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 invalid, please see the newer one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Muaaz Bin Zaka (3rd nomination). (non-admin closure) NgYShung ^huh? 03:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Muaaz Bin Zaka[edit]

Muhammad Muaaz Bin Zaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is fake personality till yet not a public figure yet Muhammad Muaaz Bin Zaka (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2016 (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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DOMENIC CRETARA[edit]

DOMENIC CRETARA (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:GNG, topic doesnt even indicate a proper background knowledge to fully understand whom the topic is. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One of Cretara's works is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum. His work has been featured in several (solo) museum shows. That makes him notable per WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've fixed up the article a bit and added more references. The coverage is there and he does clearly meet the requirements of WP:ARTIST #4. Silverseren^C 04:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although there are some citation errors noted (which should be simple to clear up), the article is about an important American artist, a leading representative of what has been termed "visionary representation." As director of the Frye Art Museum in Seattle, I had the pleasure of organizing a solo exhibition of Cretara's work over a decade ago and can attest to the quality and substance of his drawing and painting. More emphasis, however, could be given to the importance of his role as teacher at California State University, Long Beach where he has influenced and guided several generations of young artists. (Richard V. West, Director Emeritus, Frye Art Museum, Seattle) 174.24.143.233 (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Cretara has earned a national reputation as a painter and teacher, which is documented in the article. His work has been exhibited and collected by major art museums. Article needs clean-up, text refinement, and expansion, but includes enough information to affirm the artist's importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxbeck (talk • contribs) 23:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added a further reading section for an article on Cretara in a 1992 issue of American Artist. It's 30 pages all about him. I found the details of it from an EBSCO search, but it only had the details of the article and not the text. If anyone could find a copy of the text somewhere, perhaps a PDF, that would be really helpful. But it might be a bit difficult. American Artist went defunct in October of 2012 and was bought out and incorporated into The Artist's Magazine, so finding back issues of the original version might be complicated. But it's out there somewhere. Silverseren^C 19:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can't even understand what the reason given for deletion is supposed to mean. I can only assume that it's a very clumsy attempt to say that there is not enough context to indicate what the subject of the article is about, but if that is what it is intended to mean then that is simply not true. Even the very poor stub which the article was at the time of the nomination told us what the author's name was, where he came from, what he was known for, and gave references which provided further information about him and his work. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2016 (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 Grey's Anatomy characters. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Pierce[edit]

Maggie Pierce (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 character in TV series. Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no improvement in article. Non-notable Cotton2 (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Grey's Anatomy characters for now at least: The character is notable (a simple Google News search will reveal various third-party, notable sources that discuss this character), and the page has the potential to be strong. However, the page is currently extremely weak. I believe it would best to use a redirect so other users could possibly make something better of this in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Grey's Anatomy characters as suggested by Aoba47. The stub content should be merged onto the GA list page under the character. If it is expanded to the point of requiring a separate topic such as Meredith Grey, then the subject is accessible. Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2016 (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. seems to be the consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Wahed (Bangladesh politician)[edit]

Abdul Wahed (Bangladesh politician) (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)

Notability is not established. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that the reference in the article is self-published via AuthorHouse. Of course that doesn't preclude notability via other sources, which seems likely if the article content is true, but I see a pattern, especially for South Asian subjects, of providing junk sources in English rather good sources in languages such as Bengali. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If Wahed really was a "leading" activist on the language question, he might well be notable. However not everyone dragged off to jail in a protest becomes notable, and that is all that the article actually asserts about him, the other part is unjustified puffery. I tried to see if maybe there were more sources, and maybe I could find Wahed involved in broader political actions in either East Pakistan or Bangladesh. However, probably the best sources to look for are not on line. He may well have died 30 years ago or more, although he also may still be alive. My search for the name on google showed me that Abdul Wahed is a very common name or name component in Bangladesh, as well as several other places with heavily Muslim populations. I was not able to find any sources mentioning someone who seemed to be this person. There may be such, but until they are found, the sources as we have them are not enough and we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Disagree, Mention in banglapedia's language movement article, quote 1, 2 1. There were two weeklies, Insan and Insaf, edited by Abdul Wahed Chowdhury, supporting the Language Movement. and 2. ....SM Bazlul Huq, Syed Nazrul Islam, Mohammad Toaha, Oli Ahad and Abdul Wahed Chowdhury on 3 March 1948, published in the Daily Amritabazar Parika, Calcutta..., also mention in here. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just mentioning is not a clear notability; and this is not enough for a person's notability. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 14:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The normal way to express a wish to keep or delete an article is to preface the remark with Keep or Delete, without any icons. It is unclear what the previous two editors are disagreeing and agreeing with. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: OK. I changed the icon to delete. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 12:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

93.5 FM Ohsweken, Ontario[edit]

93.5 FM Ohsweken, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a proposed radio station for which I can still find no reliably sourced verification that it has actually launched. WP:NMEDIA confers a presumption of notability on radio stations which meet both of two conditions, possessing a broadcast license and having an established broadcast history (i.e. actually operating), but articles have sometimes been created about new radio stations the moment their license approval was granted without regard to the latter condition. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the station actually launches -- but it's a lot less rare than one might think for a station to be licensed but then not actually launch before its license expires, so the time for an article about a new radio station is when it's actually on the air. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Bearcat. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:04 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

• Delete We just don't do articles about construction permitted stations; has to air programming and have calls issued before getting an article here. Nate • (chatter) 20:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; unlaunched stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, and it's too soon to determine if the station has, or ever will, launch (they have until November 10, 2016 to do so, barring an extension). There's nothing verifiable out there to indicate this station is broadcasting yet — it doesn't even have call letters yet! --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per all of the above. Obviously no prejudice against recreation when it launches (would be good to note this in the close, since that seems to be a common sentiment here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:59, 22 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Yongliang[edit]

Chen Yongliang (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 honestly imagine this as A7 and PROD material, none of it is actually convincing and searches hace simply found interviews and PR, ChineseWiki has no article which says enough by itself; there's simply no actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no indications of notability and my searches do not turn up anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Jürgens (SS officer)[edit]

Heinz Jürgens (SS officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG: significant RS coverage cannot be found; also fails WP:SOLDIER as the award is in dispute: according to the research by Veit Scherzer: "nomination never signed" and "presentation lacks legal justification". The coverage that comes us is from WP:QS author Gordon Williamson (writer). The subject does not have a de.wiki article.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). This article does not meet the low bar of WP:Soldier for WWII Germany, as the award is questionable, however, PROD has been declined on the grounds that this needs AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The good news is, we can get refunded should Wikpedians become able to track down citations to back up the Knight's Cross claims once this de-Nazification effort has ended. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – there is a significant interest in Knights Cross recipients of all levels. And not just in Argentina. Engleham (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Chris Troutman. No reliable sources to back up the claim to notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- With 7321 awards and the majority of holders being a redlink, I do not think we should allow these articles. UK was (is) much more sparing in its awards of Victoria Cross, which may be the basis of this one. Certainly we cannot keep such articles unless they have details of the citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Seems like more Nazification. If the award was never signed, then it doesn't count for much. Also fails general notability. I've also checked google.de and haven't' found anything worthwhile. Indy beetle (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Havik[edit]

Hans Havik (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)

Notability WP:GNG & WP:SOLDIER: RS coverage cannot be found and, according to the article, the award of the Knight's Cross is in question: "German Federal Archives stated on 20 July 2004 that it cannot be verified that Hans Havik (Johann Havik according to Scherzer) received the Knight's Cross". The coverage that comes up comes is from outlets such as Siegrunen by non-RS Richard Landwehr. The subject does not have a de.wiki article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a Platoon commander is obviously NN, unless he did something particularly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing actually here containing substance for his own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Acres Mobile Home Resort, Arizona[edit]

Arizona Acres Mobile Home Resort, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is not automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment USGS designation is NOT legal recognition of the place. Legal recognition means that a law has been passed creating a place (a village, city, town, etc.) Just being in the UGGS database is not legal recognition. By that logic, every individual street that exists on a government map would be a legally recognized populated place. The USGS definition of a populated place is "a named community with a permanent human population, usually not incorporated and with no legal boundaries, ranging from rural clustered buildings to large cities and every size in between; includes metropolitan areas, housing subdivisions, developments, modular home communities, and named neighborhoods (village, town, settlement, hamlet, trailer park, etc.). The boundaries of most communities classified as Populated Place are subjective and cannot be determined." Per WP:GEOLAND, populated places fall into two categories: legally recognized which are presumed notable and legally unrecognized which which require coverage in reliable independent source. It goes on to give examples of such areas as "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc." This trailer park clearly is in the latter.MB 04:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, that's incorrect. USGS is a legal entity of the US Government, which recognizes the existence of the populated place. Your comment regarding streets is patently absurd. On the list of USGS definitions, can you point out where what you purport is the case? (Here's a hint, it doesn't: USGS Definitions). What you state above would fall under WP:OR, since it is your interpretation of what would constitute a "legal recognition". Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, the USGS is a legal entity of the US Government. It maintains a database of place names which pretty much includes any name ever used on a map in the US. Existence in this database does not constitute legal recognition. My analogy to street names is not absurd. Every city (also a legal entity) maintains a database of streets within its boundaries. All those streets are not "legally recognized populated places" even though they are officially (by a government entity) recognized. You are claiming that since the USGS is a legal entity, any name it lists in a database is "legally recognized". This quote " 'Legally recognized' means there is a law that recognizes it. Post offices, maps, etc. have nothing to do with it." is from Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)/Archive_2#Legal recognition and I certainly agree with it.MB 04:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - but the USGS is the legal entity tasked with categorizing geological features. City databases are not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park on mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and my own standards. I can't verify that this subdivision has even two homes in it. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non notable sub development. Sufficient RS coverage cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete it's a subdivision not an official location. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aristocrat Trailer Park[edit]

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

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is not automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First, this appears not to exist any more or is so small only to have had two visitors tagged in facebook. I can't find any reliable sources this still exists. As such, it fails my standards for subdivisions. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a non notable sub-divisions. I cannot find any secondary sources on it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Mobile Home Park[edit]

Apollo Mobile Home Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is not automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. From a couple of quick Google searches, I found that it appears to be fairly big: it covers a large tract on Google Maps, and three condos have been recently on sale. It's not clear if hundreds or thousands of people live there. I'll give it the benefit of doubt that it passes. A news search shows different but similarly named park was hit by a tornado. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but you're the one who doesn't seem to have done his BEFORE work -- as you seem to insinuate the nominator hasn't. Did you notice that the Google news coverage of the trailer park by this name that was damaged by a tornado was in Oklahoma, all this article is about one in Arizona? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the google satellite image and counted approximately 180 spaces, although I did find a source that claimed there were 261 spaces. So that would be a few hundred residents. There are probably thousands of such Mobile Home parks in Arizona alone (certainly hundreds); this is one of many. I don't see how some of the properties being listed for sale contribute to notability (that is an entirely routine thing). The one actual mention of this place in the news that I could find was, back in 2010, that some residents were upset that there were six RVs when they thought the whole park was restricted to manufactured homes. Nothing here to warrant an article. MB 05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a non notable subdivision. I cannot locate sufficient sources to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I've been watching this AfD and I frankly believe there's still nothing actually convincing for the needed substance, regardless whether this can be considered an inhabited place for geography. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A neighborhood does not become notable bevcause 3 mobile homes in it are for sale DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apache West Mobile Village, Arizona[edit]

Apache West Mobile Village, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is not automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable subdivision. No indications of notability or significant coverage to pass GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a quick search finds few reliable Ghits. I'm guessing that it does not pass my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Acres Trailer Park[edit]

Apache Acres Trailer Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is not automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Acres" is stretching it; more like 1/2 a block. This is a very small and ordinary subdivision, according to what I can find online, which is nothing reliable. This also badly fails my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador Downs Mobile Home Park[edit]

Ambassador Downs Mobile Home Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found out this place does exist, and is big enough that people post personal ads for, lets say, adventures ... ahem. (I'm not going to link what I found, but if you care to do so, go ahead and plunge into the darker recesses of the Internet. Just clear your browser and/or wash your hands afterwards.) I'm furthermore not convinced that this is that unusual. I'm also going to state again that we are not a webhost for personal ads and real estate offers. Since I can't find any sources as to the subdivisions' population or area, I'm going to say that it probably does not pass my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a non notable subdivision with insufficient RS coverage to pass GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as above. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aire Libre Mobile Home Park[edit]

Aire Libre Mobile Home Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no indication of notability nor independent sources. A non-notable neighborhood / subdivision. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - based on what I found online, there's not much here and no reliable sources about it; it appears to be a small and very run of the mill senior trailer park. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If they are within a recognized community like this one is, then they're just a neighborhood. A stand-alone one might be notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Trailer Park, Arizona[edit]

Admiral Trailer Park, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - small subdivision within a larger city, and fails my standards; there is no evidence this trailer park is more than a few homes. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If they are within a recognized community like this one is, then they're just a neighborhood. A stand-alone one might be notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Mountain Trailer Park[edit]

Adobe Mountain Trailer Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable subdivision. No indications of notability or significant coverage to pass GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If they are within a recognized community like this one is, then they're just a neighborhood. A stand-alone one might be notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7) by RHAWorth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZippyZiggy[edit]

ZippyZiggy (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)

Potentionally disnotable; I know WP:GOOGLE but mutiple Google searches could not find a company website. Also potentionally advertising/original research Kernosky ^talk2me! 19:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- nothing suggests notability and A7 territory. No sources available. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sepp Draxenberger[edit]

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

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

Previously proposed for deletion by User:K.e.coffman with the rationale: "Notability: subject fails GNG as significant RS coverage cannot be found; Knight's Cross was unlawfully presented." NW (Talk) 22:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- confirming my PROD per above. Does not meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. -- Indy beetle (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A and F Trailer Park, Arizona[edit]

A and F Trailer Park, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable subdivision. No indications of notability nor significant coverage to pass GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WURB[edit]

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

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

Delete. Proposed radio station whose construction permit expired unbuilt, meaning it never met WP:NMEDIA's condition about "established broadcast history" (i.e. actually operating). WP:WPRS has sometimes been lax about that condition, allowing radio station articles to be started as soon as the license approval was granted, but we have to crack down on that — if a station has never launched and never will, it doesn't merit its own article. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Station only existed "on paper" and did not actually broadcast. As such, article does not meet NMEDIA or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We just don't do articles about construction permitted stations; has to air programming and be FCC-licensed before getting an article here. Also considering its coverage area (which doesn't even flirt with the city line of Gainesville) I don't think this is a serious attempt at broadcasting, but a 'call sign warehouse' only existing to store a coveted sign like WURB; if it has broadcast, it's only been for a few hours here and there to maintain the license and could be airing Broadway showtunes for all we know. Nate • (chatter) 20:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; there's no indication that the station actually is going on the air anytime soon, as efforts to extend the permit seem to be unsuccessful. Though the FCC's database still shows the permit as nominally active, the presumption of notability for broadcast stations does not extent to stations that have not or will not launch, and there really isn't enough out there for WURB to satisfy the general notability guideline. (An apparent unsuccessful attempt to downgrade WURB's signal to get it on the air before the permit was slated to expire also further establishes the never-going-to-launch nature of this station, since the FCC seems to be cracking down on that form of temporary facilities.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KACE (AM)[edit]

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

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

Delete. Proposed radio station whose construction permit expired unbuilt, meaning it never met WP:NMEDIA's condition about "established broadcast history" (i.e. actually operating). WP:WPRS has sometimes been lax about that condition, allowing radio station articles to be started as soon as the license approval was granted, but we have to crack down on that — if a station has never launched and never will, it doesn't merit its own article. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Station only existed "on paper" and did not actually broadcast. As such, article does not meet NMEDIA or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:15 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We just don't do articles about construction permitted stations; has to air programming and be FCC-licensed before getting an article here. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the station never went to air; its construction permit expired unbuilt. Stations that never launched do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, especially in the absence of any non-FCC information about the station. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as a user has located a photo gallery which confirms that this is some form of content on CFMS-FM. A photo gallery doesn't confer notability in and of itself, obviously, but it's enough confirmation to tip this from "delete" to "redirect". Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Ini FM[edit]

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

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article, with heavy advertorial undertones, about a claimed but not properly verifiable radio station. This definitely does not exist in the form claimed for it here, as its claimed frequency of 105.9 FM would conflict directly with CFMS-FM. I am finding some vague unreliable source hints that this might actually exist as an individual program or HD subchannel on CFMS, but I can't find any reliable source coverage to properly confirm which of those it might be (even CFMS's own website fails to actually list any of its ethnic programs at all, including schedule info only for its mainstream daytime programming), and it's definitely not CFMS's primary branding or format. And, of course, even if it is actually an individual program or an HD subchannel, WP:NMEDIA does not confer an automatic notability freebie on single-station local radio programs or HD subchannels just because they exist — they must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Which this obviously isn't, if I can't even definitively verify that it is a radio program or an HD subchannel — but I can definitively verify that it's not a licensed standalone radio station, which is what this article as written claims that it is. (Redirect to CFMS-FM would also be acceptable, if somebody can confirm that status better than I've been able to, but the total lack of reliable sourcing about this means it can't have a standalone article regardless of what it is.) Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The address given on CFMS' "contact us" page is virtually identical to the address on the Tamil Ini FM Facebook page. The only real difference is that CFMS' site lists it as a Scarborough address, and the Tamil Ini FM page lists it as a Markham address — for what it's worth, Markham is CFMS' city of license. I have also seen some other indications that this is a programming block on CFMS, and Tamil is one of the languages that are part of CFMS' ethnic programming. There's also this photo gallery of Tamil Ini FM's September 20, 2015 launch, which clearly shows that its programming uses the studios of "105.9 The Region", which is the overall branding of CFMS-FM (owing to the York Region focus of the station's non-ethnic programming). I'm leaning toward delete and redirect to CFMS-FM; the article is unsourced enough (and I'm not finding much in the way of reliable sources to rectify this issue) that there's really nothing of value to keep and/or merge, but "Tamil Ini FM" may be a plausible search term, and it is clearly not a standalone, separately-licensed station. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(For what it's worth, Tapscott Road actually is in Scarborough rather than Markham, though of course a radio station's studios and/or mailing address don't actually have to be in the official city of license — and the location is certainly near enough to the boundary of Scarborough and Markham that mail addressed to "Tapscott Road, Markham" would probably still get delivered properly. Not that that makes much of a difference to anything notability-wise, but just thought I'd clarify in case anybody's confused.) Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2016 (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. sufficient consensus � DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big I Mall[edit]

Big I Mall (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)

Project dropped only_nonsense (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete indeed, their official Facebook page doesn't seem to have been updated in over a year. Anyway, as it stands, I can't find any unaffiliated reliable sources that would meet NPLACE. If this project ever gets revived and built, it could be a different story. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no verification it was actually built. LibStar (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2016 (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 Shorgul. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Singh[edit]

Pranav Singh (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:GNG. All we have is regurgitated press releases and, of course, Indian newspapers are increadingly happy to act as PR agents for anyone who claims to be a star. Sitush (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Shorgul. Not much non-trivial coverage. utcursch | talk 17:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non notable, fails GNG. Perhaps redirect to Shorgul. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then Redirect if needed as all of this basically amounts to nothing for actual independent notability, with only film. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 28 August 2016 (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. Delete is somewhat numerically prevalent so going for that. No objection against a redirect, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Santos[edit]

Helen Santos (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 in universe character actress article, that hasn't ever had sources, although various attempts have been made to add some. Various attempts have been made to get rid of it, it was deleted with redirect in early 2015, but the article was restored, or more likely rewritten by user:85.64.56.213 in early 2015. There has been no attempt source it, and there has been plenty of attention on. Several other IP address accounts, specifically set up to work on the series have updated it in the early days, but no sources.

Possibly a redirect would be better. Scope creep (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC) scope_creep[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Without proper sources, there is no need for an article. TTN (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would say redirect to List of The West Wing characters, but the entry on her is very minor, and nothing here is sourced, so probably not worth merging. There may well be a notable real-world individual with this name, so I'm leaning delete. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Mathews[edit]

Moses Mathews (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)

Despite the claim of being "a notable figure in the American Revolution", there appears to be no particular evidence of notability for Moses Matthews. His service was as a gunsmith, so uncommon but not unique. Merely becoming highly wealthy (whether through business or agriculture) is insufficient. One genealogy page cited cannot be used as a reliable source, but does not show anything warranting an article anyway, and furthermore contradicts the article's claim about his will (the article says he freed all his slaves; his quoted will bequeathed slaves). The other genealogy page is no longer available, but also probably could not have been used as an RS. Note that links to this page have been shoehorned in. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I would be happier if this cited some WP:RS and made clear how large a tract of land he was granted. He might be notable, but I cannot tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Peterkingiron, I'd be happier if there were some RS. It's questionable whether "A Genealogical History of the Mathews Family from a Remote Period to the Present Time" by Dr. James C. Mathews is sufficiently reliable, but apparently that indicated 270 acres (~1 square km), which does not appear significant. Roster of Revolutionary Soldiers in Georgia does not indicate notability. None of the six volumes of Men of Mark in Georgia list him. He may have passing mention on page 88 of volume 6, but that suggests no particular notability if so. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- On further reflection and understanding how small the land grant was I now agree he is NN. I presume that every regiment would have a person who was able to fix broken muskets, possibly with a status similar to a sergeant or corporal, at most. There is some doubt whether colonels are generally notable; much less such artificers. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are just not enough sources on him out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farahnaz Forotan[edit]

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

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

seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 08:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sourcing does not exist, see this news google search [1] nothing there. The sources on the page may well be primary, or government related. She is young, attractive, with a highly sympathetic backstory that is being pushed by someone, but that cannot be validated with RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Promotional BLP that fails WP:GNG. Aust331 (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. I could not find any confirmation of the sources listed. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolte-Patil Developers Ltd[edit]

Kolte-Patil Developers Ltd (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)

NonNotable real estate company. Wikipedia page is written in an advertising style Uncletomwood (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Delete by all means, PR in its entirety, none of this is actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - badly sourced article about a run of the mill real estate development company. There's no evidence they own much, other than what's on the local stock exchanges. I'd be willing to change my mind if somebody can fix it. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. I looked again, and found it is traded publicly, but is more of a construction company that what we'd term a developer. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2016 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1974[edit]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1974 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. WP:OR The Banner talk 07:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These weren't the Beatles or Elvis on The Ed Sullivan Show, just routine performances. Not OR though. Also, the bunch should have been packaged as a group Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not denying a possible listing of Jackson 5 TV performances, but this kind of yearly listing doesn't work and the work put into this isn't much (comparing with the source I provided in the 1969 AfD) so it wouldn't take much for a general listing to be made with sourcing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2016 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1973[edit]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1973 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. WP:OR The Banner talk 07:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These weren't the Beatles or Elvis on The Ed Sullivan Show, just routine performances. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not denying a possible listing of Jackson 5 TV performances, but this kind of yearly listing doesn't work and the work put into this isn't much (comparing with the source I provided in the 1969 AfD) so it wouldn't take much for a general listing to be made with sourcing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1972[edit]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1972 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. WP:OR The Banner talk 07:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These weren't the Beatles or Elvis on The Ed Sullivan Show, just routine performances. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not denying a possible listing of Jackson 5 TV performances, but this kind of yearly listing doesn't work and the work put into this isn't much (comparing with the source I provided in the 1969 AfD) so it wouldn't take much for a general listing to be made with sourcing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (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. Don't usually close on 2 !votes however since nomination the article has been substantially sourced and improved and the nominator hasn't refuted the sources nor made any comment inregards to the article improvements so closing a keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TG+[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Despite being a collection of live albums, I've managed to find a decent reveiw of the set (ref added to the article) which should give some notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are enough refs to pass. Robman94 (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nitesh Shetty[edit]

Nitesh Shetty (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)

Can't assess notability. Heir of a relatively non notable real estate company in Bangalore Uncletomwood (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as by all means this is PR and nothing substantiates his own independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- most of the coverage I see is about the company, not the subject, who is not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Icreon[edit]

Icreon (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 Uncletomwood (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a very weird case. The article is poorly sourced and the references cited aren't adequate to prove notability. However, there is an abundance of small mentions in articles that cite, quote, or are attributed to their CEO. There is coverage in Reliable Sources to be found, including this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jlim/2015/03/10/icreon-tech-moves-offshore-from-india-onshore-to-america/#7257c56928eb ... it's a case where things we might accept as Reliable Sources are buried among real news articles, in respected publications, that we will dismiss because they are "Self Authored". Also,there's an article for their US subsidiary here, which isn't being AFD'd ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icreon_Tech ), while the article for their CEO is being AFD'd as seen here: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himanshu_Sareen ). ...suggest that their fates should be tied together. BoyRD (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is incredibly all PR, the article itself, its sources and then also the sources above; none of it comes close at all to both being substantial and non-PR, not to mention anything to at least base an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a non notable company. Coverage is trivial, PR or PR like, and insufficient to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. The Forbes article is a puff piece, and it's about Icreon Tech in the first place. (This article could also stand to undergo an AfD). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Sareen[edit]

Himanshu Sareen (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 Uncletomwood (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE Some coverage in Reliable Sources to be found, including this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jlim/2015/03/10/icreon-tech-moves-offshore-from-india-onshore-to-america/#7257c56928eb BoyRD (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- entirely promotional. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG. The Forbes article linked above is primarily about the company, and is also a puff piece. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I quite frankly consider this speedy material, it's that unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. Article is purely promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:52, 28 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Prasad[edit]

Sudhir Prasad (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 executive. Page is full of trivia Uncletomwood (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a non-notable business executive. A COO at a non-notable company generally does not mean that the person is presumed notable. Insufficient coverage in RS to meet GNG otherwise. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as another example of G11 material. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Prasad counts his stint with the Indian Navy for contributing incalculably for the person he is today," G11 it is. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. Person not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keki Dadiseth[edit]

Keki Dadiseth (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 Uncletomwood (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - that's an undeniably accomplished CV, but none of his career listed implies notability. Blythwood (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see zero coverage in RSes - David Gerard (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this simply suggests an article was started for CV PR. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- this is a corporate CV and strictly promotional. I'm seeing some coverage describing the subject as the "Godfather of India CEO hiring", as well as on his leadership of Hindustan Unilever (a multi-billion $$ company) (link. So the subject may be notable under GNG but the content is too promotional to keep the article. So I recommend deleting this version without prejudice to creating a better article in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2016 (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 Psychic TV discography#Singles. czar 21:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snowflake/Illusive[edit]

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

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography. --Michig (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There does not seem to be evidence of notability at all here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breezango[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Much like the Social Outcasts and the Golden Truth, this article relies on move sets and week by week updates. Nickag989^talk 19:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nickag989^talk 19:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination. They have done nothing notable so far and we should wait until they do make an article for the team.*Treker (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete I used this as an example of a tag team which clearly fails WP:GNG on WT:PW.LM2000 (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Prefall 08:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While still a recent formation, they are a notable team. That the team has been involved in various team feuds while both individuals have not appered as singles wrestlers (in contrast to Jeri-KO) indicates that the team is now a stable entity. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and relies on week by week updates. Sekyaw (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as mentioned by nominator and Sekyaw this is a case of WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAFSMS[edit]

SAFSMS (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)

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Only refs provided are a blog and a brief (one paragraph) summary in a Nigerian paper, on its own insufficient to establish notability. A search turned up no additional significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also this is the English Wikipedia, not the acronym one, so title would be spelled out if it were ever to be notable. Maybe some day it might. Article right now does not even give a hint what SAF stands for? W Nowicki (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2016 (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 Muddy Magnolias. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broken People[edit]

Broken People (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:CRYSTAL, inappropriate sourcing, no external coverage. Album is not going to be released for approximately two months. There is nothing that causes this album to meet WP:NALBUMS. MSJapan (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Muddy Magnolias until sufficient sources exist to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Muddy Magnolias I have seen this trend happening recently, the creation of articles much before an album is released. I'm not sure whether this is for promotional purposes. In any case, I will go with a redirect here as it seems a safe option. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2016 (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 Splinter Test. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarmorphoses[edit]

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

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Splinter Test. I didn't find much coverage. --Michig (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Splinter Test as does not seem independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AirX[edit]

AirX (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)

Still nothing at all actually substantial for the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no claim to notability and sources presented at the AfD are not convincing. These are mostly PR-driven or trivial mentions. Insufficient to pass GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. non notable nonscedules airline with purely incidental coverage. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]