a single purpose editor so probable autobio. His positions do not confer inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - has held at least two ambassador-level positions, one to the African Union, which is a bigger deal than most Westerners realize. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability to those positions nor does he seem to have any press coverage that would indicate he is notable in and of himself. There might be sources that are not easily available and there is no bar to recreating the article if some are found or if he gets some substantial press coverage. Jbh^Talk 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The question I have is how does he demonstrably pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines? The mere assertion of notability is not enough, it must be documented. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note on Ambassadors Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Louis Schechter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ambassadors of Russia to Thailand, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Pike Bissonnet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olav Berstad, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miyoko Akashi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mexican ambassadors to Serbia, etc. show that people who are full-time Ambassadors as such are generally notable. In the case at hand, the issue should be whether the posts are considered important within Africa, as being the place where any sources would most likely be found. Thus the role in the African Union seems sufficient here. Thus the Nyasa Times articles are salient, and, in my opinion, tip the scales. Collect (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, this list of Afds demonstrates no inherent notability of ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment (not necessarily relevant to this AfD), it's worth remembering that most ambassadors are actually mid-level civil servants, with countries generally only posting high ranking or otherwise notable people to their most important embassies. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backwaters Press[edit]

Backwaters Press (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)

Minor small press. Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found no evidence of reliable, independent sources that cover this press in any detail. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly vote to Keep. Clearly this press is important as seen by the Nebraska Arts Council (whose mission is to cultivate the literary arts in Nebraska) as evidenced by their numerous awards to them. This press successfully balances a mission that supports his state's artistic and cultural goals, while reaching out to the larger, national literary community by publishing significant authors as recognized by the national literary community. It also publishes new and emerging authors and fosters the literary arts in Nebraska and throughout the region. If there is an issue here of finding secondary sources, it is only because poetry and literary don't often "make the news," but that does not mean that literary culture is not notable within the community. The Backwaters Press is without a doubt notable to all authors within Nebraska and surrounding areas and to anyone who cares about the literary community and traditions of the Great Plains. Not only is Backwaters Press notable in itself. It is notable for serving an important cultural mission. Please keep this entry. Thank you.Edward Dixon (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Edward Dixon[reply]

Notable in Wikipedia terms, means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Theroadislong (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the recent addition of added content and a citation by Project Muse which I submit provides secondary sourcing and verifiable evidence of the notability of this press. Thank you. Edward Dixon (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not finding enough significant coverage in searches for reliable independent sources. The listings with Nebraska Arts Council and Project Muse are a start, but do not reach the notability threshold. More significant coverage needed. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What is a poetry press? Is it to be judged by WP:ORG? Or by WP:CREATIVE. I argue for something more like the later. (and, yes, I am aware of WP:NOTINHERITED) My argument here is that for a small literary press, notability is produced and measured by the ability of that press to select, edit and produce notable works. This article is largely sourced with articles about the awards its books have won. I believe that the fact that it has been so successful in choosing and producing notable books, should persuade us to keep this article. Back to reality and the standard criteria for a keep. This award [14] along with material from the Nebraska Arts Council and Project Muse are persuasive. Along with the fact that the founding editor of the press is a writer of independent notability [15] Who should probably have an an article, too.

• Plus I did a little sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep based on the limited sourcing that suggests it's a culturally significant entity in Nebraska; I'd feel more strongly about this if we could turn up some sort of newspaper article or other RS with more direct and substantive information about the press. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulatory Healthcare Services[edit]

Ambulatory Healthcare Services (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 was actually going to speedy and my searches found nothing better than this and this, this and this but, in case it was notable in Abu Dhabi, I nominated it instead. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I waited to see if there would be any contributions from someone with more knowledge of the middle-east. My searches turned up nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Copyvio of a few websites. I found plagiarism and misrepresentation of [16] and [17], to name two. The figures from the second link have been distorted. I am also doubtful over whether this is a notable topic. SEHA would probably be notable but AHS is murky. Elspamo4 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cha Dao Tea Company[edit]

Cha Dao Tea Company (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)

Recently founded company with no evidence of better coverage and my searches with the most fruitful results were here and here and although I haven't searched local news sources, it would probably be the same level of low results or maybe a little more but still minor because it's local (though the article's sparse edits suggest it may not be as well known as it actually is). I would've let this article be if it wasn't that sourcing could be better. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing on the search engines shows this to be a notable company. Without an interested editor to provide better sourcing, the best thing is to delete for the time being. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Google search reveals only user-generated sources. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable company. We are not a web host for new companies. Bearian (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. Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Aitken Smith[edit]

Robert Aitken Smith (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 with no substantive claim of notability under WP:AUTHOR, and sourced exclusively to primary sources such as his own PR profiles on Smashwords and Goodreads. The only reliable source anywhere in this entire article isn't actually about him at all, but is actually about the person from whom he derived his pen name. This is not how a writer gets into Wikipedia — it takes reliable source coverage, not primary sourced verification of existence. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may simply bee WP:TOOSOON, but I can find no reliable, secondary sources for this writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Essentially self-published. There is a publishing company (HotPepper Publishing) that has only published his first book and a single short story by him. Not on Amazon, even. LaMona (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now unfortunately as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Babylon and On. Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Footprints (song)[edit]

Footprints (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)

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and deprodded with the edit comment, "it's a Squeeze single just like all the others that have articles" WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also apply. Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I created this page ages ago, along with the other various Squeeze singles. Notable band, notable album, but as far as I can tell this single never charted, despite being later included on several "hits" compilations. I'll defer to others to judge whether there could be enough substance here to justify retaining the page. Mrmctorso (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's doing no harm. If it were a stub or just marked 'unreferenced' it could exist without incident. If we delete this, we'll have to start deleting most of the singles in Template:Squeeze. Fuddle (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NSONGS. Azealia911 _talk 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Babylon and On which is the singles album - Obviously fails NSONG but 9 times out of 10 singles get redirected to albums anyway, –Davey2010^Talk 01:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Forfar Athletic F.C. season[edit]

2015–16 Forfar Athletic F.C. season (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 is unnecessary, offers no more content or context than available at Forfar Athletic F.C. and is unlikely to be updated. Exxy (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 17:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  These are professional clubs and I'm fairly certain with work they could meet GNG, however a mass of articles were created that no one has any intention of updating. As the nominator says they offer no more in there current state than the main article. GS we do usually allow articles at this level and it certainly wouldn't have less coverage than the English National League. However it is my view they should be deleted. Blethering Scot 21:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Contrary to the claim above, Forfar are not a professional club. Number 57 14:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. The club do no play in a fully professional league, nor in the top tier of their respective country therefore, by neither count could they be considered to be competing in a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. Perhaps at the end of the season, there will be sufficient significant, non-routine, reliable coverage to create an article comprising significant elements of sourced prose, but not at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG Spiderone 19:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Cowdenbeath F.C. season[edit]

2015–16 Cowdenbeath F.C. season (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 is unnecessary, offers no more content or context than available at Cowdenbeath F.C. and is unlikely to be updated. Exxy (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 17:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  These are professional clubs and I'm fairly certain with work they could meet GNG, however a mass of articles were created that no one has any intention of updating. As the nominator says they offer no more in there current state than the main article. GS we do usually allow articles at this level and it certainly wouldn't have less coverage than the English National League. However it is my view they should be deleted. Blethering Scot 21:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. The club do no play in a fully professional league, nor in the top tier of their respective country therefore, by neither count could they be considered to be competing in a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. Perhaps at the end of the season, there will be sufficient significant, non-routine, reliable coverage to create an article comprising significant elements of sourced prose, but not at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, complete lack of coverage from reliable sources. The club doesn't play in a fully pro league. Wikipedia articles should be more than just a collection of stats and results. Spiderone 19:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Airdrieonians F.C. season[edit]

2015–16 Airdrieonians F.C. season (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 is unnecessary, offers no more content or context than available at Airdrieonians F.C. and is unlikely to be updated. Exxy (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 17:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  These are professional clubs and I'm fairly certain with work they could meet GNG, however a mass of articles were created that no one has any intention of updating. As the nominator says they offer no more in there current state than the main article. GS we do usually allow articles at this level and it certainly wouldn't have less coverage than the English National League. However it is my view they should be deleted. Blethering Scot 21:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 57 14:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. The club do no play in a fully professional league, nor in the top tier of their respective country therefore, by neither count could they be considered to be competing in a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. Perhaps at the end of the season, there will be sufficient significant, non-routine, reliable coverage to create an article comprising significant elements of sourced prose, but not at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG Spiderone 19:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Albion Rovers F.C. season[edit]

2015–16 Albion Rovers F.C. season (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 is unnecessary, offers no more content or context than available at Albion Rovers F.C. and is unlikely to be updated. Exxy (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 17:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  These are professional clubs and I'm fairly certain with work they could meet GNG, however a mass of articles were created that no one has any intention of updating. As the nominator says they offer no more in there current state than the main article. GS we do usually allow articles at this level and it certainly wouldn't have less coverage than the English National League. However it is my view they should be deleted. Blethering Scot 21:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Contrary to the claim above, Albion are not a professional club. Number 57 14:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. The club do no play in a fully professional league, nor in the top tier of their respective country therefore, by neither count could they be considered to be competing in a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. Perhaps at the end of the season, there will be sufficient significant, non-routine, reliable coverage to create an article comprising significant elements of sourced prose, but not at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG Spiderone 19:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Brechin City F.C. season[edit]

2015–16 Brechin City F.C. season (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 is unnecessary, offers no more content or context than available at Brechin City F.C. and is unlikely to be updated. Exxy (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 17:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  These are professional clubs and I'm fairly certain with work they could meet GNG, however a mass of articles were created that no one has any intention of updating. As the nominator says they offer no more in there current state than the main article. GS we do usually allow articles at this level and it certainly wouldn't have less coverage than the English National League. However it is my view they should be deleted. Blethering Scot 21:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Contrary to the claim above, Brechin are not a professional club. Number 57 14:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. The club do no play in a fully professional league, nor in the top tier of their respective country therefore, by neither count could they be considered to be competing in a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. Perhaps at the end of the season, there will be sufficient significant, non-routine, reliable coverage to create an article comprising significant elements of sourced prose, but not at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG Spiderone 19:47, 8 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. DrKiernan (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Potts (film director)[edit]

Fred Potts (film director) (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. Potts is a non-notable filmmaker, and at best, a footnote in Dana Plato's story. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• 'KEEP' Fred Potts is not non-notable. he was not just a footnote in Dana Plato's life, he was engaged to be married to her. If this is just a footnote of someone life then WikiDan61 has a small life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktoriasoviet (talk • contribs)
• Keep does not meet WP:DEL-REASON. Romantic interests in Dana Plato pending marriage is notable. Mango 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) — Mangoclowns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete WP:INHERITED, WP:BLP1E. A search for sources is difficult due to the genuinely notable war hero of the same name, but I don't think there's anything out there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ""Delete""" Knows some ""Hollywood"" people and Dana Plato but not notable on own. wally 22:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escapement (talk • contribs)
• Keep less worthy people on Wikipedia. Majorsmithers (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Invalid argument. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Confirmed sockpuppets' !votes striken. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Based on the fact that the article was created by a confirmed sock puppet, WP:CSD#G5 applies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of African supercentenarians. Any sourced content worth merging is available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Sinédia-Cazour[edit]

Julia Sinédia-Cazour (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 overall notability for a stand-alone article. She was not even in the top 10 of the oldest women in the world of all, and only the 10th-oldest French person ever (she was briefly the oldest French person). She was once the oldest woman from the French possession of Reunion (now Maria Diaz but this is an island with a population of less than 900k in 2013) and the second oldest African person of all time. The actual sourced and relevant contents of any biography on her would be her birth and death dates and location information (the remaining ranking details are basically WP:SYNTHESIS from editors) so I would suggest deletion or a merger to List of African supercentenarians. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of African supercentenarians. A mini biography could be created there like this at List of British supercentenarians, for example. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable supercentenarian. No justification for stand-alone article. Removing all unsourced statements leaves you with nothing other than a name, age and country of residence. All information that is already available in other longevity articles. CommanderLinx (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete stand-alone article and merge with List of African supercentenarians. Quis separabit? 14:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of African supercentenarians per nom. Ca2james (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing to meet WP:N. Any material of encyclopedic merit can, as suggested, be included in longevity-related lists, such as List of African supercentenarians. Canadian Paul 18:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gadjah Putih Jati Wisesa[edit]

Gadjah Putih Jati Wisesa (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 martial art. No indication that this meets WP:MANOTE as a significant martial art or that there is enough reliable independent coverage to meet GNG. Of the two references given, this art is not specifically mentioned in the 1992 book and I couldn't find a copy of the 1979 book. Perhaps it can be merged or redirected to another of the pencak silat articles, but there's nothing here to show it deserves its own article.Mdtemp (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My own search for this martial art found no significant independent coverage of it. I also found no indication that it meets any of the martial arts notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage. Nothing to show it's a notable martial art. Jakejr (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also had trouble looking for coverage even when looking for the pre-1991 name Gajah Putih Mega Paksi. Ended up with music rather than martial art.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Impossible Princess by creator. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Say Hey (song)[edit]

Say Hey (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)

Fails WP:NSONGS. No independent coverage in third party reliable sources, no chart performance, no independent live coverage or performances. The only sources that speak of the song are album reviews, and per NSONGS, when this is the case, the song can usually be redirected and incorporated into the album article easily. Azealia911 _talk 16:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of this page, I am going to Redirect the pages to the parent album. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen Shilo[edit]

Ronen Shilo (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)

Reading through these sources, it appears that Shilo is in no way independently notable from Conduit; at that, none of these sources are really about Shilo, but about Conduit, which already has its own page. Without significant GNG showing Shilo himself as notable, there is no real reason to have this page. Grump International (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete. (1) None of the sources is substantial coverage of Shilo. (2) Searches for information about him produce mostly sites such as LinkedIn, Twitter, about.me/ronenshilo, businessinsider, Crunchbase, YouTube, FaceBook etc etc: no sign of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. (Note: the article was created by a single-purpose account, with no edits not related to Shilo and his busines.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the deletion nominator is almost a single purpose account, but one that looks to have had previous experience before using this login due to their knowledge of procedures here and skill in Wikimarkup. But in any case the page should be just judged on its merits not on the personalities involved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment: deletion nominator's account, User: Grump International appears to be a sock puppet and should, therefore, not be counted toward consensus. Nominator shows extensive knowledge of procedures here and skill in Wikimarkup, but their account is only a year old and has a handful of edits. This entry for Ronen Shilo and the related entry for Conduit (publisher network and platform) have come under repeated attack over the past few years and both have had to be protected by admins. Note that the nominator is simultaneously challenging the articles of related entries Conduit (company), where Shilo is CEO and Perion Network, which acquired a major part of Shilo's company. The use of a sock puppet account for all these simultaneous challenges to related entries suggests the nominator is biased and may have an undisclosed WP:COI.BC1278 (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

• Keep He's the CEO of Israel's largest Internet company but apparently hasn't granted many in-depth interviews, but given his prominence it's worth trying to find a way to keep him. As the company I run has a business relationship with Conduit, I have a WP:COI. I've never edited this article. I see it could use more sourcing, so I created a new proposed draft on my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BC1278/sandbox It includes articles focused on just him from Fast Company magazine and Inc. Magazine, both very high quality sources, as well as more information about his early and personal life from Israel magazine sources. I'll also put the request on the article's Talk page for the sandbox edit to be considered. I also see the article has seven named contributors over three years, two of whom, User: Diannaa and User: Bearcat are admins of Wikipedia. BC1278 (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
• comment The draft looks to be an improvement, but Fast Company does not look to be independent as Ronen Shilo has written for them. So it looks to be a author profile. Is the Technion entry independent? I cannot read Hebrew so I can't tell. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an extended profile of him by the magazine of the university. Technion – Israel Institute of Technology is like MIT in Israel so it would have the equivalent value of a high-quality alumni magazine. You can read about the world ranking of the university, which is one indication of the quality of their magazine, in the Academic section of the Wikipedia entry. I'll see if I can find some more sources.BC1278 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

I found another interview with Shilo on Pando Daily, a prominent tech website with well regarded journalism. Added it to the sandbox draft. I have reached out to friends who can do searches on Google's Hebrew version. It is hard to believe he could lead the largest Internet company and second largest technology company in Israel without attracting extensive personal profiles press, but that seems to be the case. He wrote a essay in Fast Company about why he avoided the press.^[1] BC1278 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

comment: As per WP: NOTABILITY "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." According to this essay in Fast Company,^[1] Shilo intentionally avoided the press, even though he runs the largest Internet company in Israel (second largest tech company), which when it had 100 million users was the 29th most popular site on the entire Internet, and peaked at 260 million users. The website had more users than Twitter at the time. He maintained majority ownership of his company, which was valued at $1.3 billion. See Conduit (company) for citations for all of the prior information. While it appears to me like he's only consented to one in-depth profile (in Hebrew), I did find may sources where he speaks to the press about his company, finance, Israel and technology. e.g. the Wall Street Journal^[2] (“Conduit’s vision is to grow the company and keep the headquarters in Israel,” Conduit CEO Ronen Shiloh said. “We want to be a global Internet company. Having a company at this stage that’s all Israelis is overall better for the state of Israel.”), Financial Times^[3] ("Short-term investments have gained Israel a second nickname, “Quick-Sell Nation,” said Ronen Shilo, founder and CEO of Conduit, which recently became Israel’s first billion-dollar Internet company."), Inc. Magazine ^[4] ("As part of our series on entrepreneurs whose companies are worth $1 billion, Inc staff writer Jeremy Quittner spoke with Shilo about his billion-dollar valuation, the social worth of a company, and doing the laundry."), Haaretz ^[5] (Four Reasons Not to Hate Israel's Big Business Tycoons, "...Ronen Shilo ‏(Conduit‏) [has] in fact shunned the quick buck of an M&A deal and stayed the course.").

References

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Bhaskaran Rathinam[edit]

Hari Bhaskaran Rathinam (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 created by now-blocked sock master, also responsible for the one film that this subject, an otherwise non-notable person, is reportedly making (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meen (2015 film). Only claim of notability can come from that film, and it's too soon for it (cast isn't even announced). Drmies (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as his career makes this article TOO SOON. Some non-sock might consider recreating it in the future if inclusion criteria are ever met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. For related articles and issues, see ANI report and SPI report. Abecedare (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meen (2015 film)[edit]

Meen (2015 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)

Too soon. The cast of this isn't even announced. Article creator Kreativekkonnect is blocked as a socking editor making lots of promotional edits. See also Hari Bhaskaran Rathinam. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporary delete per being TOO SOON. Enough sources are available so that it be reasonable that it canj be spoken of in the article of director Hari Bhaskaran Rathinam as one of his planned projects, but since it has not begun filming it fails WP:NFF. Allow a return once filming is confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and this being one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. Note that while The Hindu and Indian Express articles may appear notable on first sight, those are published in local supplements of the two newspapers, which as has been discussed at WP:RSN previously are not high-quality sources as they often publish lightly edited press-releases (as is clearly the case here, given the overlap in language of the two articles). Abecedare (talk) 16:03, 4 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. Courcelles (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reelmonk[edit]

Reelmonk (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)

Are three articles enough for a company to warrant inclusion? The articles do more than mention the joint or give their URL, I will agree with that, but whether that makes this outfit notable, I have my doubts. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Extensive news coverage in major Indian newspapers and going beyond press releases, meeting GNG. I found and added an additional launch-day article in English and coverage in Tamil as well as Malayalam, plus a follow-up story also in a major paper. I've tweaked the writing to make it more neutral. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Reelmonk

• Keep as suitable stub article. Though they need sorting, sources indicate the topic meets WP:ORG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article does meet WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it seems marginally acceptable for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 10 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. Swarm ♠ 20:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vardan Bichakhchyan[edit]

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

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator based on their intention to expand the article. This in no way address the notability concerns. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He is the manager of a professional team that regulary plays at the preliminary rounds of the UEFA European club competitions. He is managing the team since 2011. I do not see any reason to reject such an article. Currently, he is considered one of the most successful football managers in Armenia.--Spetsnaz1991 (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]