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 Miss Delaware USA. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Benton[edit]

Sheena Benton (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)

Sheena Benton is just a run-of-the-mill state beauty pageant winner. There seems to be developing a clear consensus that such people are not notable. Her pre-win drunk driving arrest does not seem to change that. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: winning the Miss Delaware pageant is insufficient to impute notability unlike winners of national or international pageants. Quis separabit? 20:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typically winning a top U.S. state pageant like Miss Delaware is found to meet WP:GNG at AFD. This is Miss Delaware USA. She also has a somewhat negative reason for notability so I'm not going to work to improve this one, though I am sure it could be done.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the most recent discussion are finding that winning a state level Miss USA pageant is not enough by itself to pass notability. GNG requires sources, and there does not seem to be the level of sourcing for these individuals to justify the article. Such articles as those on Sloan Bailey and Janice McDonald have been deleted for these reasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Delaware USA Definitely not notable enough for a separate article. Subjects only known for winning a state level pageant are not inherently notable. I would prefer a redirect instead of outright deletion as a mention is already present on the target page (in the list of winner). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:21, 7 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 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wirraminna Environmental Education Centre[edit]

Wirraminna Environmental Education Centre (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)

Local project with only local references. Not notable and written in a promotional style. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- non notable project of local renown. Sources do not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:ORG. 2 gnews hits showing very limited coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 10 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 delete. WP:CSD#G7 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angelikes[edit]

Angelikes (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)

Nominated for Speedy Deletion under A7 - author continually removes Speedy Deletion tags Exemplo347 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is obviously made up by the creator. No coverage at all. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL applies. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ducky behaviour going on. I have warned both editors who are coordinating to remove the speedy templates. Diff1 and Diff2. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under criteria A1, A3, and A11. The article does not provide sufficient context to the reader at all, is just an attempt to correspond with the title (in violation of the minimal stub length), and clearly indicates the subject was made up, with no sources whatsoever. HeatIsCool 18:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Feel free to delete. This is not a made up article, this article is factually correct in the sense that everything that has been said in it is true. I know this as I am one of the producers for this show, hence why I created the page. Every time I tried to add something information appeared to have been changed before I'd even had the chance to correct or do anything about it. Let alone read it.

• The show is already in production, promo shots complete, but no press release as of yet. I appreciate the page may have been created a little early but I didn't think it would cause this much of a problem. So feel free to delete the page as soon and as swiftly as possible.
• Oh and by the way if anyone other user has been working on the page at the same time as I have that is nothing to do with me and you should approach the relevant user directly although there may not be much point anymore.

Thanks for your understanding.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thealikez (talk • contribs)

Moved from top --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 5 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 01:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bey Logan[edit]

Bey Logan (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 GNG, with no assertion of notability, or sources to verify content, along with myriad WP:NOTINHERITED issues. Can't be re-written without reliance on personal interviews, IMDB and non-RS (and primary) sources. MSJapan (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's surprising that this article has survived for so long with no evidence of notability. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No coverage in reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh I wrote the article back before I really understood Wikipedia. I would have AFDded the page myself if I agreed that it didn't meet GNG, but virtually any fan of HK cinema in the UK and Ireland will have heard of him, as he did virtually all the audio commentaries for Hong Kong Legends, and has written several books on the subject. It's not true that the article makes no assertion of notability, as these points are made in the article. But it is true that it would be difficult to rewrite it as a proper biography without using primary sources. I would say redirect, but he's attained semi-notability for a whole bunch of little things that would not make appropriate redirect locations by themselves. So I'm cool with it being deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That said, it definitely could be rewritten with the biographical statements he peppers on various audio commentaries (that I doubt any of the previous delete !votes have heard); these are primary sources and are not ideal, but are not non-RS. I largely grew out of them eight or nine years ago, though, and only brought like five of the relevant DVDs with me when I came to Japan, so doing it myself (right now) is out of the question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It needs trimming to what is sourceable, but Logan is an acknowledged expert in his field and well enough known to be included. Some sources that could be used: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 is a primary source (by the subject), 2 is a column written by the subject himself, 3 is an event listing with 1 sentence about the subject, 4 is a book review but the coverage about the author is sparse, 5 is an interview again and a primary source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's still not enough for any actual convincing independent notability, even the sources listed here above, the first one is an immediate interview. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a bit of an unfortunate case as there are clearly scarce reliable secondary sources to prove notability. On the other hand, we do have primary sources. I though for a while but I think I will go with the fact that reliable secondary sources are needed for notability. There isn't one particular redirect target either, otherwise I would have recommended it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:14, 8 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  11:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isobar (company)[edit]

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

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

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

WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This is nothing but a list of acquisitions, alliances, and otherwise NN execs, based on press releases. It doesn't even assert that it's anything more than a subsidiary entity. MSJapan (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article is all promotional. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable corporation lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk)
• Delete - it barely states what it is, just press puffery of expansions etc.  MPJ-DK  02:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I know I've encountered this article before, I frankly consider this G11 material entirely. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. A first glance at the search results may seem like a lot of coverage, but if you dig down you will find that the sources are either reprinting press releases, are not reliable or fail WP:AUD. This is simply a non-notable subsidiary company and I see no reason to keep it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dentsu)) as a more appropriate place. In a business article,a list of merges is very appropriate content and not in the least promotional; it's the basic atuff of business history. Similarly for the succession of CEOs Still, there's no reason for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that will cause UNDUE. Yes, succession is important, but if all that you have is M&A and CEO succession, what do you actually do for business? More importantly, they're not really a Dentsu sub; they're a member of a network of agencies, and that network is the Dentsu sub. So you're proposing a two-level upmerge to a company that doesn't have the correct sort of relationship that would make it appropriate to feature this agency over any others in the network in the Dentsu article. MSJapan (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, it might be better merged one step to Dentsu Aegis Network (an article which needs some major fixing, btw. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' I have added two new references to the article. I did a bit of googling research and this company looks to be a multi national company that is well regarded. I am planning to refashion the article more in a prose format to include some better referencing. I will attempt to tone down any advert or promo type info. I think the article should be kept on since the company itself is covered in depth in many newspapers and at many places that are considered reliable sources. Donald1659 (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That still doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article does satisfy WP:GNG since the company has gotten significant coverage in numerous publications that are considered as reliable sources. Also the company has gotten several awards as noted in the article with sources and proper citation. Donald1659 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The awards are all non-notable. The sources consist of a bunch of trade magazines redressing press releases. That doesn't help. You may wish to read CORPDEPTH again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & redirect to Dentsu Aegis Network. Not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- random user here. Found this article useful. No knowledge of CORPDEPTH to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottgwald (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore this vote. Lack of policy knowledge aside, the user has made eight edits in three years, none substantial. MSJapan (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I am sorry to interrupt, but why would a discussion/ vote comment be ignored from a member of three years? What is the number of edits you need to have in order for your words and vote to count? As far as corporate depth, I have read it a few times despite the lady above suggesting for me to read it. I also have read and studied the policy of WP:GNG. Now I could be wrong, but it looks like if the article or subject meets GNG, it would not always have to completely fulfill corp depth. I thank you all for your patience with me. I am trying to understand and learn about these policies. Donald1659 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because sometimes people count the votes instead of looking at the content even though they are supposed to evaluate the vote content, and someone who has eight edits in three years and admits no understanding of content policy is not voting in good faith. MSJapan (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a moment to explain that Ma'am. Donald1659 (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per others. WP:ARTSPAM by COI editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a marketing platform. Citobun (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORP and the listed awards are not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Dentsu Aegis Network. Unable to find more than trivial one-liners. Even de company's own website lacks in-depth background, e.g. history. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:42, 11 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ScienCell Research Laboratories[edit]

ScienCell Research Laboratories (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 has primarily been written by individuals who appear to work for the company the article is about. 90% of the article is just a list of products they manufacture and countries in which they distribute. Additionally nothing in the article indicates notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• see this diff where Smallasian identifies themselves as working for the company.
• see [7] where Thirsty2k claims to be the owner of the website.
• see this one where an anonymous editor removed a "we" statement that was added by Thirsty2k. Yet another example of WP:PROMOTION.

These indicate not only WP:COI but also a propensity towards WP:PROMO. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I've declared my COI on my user page and the ScienCell page (I think) and am still working on the general page in terms of referencing notability and adding a blurb about the company's history. At this point though, I'm just afraid to do anything. I'd at least like to address the concern about the page being a products list. Am I allowed to delete the bulleted list of cell types and research areas to replace it with something much more general while it's being reviewed? Sorry, and thanks! Smallasian (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't believe that anybody is going to raise any concerns if you delete content, provided that it doesn't skew the meaning of the remaining text. Removing the list of cell types and the very boring list of locations could only improve the article. That is, of course, not the same as making it notable. I will reserve my view on that issue for a while.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been Numerous edits on the page and added references for notibility, please review and reply with what it lacks, thanks and regards. - thirsty2k —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not only is this advertorial, I frankly see no signs there can be any needed improvements for guaranteed acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The problem in this particular case is notability. I see some claims of significance, but none of notability. We are very clear that companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. In this case, it would require reliable independent souces which talk about the company in detail. The depth of sources required is not satisfied here. I also see that some of the sources don't satisfy WP:AUD. This article would have been rejected at AFC as well, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a replica of a corporate website; there's insufficient sources to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 7 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richhill A.F.C.[edit]

Richhill A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD by the author but this club is still not actually notable given that it's not notable as listed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability (Richhill's league is not notable). SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article does meet the club notability criterion, i.e. 'All teams that have played in the national cup are assumed to meet WP:N criteria'. The club is drawn in the first round of the Irish Cup, the national cup of Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I guess from the wording ("still not actually notable") that the club has been listed as their debut match in the 2016-17 Irish Cup is scheduled for 20th August 2016, and the wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability is" teams that have played in the national cup"? This seems unnecessary pedantry - keep. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They have played in Irish Cup as per this and this .Note this club is not drawn in the First round of the 2016–17 Irish Cup but have received a Bye to play in the 2nd round as per this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 10 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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.F.C. Silverwood[edit]

A.F.C. Silverwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD by the author but this club is still not actually notable for Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article does meet the club notability criterion, i.e. 'All teams that have played in the national cup are assumed to meet WP:N criteria'. The club is drawn in the first round of the Irish Cup, the national cup of Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I guess from the wording ("still not actually notable") that the club has been listed as their debut match in the 2016-17 Irish Cup is scheduled for 20th August 2016, and the wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability is" teams that have played in the national cup"? This seems unnecessary pedantry - keep. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above it is playing against Portaferry Rovers on 20th August 2016 in the 2016-17 Irish Cup per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 10 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 01:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Horde and the Harem[edit]

The Horde and the Harem (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)

Seemingly NN band (with a dead "official" site) easily failing WP:MUSIC. I think WP:GNG is pretty much a stretch for this band since while there is plenty of announcements of upcoming shows, I haven't been able to find anything beyond The Drainage and bestnewbands.com articles with any in-depth coverage more than a paragraph or so on obscure pubs. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to suggest they meet WP:BAND. Bands like this come and go all of the time, and they've not had any substantial coverage from major sources. The sum of their coverage is a single live review by a small-to-medium sized music blog and a couple of stream posts, not enough at all. KaisaL (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not only is there nothing actually convincing for the current article, my searches are simply finding trivial links, nothing at all improvable. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see enough coverage to establish notability, and there's no indication that any of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC are met. --Michig (talk) 09:22, 4 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) 08:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Ernst Peekhaus[edit]

Wilhelm Ernst Peekhaus (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)

German designer of Nazi military medals. That sums up everything that is known about him, apparently, and as a result I don't think he meets WP:N.

The article (which I briefly tried to copyedit before giving up) has or had basically one line about the man, and the rest is fanwankery about the Nazi medals he designed (a particularly disturbing topic to fanwank about). Coverage of him found in Google appears limited to passing mentions in the vein of "medal X designed by Peekhaus". References in the article are to such quality sources as "wehrmacht-awards.com", an apparently self-published, er, fan site. The reference to the book by Williamson is also a one-line passing mention, according to Google's preview: "Top designers, such as Wilhelm Ernst Peekhaus of Berlin, were ...". There's just not enough material here for a biographical article.  Sandstein  20:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - quite a lot of Google Books sources about the guy, but none of them really say more than mentioning him while describing the medals he designed. Not voting yet but I lean towards deleting unless some really good sources turn up about his life and work. Blythwood (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- sources do not suggest notability, and the content of the article is not really about the subject, as described. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable enough for a stand alone article given the only "passing mentions"; with that said, his name should be mentioned/noted in the articles where it is known that he designed those specific awards and badges. Kierzek (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There don't appear to be any published sources that say anything about Peekhaus beyond which medals he designed. Mduvekot (talk) 18:07, 10 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 merge to Dwarf deities#Haela Brightaxe. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haela Brightaxe[edit]

Haela Brightaxe (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 character article currently does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Trim details and Merge to Dwarf deities. Three minor TSR/Wizards sources with no independent coverage to show notability. Same as always. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per the above Dwarf deities#Haela Brightaxe exists and is the logical WP:SS parent for this not-individually-notable fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:38, 11 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 Miss Connecticut USA. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Honulik[edit]

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

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

The survival this article experienced at the previous deletion discussion for about 15 articles shows that in such mass discussions people are willing to accept way too broad a definition of reliaable sources giving substantial coverage. One source is a website based in Wilton, Connecticut. The link no longer works, but it appears that this may have been where Honulik lived, and is an extremely local source. The Seattle Post-Inteligencer printed a pciture of her, but nothing else substantial, and it seems this was just one of many pictures taken at the competition. The Fairfield Citizen, the local paper for the greater NYC suburb she lived in in 2015, ran an article about her being one of 22 women competing in a reality television show. Although she came close to winning, she didn't, and the show does not even rate an article in Wikipedia. None of this is the type of coverage we would want to show that someone is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The creator of this article made the one edit to wikipedia of starting this article. I am not sure if this is at all relevant to the discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)q[reply]
• Comment Noteworthiness is questionable; I'm leaning toward deletion. There's little of substance published on the subject. Majoreditor (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm unsure why I was tagged in this, given that I made a grand total of 4 edits here before today. Also, I found an archive version of the dead link and fixed that.--Auric talk 23:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA Definitely not notable enough for a separate article. The coverage is quite sparse. Subjects best known for winning a state level pageant are not inherently notable. I would prefer a redirect to Miss Connecticut USA instead of outright deletion as a mention is already present on the target page (in the list of winners). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Coverage is sparse.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA; valid search term, and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 10 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Manchin[edit]

Paul Manchin (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)

See WP:JUNK Ethanlu121 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable with some non-arranged links.--Yufitran (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This isn't the first time I've seen an Afd from this editor with all-of-one-word link to the essay WP:JUNK. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. As for this "non-arranged link" argument, we don't delete articles because of style issues. There are some minor Billboard reviews, with this one being the largest. Canadian music weekly Exclaim! has this capsule review. Yes, a cogent argument could be made that Manchin fails to meet our guidelines. I just wish the nominator could be bothered to make one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Manchin is a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Per nom." Boy, so much thought put into both! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject's claim to notability is to be one of half a million members of ASCAP. That's about as run of the mill as you can get. The Billboard article references the fact that he is "unsigned" and "regional", meaning the subject is up and coming. The 2002 Exclaim review is quite short. Just to be sure, I found a few sources that show some notability. However, even if he were notable, this stub is a huge mess. If somebody wants to rescue this, please do so soon. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I share Shawn in Montreal's opprobrium for such poorly formatted and uninformative nomination statements — WP:JUNK is not a deletion rationale in and of itself, because "junk" articles can be repaired and kept if proper sourcing and a legitimate notability claim exist to salvage them with. I'll grant that this is not a good or well-formatted article as written, but that's got nothing to do with its keepability or lack thereof — what is determinative here, rather, is that there isn't enough quality sourcing, or a substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, to fix it with. Capsule reviews in Billboard and Exclaim! are a start, but they don't singlehandedly get him to the finish line and I'm not finding anything else that does. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 10 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 Miss Connecticut USA. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Mudry[edit]

Melanie Mudry (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)

Mudry is a little different from other state Miss USA winners, since she is a perenial compoetitor. However a bunch of runner-up titles and a state Mrs. America title do not seem to be enough to make being a beauty pageant contestant move into the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable enough for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA Definitely not notable enough for a separate article. Subjects best known for winning a state level pageant are not inherently notable. I would prefer a redirect to Miss Connecticut USA instead of outright deletion as a mention is already present on the target page (in the list of winners). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA; valid search term, and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 10 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 Miss Connecticut USA. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannine Phillips[edit]

Jeannine Phillips (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)

Phillips being state Miss USA is an example of one event. The fact that the article talks about what her aspirations are, instead of what she can be shown to have done, shows how totally unencyclopedic it is. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My news sweeps didn't turn up sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA; valid search term, and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 10 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 Miss Connecticut USA. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Mandak[edit]

Melissa Mandak (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)

Other than having won her state Miss USA contest, which is not enough on its own to make Mandak notable, she has been a local news and traffic reporters on TV, and a zumba instructor. We have more information on her than on some former state pageant winners, but nothing that suggests she is other than non-notable John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA; valid search term, and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 10 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 delete as a hoax. Apparently it's madness a hoax, not Sparta. (Sorry, couldn't help making the obligatory 300 joke.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sparta OS[edit]

Sparta OS (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:DUCK hoax. ⁓ Hello71 18:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: G3 as a hoax. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:09, 3 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 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lenk[edit]

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

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

Non-notable boxer; more or less completely fails WP:NBOX. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He meets neither WP:NBOX nor WP:GNG. The coverage is simply routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable boxer who fails WP:NBOX. Coverage is routine sports reporting or links to his fight record so also fails GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 15:47, 11 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 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonelle Layfield[edit]

Jonelle Layfield (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)

Layfield was first nominated in a discussion back in January 2015. That is one of the longest discussions on this subject. However it shed a lot less light on this subject than would be hoped. The nominator asserted that the notability guidelines for entertainers apply, on the argument that beauty pageant winners are models, and models are covered under those guidlines. However it seems this assertion was largely built on the assumption that a winner of a state-wide Miss USA contest will recieve coverage in all the major newspapers of the state. This has actually from experience been shown to normally not be the case. Even if it was, it would be hard to move this beyond the one event. One big problem is that there are two major competing pageants, Miss USA and Miss America, with their own sets of state winners. Miss America actually seems to be the more important one historically, so there may be more arguments for state pageant winners to be notable there than with Miss USA. The sourcing here is the pageants own website, which probably cannot count as 3rd party enough. Even if it could, the NBC article seems it may well be a mass listing of all contestants. It takes the most favorable interpretation of multiple, 3rd party sources to say this article has them, and even then only two, and nothing comes close to overcoming the one event problem. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Comment: What I am seeing are state pageant navboxes. (Alaska earlier, now Hawaii) Someone is trying to do articles on every state level pageant winner. I think there may need to be a RfC on this issue; either all in or all out unless they have additional GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 18:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable as a stand alone article; I can see her name being named/mentioned in the articles on the Miss Hawaii USA and Miss USA, but that is all. Otherwise, trivia. Kierzek (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is more like back in 2008 or so there was an attempt to do articles on every state pageant winner. Almost no effort has put into creating such articles for the last 6 or more years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much except there is a mention here. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As with alll prizes, state winners are not necessarily notable . DGG ( talk ) 13:51, 11 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  11:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soorna[edit]

Soorna (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:NWEB with no secondary sources, and has been flagged as such for three years. A Google search for the URL returns only 83 results, all of them autogenerated stats sites. (soorna.com itself appears to have been offline since March 2016.) User:DGG rejected an earlier prod asking "Have Persian language sources been checked?" - I assume a Google URL search would show up something, if Iranian sources existed online, as seems to be the case when checking a more notable Iranian social network Balatarin. McGeddon (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a notable website. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable website with a high Alexa ranking--Yufitran (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable website. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 6 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 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Luna Jr.[edit]

Robert Luna Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable boxer; fails all criteria for WP:NBOX. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He lacks the accomplishments needed to meet WP:NBOX and WP:GNG is not met because the coverage is merely routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable as a boxer and fails GNG. Appearing in a televised fight does not guarantee notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:49, 11 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 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Carroll[edit]

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

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

The previous nomination failed because it was a mass nomination of 15 articles a year and a half ago. It closed keep because people were not willing to individually examine each article. The article has 5 sources. 2 are official profiles. The other three are 2 articles from the News-Miner, a paper of just under 10,000 circulation based in Fairbanks, where she was a university student, and another from a radio station in Fairbanks. They all focus on her roles in the Miss USA competition, so it amounts to coverage for one event. The article has a line "Caroll is a Political Science student at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks." The link to the paper website does not work, so I cannot figure out a key question. Carroll was 25 at the time, so was she an undergrad or a graduate student. Both scenarios are possible, but no clear indication is given. Either way, she is probably not a student 8 years later, maybe if she is now pursuing a Ph.D., but was not at that time. However what is clear is she is not important enough for anyone to have bothered to update the information from 8 years ago. This is a strong indication that Carroll just is not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: If additional sources can be found, I'd be willing to reconsider. But as it sits, state-level pageant winner. Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I browsed in graduation names lists at UAF and did not find her name. I added to the article that in 2011, she was pursuing an acting career in Los Angeles,^[1] and that by 2015, she had accumulated four acting credits, had stunts and art department credits.^[2] She also has performed stunts in several productions and has one art department credit.^[2] With the other references^[3][4][5] that makes five.

I could go either way, keep or not. --doncram 18:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Her four TV/film credits are all in works we lack articles on. I cannot comment on whether they were important to the works. Most stunt people are not notable, and we lack any sources that suggest she is an exception to that rule. The added sources all suggest Carroll is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My searches did not turn up anything. (comment by Tomwsulcer)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. especially because of the absence of anything in her career since the event that might indicate any notability DGG ( talk ) 13:55, 11 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 merge to List of neuroscience databases. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroscience resources[edit]

Neuroscience resources (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 isn't really what Wikipedia's for, is it? I can't think of a policy off the top of my head, but I'm sure it falls foul of one of them- we can't have an "article" which just links to news sites about neuroscience and blogs. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of neuroscience databases. This article has overlap with List of neuroscience databases and it is not clear to me how the resources listed are not databases. Hence, it seems best to merge to the better developed list. --Mark viking (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge WP:Repository. Millbug ^talk 04:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Mark Viking, Merge if someone is willing to do this, delete if not. Blythwood (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy to perform the merge if that becomes the consensus. --Mark viking (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Thank you, Mark Viking. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 8 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 Miss Alaska USA. MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Louise Rowley[edit]

Linda Louise Rowley (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)

Rowley was Miss Alaska USA 1969, and in 1970 was highered as a flight attendant by Northwest airlines. The article has been tagged for inadequate sources since 2011. Nothing suggests there is anything about Rowley that would actually make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In addition there may be a conflict of interest in the creation. The article was created by a user account, Miss Alaska 1969, and this is the only edit ever done by that account.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. Blythwood (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject is not notable enough as Miss Alaska or of course her career as a flight attendant. Meatsgains (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as stand alone article, not notable; is mentioned in the Miss Alaska USA article, which is enough. Kierzek (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Alaska USA; valid search term, and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 10 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 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Bly[edit]

Evelyn Bly (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)

She won Miss Alaska USA back in 1960. That is the only thing about her that is at all notable. Her being in the category living people may or may not be accurate, but there is no indication anyone has paid any attention to her life in the last 65 years to know. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable. Blythwood (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject lacks notability. Miss Alaska is not notable enough to warrant a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: I'd be willing to change my mind on this one, given that it was 1960 and there is apt to be a paucity of sources. At the very least, I hope there is a Miss USA 1960 page (or Miss America, whichever this was) where the name can be listed. Montanabw^(talk) 18:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Can be mentioned in Miss Alaska USA article. Kierzek (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is Miss USA 1960, but it only lists the 15 top delegates who placed, Bly was not one of those. There is no inherent reason the page cannot be expanded. On another note, I am very familiar with information regardling Latter-day Saints. I know the two Latter-day Saints who won Miss America both merited inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History. Sharlene Wells Hawkes is a household name in Mormon circles, but the fact that I personally knew her brother and nieces, and the fact that her father was a general authority in the LDS Church make this hard to attribute just to her. On the other hand I remember reading as a freshman at BYU an article in the university paper where they quoted her lamenting that the school no longer had a homecoming queen. That was in 1999, 14 years after her 1999 win.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not enough notability nor contents for a stand alone article. Cavarrone 15:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:36, 10 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) 08:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Madera[edit]

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

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

There are two sources, both connected with pageants. Madera's only claim to notability is that she won the state Miss USA pageant. That is just not enough by itself to make someone notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: State-level pageant winner. TOOSOON at best. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, state-level pageant winners are not inherently notable. --Cavarrone 16:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. My sweeps didn't find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:05, 8 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 ) 14:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Cricket Club[edit]

Highway Cricket Club (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 and now-merged cricket club; full of non-notable trivia Johnlp (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. And there seems to be some serious BLP-violations with the notes field for the players to boot. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable club, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC. I've lived in Tile Hill and never heard of them before. Joseph2302 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 4 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) 08:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comint consulting[edit]

Comint consulting (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:NOTPROMO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources used are based on namedrop refs to the CEO, and establish nothing shown in the article besides the name of the company and its CEO. MSJapan (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a really wide margin. Hardly any significant coverage in reliable sources. Also the article creator seems to be an undisclosed paid editor. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The given 3rd party reference is a passing mention, and my searches are identifying nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete and I frankly consider this G11. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- typical corporate spam with no notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 7 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alia bint Khalifa bin Saeed al Maktoum[edit]

Alia bint Khalifa bin Saeed al Maktoum (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)

Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notable as a racehorse owner and member of a royal family. Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 4 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falah bin Zayed Al Nahyan[edit]

Falah bin Zayed Al Nahyan (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)

Appears to only be related to notable people. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC) I withdrew this nomination Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Explanation, I did this as I found that he does appear to be notable, but the article has been coatracked Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: perfect example of notability not being hereditable. Quis separabit? 20:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC) -- Withdrawn in light of nominator's withdrawal of AfD. Quis separabit? 23:43, 9 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. The individual that contested the PROD has not only argued to delete here, but is also now indefinitely blocked as a confirmed WP:SOCK. Given how there is no reasonable assertion of notability in the article, and given that the only editor was the aforementioned sock, I am closing early. See also WP:SNOW. KaisaL (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Blast[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. This is a fictional element in Jimmy Neutron cartoons, with no evidence of independent notability. I considered a redirect, but the term is not discussed in the master article and a google search shows that it is used in other contexts (quizzes, Final Fantasy etc). There doesn't appear to be a good place to merge either; adding this to the main article would give it undue weight. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One feature or joke from a show shouldn't have an article, unless it has been the topic of serious secondary coverage. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete how is this even a question?! Just put this information on Jimmy Neutron. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- nothing about this suggests notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not at least anything either internal or external word. ABS CBN 20:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavier Cales (talk • contribs)
• (edit conflict × 2) Delete: non-notable person. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:34, 3 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. WP:BLP, a core policy, mandates: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." As the nomination points out, and the "keep" opinions largely ignore, this article fails these requirements because it is only sourced to the non-independent game company and a page on the website of a store that sells the game. Because of the overriding importance of WP:BLP, this discussion must be closed as "delete" by administrative supervote, regardless of the opinions expressed in the discussion.  Sandstein  11:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Black (Magic: The Gathering player)[edit]

Sam Black (Magic: The Gathering player) (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 GNG and BLP. Article sourced entirely to the website of the Wizards of the Coast game company. LavaBaron (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - This isn't a social media site... No need to list every player of a game who has won some money. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets the subject-specific criteria here (200+ pro points) Tazerdadog (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Begrudging Keep I would say that the player is at least arguably successful enough in his field to warrant a page. I have heard of pro golfers who have make less than that. At any rate is there a Magic Wiki expert editor who would be able to weigh in? I do not know enough about the subject. Dolotta (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably as close to an expert as we are likely to get on the subject matter. Sam black, and indeed all of the players that Lavabaron has nominated, are giants of professional magic, and meet the subject-specific notability guidelines. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Looking for better sourcing... Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep number of appearances in non-Wizards M:tG sites, including some critical of him, substantiates Tazerdadog's argument. Since the entire game/league is owned by one company, independence in sourcing is particularly problematic in M:tG topics. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't even know the basic biographical details of this guy: date and place of birth, for example. For someone who's supposedly "notable" that's a red flag. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Date of birth added to the article. I'm not sure why place of birth is even in the template, it seems completely random to me. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:51, 10 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. See the closing rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Black (Magic: The Gathering player).  Sandstein  11:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Cox (Magic: The Gathering player)[edit]

Patrick Cox (Magic: The Gathering player) (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 GNG and BLP. Article sourced entirely to the website of the Wizards of the Coast game company. LavaBaron (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG and BLP. Nothing notable about this individual. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets thesubject-specific criteria here (200 Pro Points) Tazerdadog (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• But that's not policy. That is something on WP:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, an obscure Wikiproject with not single listed participant. A Google News search for the terms "Patrick Cox" and "Magic: The Gathering" yield absolutely nothing. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

102 participants in the WikiProject are listed here. The sources are there if you dig. (e.g.) [8] (audio interview), [9] Tazerdadog (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is no widespread consensus to overturn GNG for more specific characters for players of this particular game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 8 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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Buehler[edit]

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

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

This article has 14 citations, half of them are to the company website of Wizards of the Coast, the other half are to the company website for Mind Control Software. One is to an online discussion forum. This won't work at all for a BLP. I did a Google News search 2008 to present and found one mention on ArsTechnica. A search of Google Books finds four (4) incidental mentions, though a couple titles are self-published titles and none give any depth. LavaBaron (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice while it's this badly-referenced for a BLP. He may well be noteworthy, but so far this isn't backed and the article just isn't referenced to BLP standard - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to WP:DRAFTs to allow more time to find sources. BOZ (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a multi-county newspaper article about his tournament career, this discusses his strategies as a winning tournament player, this discusses how he came to lead the MtG development team, this and this quote him in an RS, but it aren't about him. So yeah, GNG is met by a mile and the article could sure use more work. Note that all of these hits were based on the first page of the AfDsources tools--not a whole lot of digging was required. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, He meets the subject-specific criteria here (Hall of famer), and meets the GNG besides that. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the good work by Jclemens above. Andrew D. (talk) 11:22, 6 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 17:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThisisDA[edit]

ThisisDA (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:MUSBIO. for (;;) (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete: here's the quote from Clash [10] and there is the article in Complex as well, so there are two RS available. But they are the only two things that might pass WP:MUSICBIO, and I really don't know that there is enough there in both of them to be able to say anything of substance. Richard3120 (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• comment not my field, but I interpret the Clash article as saying he's a new artist who might be notable someday. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree – even though he's been around a couple of years, it still feels a bit WP:TOOSOON to have a article about him. Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm happy to dissect this sources even if the "we" suggests a conflict of interest. The MTV link is simply a post of a video, based no doubt on a received press release. Hundreds of these are published and they're not substantial coverage. Amazing Radio is not a suitable source for establishing notability, as it's a radio station with a small listenership that focuses on unsigned artists, by its very definition covering the sort of acts that aren't important enough for Wikipedia yet. One performance at a gallery wouldn't be enough either, and their website is not a reliable source because it's primary. The fourth one is a Tweet. The fifth is the new music section of a magazine and, again, lots and lots of bands go through there and the majority of them are not yet independently notable. The sixth one is again a tweet. As for expressing what might justify an article, it's substantial coverage via reliable sources. None of this is. KaisaL (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There isn't enough coverage here to justify inclusion, and the list of links provided in this AFD is stretching at best. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are woefully unequipped for dealing with bands, when in this day and age lots and lots get brief snippets of coverage in irrelevant corners of magazines or in the bowels of significant websites, and this always pops up as evidence of relevant coverage. Most of that coverage is a result of a PR agency or artist management submitting content to websites that then re-publish it for easy content; It isn't substantial or in-depth, and it isn't prominently located. Clash and Crack themselves are somewhere in the middle for prominence, but a passing mention in a section that isn't dedicated to the artist isn't exactly enough. KaisaL (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk) That's justified. We were looking at the press coverage and reach of the networks as relevant to notability. The discussion and page can be closed — Preceding unsigned comment added by WanderingYF1313 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 4 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 14:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Software Enterprises[edit]

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

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

No independent references Maproom (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertorial and I frankly consider this G11. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Typical "corporate spam": "global provider of software platforms for enterprise mobility", "Global Presence" etc etc. Put another way, insufficient sources for GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The company is kind of notable, but this article is clearly written as advertisement or company press release. No prejudice for recreation in case of better article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:41, 9 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. not much participation, but enough for consensus DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Antkow[edit]

Christian Antkow (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 gives no evidence of notability. A quick look at google gave just 1730 (effectively 210) hits, what is not a good indicator of notability. Most sources available state that he is part of a team, so fail in my opinion WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable game developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG and nothing to show how the subject is a notable game developer. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Coverage in reliable sources is clearly lacking here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:01, 6 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 Alice Bailey#Esoteric astrology. There's not strictly a consensus for the redirect, but WP:ATD argues for that in lieu of deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric astrology[edit]

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

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

The sources for this article are three books of nonsense. There is no evidence that this subject is considered real or important even among the astrology community, who, FSM knows, have low enough standards. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect - doesn't seem to be any non-fringe coverage.I originally voted straight delete but redirect seems possible also per Revent. Blythwood (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Article was merged to Alice Bailey#Esoteric astrology in 2012, after discussion, and that article includes all the text that has not been removed as unencyclopedic. Restore the redirect. Revent^talk 20:40, 3 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 no consensus, default to keep. There is a clear split of opinion. Editors arguing for delete have criticised that this list is indiscriminate, is arranged in an unhelpful arbitrary manner, and duplicates information already on other lists. In contrast, editors arguing for keep have vouched for the usefulness of this list on top of other lists of aircrafts and that the solution to the list's incompleteness is by rework (expansion, reorganisation and pruning with well-defined criteria; fork into list of lists etc) not deletion. So I'm closing this as no consensus, default to keep with a recommendation to rework the contents of this list. Editors who participated in this AfD are encouraged to improve this list; and if the scope of this list doesn't change substantially in a year, renomination at AfD should be permitted. Deryck C. 16:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft by date and usage category[edit]

List of aircraft by date and usage category (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)

Indiscriminate list with no defined inclusion criteria and no clear definition even of what the article title means. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a hopelessly indiscriminate list which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would contain every aircraft ever built, sorted into arbitrary categories delineated by arbitrary time periods. There are no defined criteria; for example the arbitrary category "Research, prototypes and specials" contains air racers, piston-engine fighters, airliners, jet fighters, flying boats, aircraft that entered production, bombers, the Wright Flyer, the Space Shuttle (those two are very similar) and helicopters among others. That category alone could justifiably include several thousand one-off aircraft, some of which could be added to other categories as well as they fit multiple categories, for example the Spruce Goose could be included in four or five different categories. The de Havilland Mosquito was used as a bomber, a fighter, a military transport aircraft, a civilian transport aircraft, a military air support aircraft and a reconnaissance aircraft, and was also used postwar in civil general aviation roles. Many aircraft currently in the lists are arguably in the wrong category. As there is room for such arguments, the essential arbitrariness will probably generate never-ending discussion for no useful result. Many of the links are to manufacturers and not aircraft; this issue at least can be fixed, the rest cannot. YSSYguy (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is this never-ending discussion? The list has existed since 2003, it's read by thousands of people every month but the talk page seems reasonably quiet. If this list is not perfect, then where should I go instead to browse such information? Andrew D. (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  If you care to browse Category:Lists of aircraft you will find many such lists. Many are sortable, or at least inherently so, which makes them far more useful than this one can ever be. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge There are lots of lists of aircraft as the general idea obviously passes WP:LISTN. Most of them seem to be quite silly like List of aircraft (0-A) which doesn't contain any aircraft at all. This list has a fairly obvious and sensible structure, organising the major aircraft types by period and function – airliners, bombers, fighters &c. As such, it's much more useful for browsing than than the absurd alphabetic tree which assumes that you already know what you're looking for and so seems quite pointless. The list has existed since 2003 and doesn't seem at all controversial – notice that this is the first AFD in all that time. If there's a better way of organising this then per WP:PRESERVE we should keep this for cross-checking or as a summary. Deletion would be disruptive per WP:ATD. Andrew D. (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  On a point of fact, there are lots of types listed at List of aircraft (0-A). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of this article since 2003 is hardly a reason to keep it, the first time I saw it was a few days ago after it was WLed as a see also at Rank of Commercial-Business Passenger airplanes manufacturer Companies By Production Approx Passenger Capacity Range and I immediately PROded it, which you removed; and then someone else started the AfD process. If I had known about it seven years ago, there would have been a deletion discussion seven years ago. YSSYguy (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and redevelop -- I agree with the nominator's assessment of "hopelessly indiscriminate", but I think the solution is not deletion, but to implement some defined criteria for inclusion. Without those criteria, this should be a list with many tens of thousands of entries before it could be considered complete. Off the top of my head, criteria for inclusion might be a number manufactured (say, at least 100 examples) for a mass-produced aircraft or citation in Reliable Sources that say that this is a particularly noteworthy aircraft type for prototypes or experimental aircraft or even aircraft like Concorde. I'd love to hear Andrew D's ideas for the criteria we could use to improve this article. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so your proposed solution to the indiscriminate nature of this, is to impose some artificial and arbitrary exclusion criteria. What then is the pupose of the article, is it to group some aircraft by arbitrarily-selected eras and arbitrarily-selected categories, and ignore the fact that other aircraft exist? I would also welcome an explanation as to why it is important to categorise the XB-70 Valkyrie, the Avro Ashton, the Turbay T-3 and the Hiller ROE Rotorcycle together, or to exclude one or more of those four from a list that all can validly be a member of (research, protoypes and specials 1946-1969). YSSYguy (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As rlandmamm points out, this is potentially a list of all aircraft types, with many represented multiple times by different variants/roles/production eras, and each class needs its own list article. But many such lists have long existed and they are being expanded all the time and most of them are sortable on things like date which makes them more useful; what we have here is such an an embryonic beginning compared to the vast number in the lists to be found by browsing Category:Lists of aircraft and its sub-categories, that filtering for the odd entry that can be moved is just not worth doing. IMHO, if this article has really existed since 2003 then this AfD is more than overdue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep – Looks like a well thought-out comprehensive overview of aircraft; it's not even too long to load or painful to read, which is quite a usability achievement given its broad scope. Probably not very useful for aviation buffs, but definitely worth an article for casual readers, as a starting point to learn more about the subject. Finally, it does no harm and gets plenty of views. Let it live on, for the sake of our audience. WP:Readers first! Arguments to delete sound like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, to which I would answer WP:SOFIXIT. — JFG ^talk 09:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that the section "Research, prototypes and specials" is kind of an unwieldy catch-all; I would recommend forking it out to a separate article, with perhaps some meaningful categorization of prototypes. — JFG ^talk 09:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that it is manageable is that it is woefully incomplete - even ten times as big would not catch them all. Nor is it a selection of the most notable types, it's just a rag-bag miscellany. There is no point in achieving usability if the information is not worth using. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The list contains about 3000 entries and that's about the same as a respectable and substantial work such as The Encyclopedia of Aircraft. This indicates that this is about the right number for a general survey or summary. Obscure types can be covered in more specialised lists which this one can link to. Andrew D. (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is growing fast. It is not as manageable as it was last time I blinked. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3,000 aircraft means it is less than 10% complete. It is either going to be manageable and woefully incomplete or unmanageable and complete. Doesn't work either way. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if it were complete it would contain more than 35,000 aircraft. It is of no value to any reader and cannot be fixed in any useful way. We already have List of aircraft, which duplicates most of this and in a more useful manner. - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - far to rambling and indiscriminate list that has about tens of thousands of aircraft missing much better dealt with by list of aircraft and the categorisation system (which uses decade and usage). MilborneOne (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and split as this is a useful list for readers and satisfies WP:LISTN. This article should be kept as a list of lists, with its current content split into articles like List of civil air transport aircraft by date, List of general aviation aircraft by date, List of military transport aircraft by date, List of civil helicopters by date, etc. which should solve length concerns raised by delete voters above. SSTflyer 02:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this a useful list? Nobody has actually explained how they propose to successfully fix it, or why it is important to lump disparate types together in blocks of 15 years or more. Many aircraft fit more than one category, so this could easily have more than 50,000 entries. Take one that I reckon almost nobody outside Australia has heard of, the GAF Nomad; it would validly fit six of the current categories in the article - used as an airliner, used in general aviation, used by several navies, used by the Australian army as a military transport, used as a military reconnaissance aircraft, fitted with miniguns and used by the Thai military as a counter-insurgency air support aircraft. The Beechcraft Super King Air fits five categories. The Beechcraft King Air fits five categories. The category "general aviation" covers any aviation activity at all that is not military or scheduled airline. The balloon on which you went on an airborne safari in Africa? That's general aviation. Take a plane-load of enthusiasts to an airshow in an old Douglas DC-6 or a Fokker F27 Friendship? General aviation. Firefighting with an Ilyushin Il-76 or a Martin Mars or a Fairchild C-82? General aviation. Fly from the USA to Australia in a McDonnell Douglas MD-80, as Bill Clinton did for a speaking tour? General aviation. Operate Boeing B-17s for aerial surveying, as the Institut géographique national did? General aviation. Fly a hang glider off a hill; spray Canadian pine forests for budworms with a Lockheed Super Constellation; spread fertilizer with a Douglas DC-3; film Saving Private Ryan or The Tuskegee Airmen and use P-51 Mustangs, or use a Supermarine Spitfire during shooting of Foyle's War; operate a Fairchild Dornier 328JET or a British Aerospace Jetstream or a GAF Nomad as an air ambulance; skydive out of a CASA C-212 or a Short Skyvan or a Boeing 727 or a Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner; fly company executives around the country in a Douglas B-23 Dragon or a Lockheed L-188 Electra or a Saab 340 or a de Havilland Dove or a Boeing 767.... Of course we could impose exclusion or inclusion criteria, but if you restrict the scope, what is the article for? YSSYguy (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YSSYguy (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since for example the List of fighter aircraft is sortable by date, such date-bound lists are mere dysfunctional duplication. Despite vague claims to the contrary, as YSSYguy observes they serve no useful function. A "list of lists" by aircraft role is useful, but a templated navbox to go in each such list article would be far more sensible than a dedicated article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, random and indiscriminate, duplicates other lists.  Sandstein  15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - not completely indiscriminate, but I'd like a more convincing argument than "I like it" or "people clicked on this list x times last year." Bearian (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not indiscriminate list and the inclusion criteria is well defined. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar Singh, what are the inclusion criteria? YSSYguy (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• YSSYguy, did you read the AfD nomination? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:AKS.9955, indeed I did, it says there are no criteria; you say there are criteria and they are well defined, I would really like to know what they are. So, what are the inclusion criteria? YSSYguy (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not really an encyclopedic subject and the random inclusion does not make it any use to the reader, that is if they get pass the "what the chuff is this all about" when they first look at it. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unmaintainable listcruft. The "usage" categorization is quite arbitrary since (as mentioned by YSSYguy) a single aircraft can easily be used for multiple purposes. If we remove that categorization, we are left with List of aircraft by date which I hope everyone sees as the unmaintainable mess it would be.

Of course, "list of fighters", "list of commercial passenger aircraft" etc. sortable by date are all valid topics (or at least could plausibly be) and if someone is ready to sort out all of this let them have their WP:REFUND, but the list right now is little more than a heap of links.

Saying WP:PRESERVE requires to keep a list of links that could be useful if categorized correctly but are thrown around randomly is in my view incorrect. None would say WP:PRESERVE requires us to keep any articles containing valid English words because they can be rearranged in completely different sentences. Similarly, the value of a list is in the organization it provides more than the entries themselves. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One may add that the List of fighter aircraft and many others like it already exist. Most are sortable not only on date but on various other criteria too - far more useful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a "list of lists" type of article could be useful for aircraft (as the main list has 0 information about each article and no links to the sublists) but this isn't it. ansh666 19:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. More suited to categories. The entire list, being sourced solely by other articles, reeks of WP:NOTIINFO and WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• IAR Keep. To be honest, I've never really understood lists. And, for the most part, I usually feel the same way Class455fan1 Ajf773 does; that a category can do anything a list can. But, in this case, I like how the list organizes the entries by two dimensions; type of aircraft crossed with year. So, maybe I'm just saying WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL, both of which I know are poor arguments, but WP:IAR lets me do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith I was only sorting the debate into the transport category.... Class455 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge - per Andrew Davidson. --Class455 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only keep arguments are from sockpuppets. DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koker (musician)[edit]

Koker (musician) (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 falls in WP:TOOSOON as the subject does not meet WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The subject has been discussed in reliable sources and it's meets WP:GNG News24, All Africa, Nigerian Entertainment Today, He meets criteria 1, 7, 8 of WP:MUSBIO and he was part of The Indestructible Choc Boi Nation compilation album by Chocolate City..--Obari2Kay (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obari2Kay, you're yet to provide independent sources that discusses the subject in order to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwa2Chainz it is said on independent sources "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and to what that implies is if their are no notable reliable source found on the subject "Koker" Wikipedia should not have it and their are 11 reliable major source on the article Koker that are notable and the 19 unreliable source which does not cover his story but they only cover songs he has been featured on... An this is just by the way; due to some of the articles i read on notable musical artist, i understood if the article meet's one or more of WP:MUSBIO it is set to be notable by Wikipedia; am i wrong or right?.. --Obari2Kay (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject of this article has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. He has not been discussed in significant detail. Contrary to statements made by Obari2Kay, the subject doesn't meet the aforementioned criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. The News24, All Africa, and Nigerian Entertainment Today sources mentioned by Obari2Kay are press release info about his singles "Kolewerk" and "Do Something". They are not musical reviews of the singles and can't be treated as such. As of right now, the subject has not been discussed significantly. His musical releases have not been discussed as well. As Oluwa2Chainz already stated, it is simply too soon for a stand-alone article. Koker is probably going to be notable in the near future, but he simply doesn't qualify to have a stand-alone article right now.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is clear on WP:MUSICBIO which say's "May be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" i asked before if i was right or wrong guest am right because it is clear, The article for koker meet's criteria 8 which say's Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy and in Nigeria we recognize Nigeria Entertainment Awards, The Headies, City People Entertainment Awards and more.. An Koker won City People Entertainment Awards in 2016 nominated for The Headies in 2015, criteria 10 which say's "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album" and here is a compilation album The Indestructible Choc Boi Nation by Chocolate City and performed in Gidi Culture Festival which is been broadcast on television.. criteria 11 which say's "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." and he has been not just on rotation but also on Chart on The Beat 99.9 FM and criteria 1 an it's say's "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" he has been published works on newspaper articles and magazine articles... So i don't still see your reason on why the article should be deleted, i think you need a more clear reason on why it should.. An due to what you said Versace1608 about the article beening too soon to stand-alone as an article, it is said on WP:TOOSOON "that if WP:ENTERTAINER expands on consideration of entertainment-specific criteria for actors who, even if failing the WP:GNG, might still be reasonably presumed as notable if having.

1. "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" which he meet's (stage performances)..

2. "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", which he meet's (having a large fan base)

3. "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", which he meet's (Making a unique style of music). An on summarize on actors it is said "If an actor cannot meet at least one of the inclusion criteria, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered. It is clear that the article is not TOO SOON he meet's not just one of the cities but four of the cities so he should be on wikipedia as a stand alone article...--Obari2Kay (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An one of the links provided by Versace1608 on the Wikipedia deletion for Ruby Gyany Koker was also mention on the article Daily Times.. Ruby Gyang and Koker but have the same issues and the article was Withdrawn by Oluwa2Chainz and here we are for days still debating on this when it is clear..--Obari2Kay (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Versace1608 significant coverage you saying.. An here is a significant detail Naij but the other was a related story Naij an lastly, Some of the artist like Del B, Lola Rae, Cynthia Morgan don't even meet WP:GNG and they have Wikipedia article.. Koker passes WP:GNG, what i have seen is they where only on wikipedia because they met Criteria 8 of WP:MUSICBIO..--Obari2Kay (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keep" the article meet up requirement policy by Wikipedia, which is to be followed for ever article written as Jeff Elder said to me in his office yesterday, he also said it was not wrong for me to be on Wikipedia even if i was his PR, he made that clear to me and he emailed me some links to go do studied on and i woke-up this morning by 5am to start writing the article again on Wikipedia and their is an article on Koker but this time it has more notable references than the last time which was only YouTube and iTunes link's which i provided in written it.. It's a Stronger Keep from me due to my study on the article link's giving to me by Jeff Elder.--Chocboyz 10:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choccitymusic1 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is sock puppetry of the highest order. Choccitymusic1 is a sock of Obari2Kay. The later even make edits similar to that of the already blocked Markzy90. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • what a sock puppetry of the highest order. I just got a mail on my yahoo telling me you sent me a message Oluwa2Chainz. Please explain the meaning because i don't get the meaning of sock.--Obari2Kay (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes am a sock puppetry of User:ChocCityMusic but i don't know Obari2Kay an i can remember you emailing me, on my mail saying "your name is Oluwa Miles and you send me a link of Niniola" and you ask me to pay you to write Niniola and also Koker (musician)... I work for Chocolate City and Naija Review and i manage both artist.--Chocboyz 10:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choccitymusic1 (talk • contribs)

@Obari2Kay: I believe you are taking things out of context here. I am going to try to clear things up for you. Let me start by saying that notability is not synonymous with accolades. A subject winning or being nominated for an accolade doesn't make them notable on Wikipedia. This encyclopedia doesn't care about the number of accolades a subject garnered or the popularity of the subject. In order for a subject to have a stand-alone article written about them, that subject must meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Koker doesn't meet WP:GNG and has not been discussed significantly in multiple reliable sources independent of him. If you do a Google search of Koker, you'll clearly see that he has not been discussed in detail. Koker fails criteria 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. He hasn't performed a theme for a network television show or performance in a television show or notable film. He has been included on a notable compilation album, but since he doesn't pass WP:GNG, this claim can't be used to establish stand-alone notability. Koker fails criteria 11 of WP:MUSICBIO. Radio charts are not notable charts and they cannot be used to establish notability. Nigeria doesn't have an official music chart so please don't include charts in your argument. Koker also fails WP:ENTERTAINER. He doesn't have a large cult following and has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. He hasn't had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The Gidi Culture Festival being broadcasted on TV doesn't make it a television show. Koker's performance at Gidi Culture Festival hasn't been discussed in reliable sources. If you show me reliable sources that have discussed Koker in significant detail, I am going to change my decision. The article you mentioned about Ruby Gyang discusses Ruby Gyang. Koker was only mentioned once. Being mention in an article is not the same as being discussed in an article. If you believe that the Del B, Lola Rae, and Cynthia Morgan articles do not meet WP:GNG, please nominate them for deletion.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be reporting User:Obari2Kay as a likely sock of User:ChocCityMusic and User:Choccitymusic1. You guys need to understand the rules of this encyclopedia. Please read WP:RULES before creating another article or editing another page. You can't come to Wikipedia and create multiple accounts in an attempt to sway decisions your way. Please understand that there are guidelines and procedures that editors must abide by. Editors who violate these guidelines and procedures can get blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. If you are blocked on Wikipedia, do not create another account and start editing again. Please don't ever think you'll go unnoticed. The more accounts you create to evade your block, the more you're tarnishing your name and reputation. Last but not least, do not edit Wikipedia for monetary gains. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please read WP:PAID for information on Paid-contribution disclosure.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: here is a source from Tush Magazine that shows that he was been discussed on Tush Magazine and here is a link from Gidi Culture Festival, before you say anything please check this then when you are done then you can check this where he was listed out on the final list on Okay Africa and also on Gidi Culture Festival official web page shows the schedule of every performance Gidi Culture Festival.

• Men i wished i could get paid for doing this... You guys should help me in doing research because it's not been easy as a one man doing all this, working at night working at day no time to rest because i love written.. Due to what you said about official chart in Nigeria, we have airplay chart you don't know, since i work with Kiss Fm 98.9 also and the official chart name is Playdata Chart, i know it's new to your hearing because you know nothing about it and am in line with it so i should know better, what have i done now that even Versace1608 wants me to be blocked on Wikipedia.. Men i have tried, i would not kill my self for Koker after all i don't know him and he does not know me.. I have tried i rest my case.--Obari2Kay (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you Versace1608 just google Koker musician or Koker nigeria musician and even on image his pictures would pop-up.. An the name Koker is been answered by so many persons, thing's and places online just like on Wikipedia Danny Koker, David Koker, Koker, Iran, David Koker, Kokers Films, Kokernag, Kokernot Field, Koker trilogy and more.--Obari2Kay (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here is also a notable event Felabration and it's has a notable source from Nigerian Entertainment Today [11] have i won your heart in changing your vote  Versace1608 , so i can go have some rest?.--Obari2Kay (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The coverage is fluff, plain and simple. The requirement for charting is on a national chart, not on a radio station playlist. The fact that an artist plays at an event does not make the artist notable. WP:NMUSIC has very clear guidelines, and they have not been met by a long shot. Even if the label is considered major, the article subject hasn't got the release numbers needed, and that's about the only criteria that's even illustrated by the article. A musician isn't notable simply because he or she has a job to go and play music and does it. MSJapan (talk) 03:35, 10 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. Numerically it's close to a tie, but I discount the first "keep" by a 23-edit-account and the three "keep"s from 28 to 30 July 2016 which do not make any policy-based argunent.  Sandstein  19:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Boothman[edit]