< 4 August	6 August >

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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Raapana[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. Most links go to self-published site; others are dead. YoPienso (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Niki Raapana[reply]

Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Safiel (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to PRODer/AfD nominator Not sure why you took this to AfD. The PROD tag had actually expired, meaning the article would have been deleted today, but you blew it when you took the article to AfD, which automatically invalidated the PROD tag. Now we have to wait ANOTHER seven days for the AfD process to run its course. In the future, do not nominate an article for deletion if the article currently has a Proposed Deletion tag on it, unless somebody declines the proposed deletion. Safiel (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've ever nominated an article for deletion. Since nothing happened, I thought I had to bring it here. Thanks for your advice. YoPienso (talk) 07:58, 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. WP:SNOW, possibly bad faith WP:SK#2. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Noel[edit]

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

Notability not established UScentric (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nom is an SPA who started by doing some blanking at Cultural assimilation and then started nominating for deletion several articles that seem vaguely related to P2P research, without any apparent knowledge of what WP:N is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 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. WP:SNOW, possibly bad faith WP:SK#2. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Crouch[edit]

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

Notability not established UScentric (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. While the article needs cleanup, notability is beyond doubt: just look at this. He seems to have an H-index in the 50s (not bothered to look up the precise number: it's high) and has authored a paper about a new concept that has clearly received lots of attention. Comfortably meets WP:PROF. Please do follow WP:BEFORE when nominating things here. Vanamonde (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable. Post-democracy is also nominated. I suggested merge the two articles.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nom is an SPA who started by doing some blanking at Cultural assimilation and then started nominating for deletion several articles that seem vaguely related to P2P research, without any apparent knowledge of what WP:N is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. As well as the clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 (and the evidence of a poor nomination worthy of a speedy keep) I think he also passes #C3 as a Fellow of the British Academy [1]. Incidentally, there is a different Colin Crouch, a chess IM who died in 2015, who also appears to be notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Notability per WP:PROF clearly is established. Also note that his books have been translated into several languages. For example, according to WorldCat, Post-democracy has been translated into French ("Post-démocratie"), German ("Postdemokratie"), Italian ("Postdemocrazia"), Japanese ("Posuto demokurashī"), Russian ("Postdemokratii︠a︡"), Serbo-Croatian ("Postdemokracija"), Spanish ("Posdemocracia"), Swedish ("Postdemokrati")... Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- non trivial topic with sufficient RS coverage to establish notability. Merge from Post-democracy may be an option to be decided on later. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 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. WP:SNOW, possibly bad faith WP:SK#2. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-democracy[edit]

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

Notability not established, this is not a theory or unique concept, sources are one person, article is extensively quoting one person, self-promotion UScentric (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep the concept may have originated with one person, but it has received massive attention. The original paper has received 1400 citations; the translations have received many hundred; and there are a number of reviews and other examinations of the topic. See this. Vanamonde (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Colin Crouch. This article is entirely about his thoughts on the topic. It should be under his name. No need to give the same material in two articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. That article is up for deletion too. Secondary sources are needed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His article will probably be kept by the academic standards, so merging will take care of the issues, except for secondary sources still needed and would be helpful.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nom is an SPA who started by doing some blanking at Cultural assimilation and then started nominating for deletion several articles that seem vaguely related to P2P research, without any apparent knowledge of what WP:N is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If a merge is a good idea, that can be discussed on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Crouch's analysis seems quite notable. It's old wine in new bottles though – see the iron law of oligarchy, for example. For this reason it's best to to keep the theorising separate from the biographical pages. Andrew D. (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nomination implies no WP:BEFORE check has been conducted; doing one finds dozens of RS on the topic. WP:GNG. FourViolas (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- non trivial topic with sufficient RS coverage to establish notability. Merge may be an option to be decided on later. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 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 Withdrawn. As I explained in the Afd, I'm going to try simply redirecting. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lac-Mirabel[edit]

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

As of 2014, this proposed development was reported as "abandoned," with an entirely different outlet mall built in its place, which turns out to be Premium Outlets Montreal. I don't believe this canceled unbuilt project has enough lasting notability. I'll go ahead and add a mention of the unbuilt mall there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. So I suppose we could leave a redirect if anyone wants. If I'd realized the target article was there I might have just gone ahead and boldly redirected. Let me try withdrawing this and doing so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 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. Sandstein 08:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Festus Haggen[edit]

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

Non-notable television character. While Gunsmoke was a very popular show, this individual character isn't himself notable. I'm not finding any third-party, non-trivial references that investigate this character or study him. AS such, he does'nt pass WP:GNG and the article should be deleted. Mikeblas (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's a "character biography" on the TV Land website, but that's not exactly cause for notability. Other than that, the only other real mentions were in Gunsmoke websites. The article is very in-universe and does not pass GNG. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 23:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Gunsmoke, where the character is already sufficiently covered. There's no sourced content to retain/merge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, per the others. There is no evidence of notability here. Vanamonde (talk) 14:16, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanya Graeme (rapper)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Unreferenced BLP. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COI and probably some other things as well. Blatant self-promotional article, and there are other problematic articles by the same editor. Richard3120 (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find evidence that this individual meets GNG or MUSICBIO, and as Richard says there are promotional tones as well. Vanamonde (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced BLP. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. This is likely an WP:AUTOBIO. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, salt and block creator. Clearly promotional, this and blatant vandalism of this kind suggests that they have no non-promotional contributions to make here. Blythwood (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same page created under different name to avoid being deleted again. Non notable. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - A11. MSJapan (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: A11 doesn't make a lot of sense to me here, could you elaborate? Tazerdadog (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that should have been G11. MSJapan (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pretty much made up by the author themselves and has no claim of significance. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotion, no independent coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete All, block creator. Clearly doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Non-notable, and repeatedly recreated. Joseph2302 19:26, 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Had Cancer[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable entity which has been copied and pasted to read like a promotional format. Quis separabit? 21:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- (change from delete) sources offered below are convincing, but "reads like a press release" is right. The article needs to be improved. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:WEBCRIT, and it's not wholly promotional enough to merit WP:TNT. Don't know where anyone else was looking, but it was pretty easy to find full articles in Forbes, Washington Post, TechCrunch, Cnet, TheNextWeb, The Sun, ReadWrite, Zdnet... these from the first few pages of ghits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, those are some very good independent sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CONTAVA Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was created by a user named Contava. A WP:COI is likely present. Plus, I found no significant reliable independent coverage online. I found their website and their social media, but those are not independent. All the potentially independent stuff I found just discussed where it is, how to get there, contact information, if there are jobs there, how much do they pay their workers, other non-significant coverage every company gets. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage of this company is very sparse. The best I could find was the second reference listed in the article, Contava selected as 2011 Security Integrator of the Year, but other than that I could only find directory entries. Altamel (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:COMPANY for the reasons already noted above. --Drm310 (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable regional systems integrator. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I looked at "Contava selected as 2011 Security Integrator of the Year" and it's a non-notable industry award. Still delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 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. Sandstein 07:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geotest[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. A copy/pasted version of this page was speedy deleted A7. PROD contested by author. shoy (reactions) 20:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this should've been deleted as PROD to begin with (now we at least can lock with AfD), as this is entirely advertorial through and through, nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. A well-known name in the industry, but it still may not pass WP:CORP. Searching on "Marvin Test Solutions", the current name of the organization, might give some better sources. This and this, for example, although just press releases, might give some idea of the firm's significance. Tevildo (talk) 10:35, 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 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mariposa Trust[edit]

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

promotional article, relying on trivial local reports, and name-dropping DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Organisation is not notable, and article seeks only to advertise for the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanlu121 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a few mentions [2] but none of them seem to be detailed enough to truly count towards, notability. Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - well-meaning charity, with some news articles to its credit. Can somebody from the UK look into the new coverage? 23:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was move to Wikipedia namespace. Consensus is there for a simple move, which was suggested by the nom in the first place, as the Wikimedia Foundation supports this. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia for Schools[edit]

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

This actually does not need to be deleted. It can go into the Wikipedia: space. However, since that would remove it from Wikipedia's mainspace, I thought it should go to AfD. In 2006 this was proposed and there was some sort of similar AfD in 2008, but I cannot tell if it is for the same product.

Whatever the case, since 2006 this article seems to have never been backed by a single reliable source. I spot checked the history and do not think I missed everything. This product does not meet WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary coverage. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:Wikipedia for Schools, as suggested by the nominator. The Wikimedia Foundation endorsed and supported the project (see this press release from the Wikimedia Foundation), so this would have a functional and appropriate place in Project (Wikipedia) namespace. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move, per nominator and NorthAmerica. Its content might be beneficial in the project space, but the topic does not meet our notability guidelines. Vanamonde (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to project namespace, per nomination. Steven Walling • talk 06:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia namespace as the project has been approved by the Wikimedia Foundation. — Music1201 ^talk 22:16, 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 delete. Sandstein 13:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeney Manufacturing Company[edit]

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

promotional article for nonnotable company. "Keeney Manufacturing grew to be successful in the plumbing industry because of its quality, innovation, and customer service."

So anxious to find some content, they included "A monthly "dress-down day" allows employees to dress casually for a day in exchange for a donation to a different charity, which is then matched by the company." (unsourced) DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient sources to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is nothing but PR, nothing coming close at all for actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Paul Olsen[edit]

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

Non-notable stunt performer/stunt double for TV and film. His 2 "claims to fame" are his brother, actor Eric Christian Olsen, and his wife, actress Daniela Ruah. The article contains more about these 2 than David Paul Olsen himself. A Google News search finds 136 pages, all of which only mention David Paul Olsen in relation to these 2 individuals. Notability is not inherited. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with @Logical Fuzz -- Olsen's inherent notability not established and cannot be inherited. Quis separabit? 19:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of his notability or importance. Ethanlu121 (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable stuntman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable with some imdv credits, no reliable sources to establish notability outside of that CrispyGlover (talk) 17:16, 14 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 13:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four (Golden State Warriors)[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:GNG, with lack of reliable sources with significant coverage on this grouping. The title is a neologism based on one basketball player, Kevin Durant, who was just acquired by the Golden State Warriors, but is not scheduled to play for a few months when the 2016–17 season begins. The best I can find on web searches on the term are a few t-shirts being sold, and unreliable blogs. —Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term is a neologism at best, original research at worse. The prose is covered by the appropriate section of Golden State Warriors. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. The section in the team article is also a bit premature, since the era has not started yet. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a real thing that gets consistent coverage. Rikster2 (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a real term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an insignificant neologism. Lepricavark (talk) 04:19, 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 per WP:SNOW. I don't think that there's going to be another outcome even if this is run for the full week. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Netflix original shows IMDb ratings[edit]

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

Not a defining characteristic and trivial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial and not worthy of an article. Meatsgains (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS/IMDB Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the policy Lugnuts linked to IMDb ratings are WP:USERGENERATED. They are just a fan poll with no critical or scholarly input. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems to apply here. Also, as MarnetteD mentioned above, IMDb is not a reliable source and its ratings are just based on popular opinion. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 23:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List based on problematic rating. Even if it were a ranking/score we do use, it would just be included in List of original programs distributed by Netflix rather than a separate article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:54, 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 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan W. Gill[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable. Country Board of Freeholders does not imply notability DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable politician/officeholder; somewhat promotional but that could be addressed if notability threshold were reached. Quis separabit? 19:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete members of county legislative bodies are generally not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Officeholders at the county level do not get an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing — at this level of office, a person gets a Wikipedia article only if they can be sourced over WP:GNG as significantly more notable than the norm for some encyclopedic reason. But nothing claimed or sourced here establishes that at all. Of the eight references here, five are primary sources — and the three that are actual media coverage in actual reliable sources are pretty WP:ROUTINE local pieces which are not substantively enough about him to vault him over GNG by themselves. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- entirely promotional article on a minor politician and political consultant. There's also possibility of COI / SPA editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur there's nothing at all for any applicable notability or actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local politician, not the subject of any in-depth coverage in any reliable secondary sources CrispyGlover (talk) 17:20, 14 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. This is a bit complicated, since most of the deletes are eloquent and detailed, whereas most of the keeps are just throwaway comments: "keep since notable". If it hadn't been for BoyRD's specific mention of what they thought were acceptable sources this could have gone the other way: but the references they give as 1, 2, and 9 (Observer, AdAge, Adweek) are lengthy and acceptable, and--as it happens--these references are not demolished by JamesBWatson and K.e.coffman in their otherwise effective arguments. So while the deletes are correct in saying that much of the coverage is very poor, and that the article has a high tripe content, there are good arguments to keep based on at least some solid sources.

Note to participants: as tedious as it is, detailed discussion of sources is both helpful and necessary. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Binn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I AfD'd this last year and it has been restarted yet again with it still looking like a puffed PR article, none of this is actually minimally suggestive and clear as to how he's actually independently notable now. I honestly suggest finally Salting this so please look at this to see how numerous the times have been. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm staying with my delete position from the prior AfD. I see that the deleting admin JamesBWatson restored it in response to a request from Veggies 2, which can be seen here. But I don't see any changes made to the article to suggest it now merits retention. The delta of the article since its prior deletion can be viewed here. The only edits are adding a photo and correcting the case of the headings. The substantive issues discussed in the prior AfD remain. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally speedily deleted this under CSD G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). The person who created this version of the article objected to my deletion, and asked for it to be restored, so that he could start a discussion about it. There are more references than in the version discussed at the last AfD, and experience shows that some editors would take that as indicating that the article is not substantially the same, and so doesn't qualify for G4, even though the new references don't actually add anything significant. I therefore gave it the benefit of the doubt, and restored it. In the month since I restored the article, the editor in question has made no attempt to initiate the discussion he said he wanted, and his only edit to the article has been adding a photograph to it.

The article has been bombarded with large numbers of references to give the superficial impression that it is well sourced, as often happens with re-creations of articles deleted for lack of evidence of notability, but most of the references do nothing or very little to indicate notability. To give an idea of the quality of the references, ten chosen at random from the 28 references in the article are: one dead link; two pages not mentioning Jason Binn (one of them refers to a farm owned by "Moreton Binn", who apparently is Jason Binn's father, the other does not mention "Binn" at all); the personal page about Jason Binn on the web site of DuJour, of which he is the CEO; a page at www.etonline.com, where the only mention of Binn is a credit for a photograph on the page that he took; an announcement of launch of magazine, merely including Binn's name in a list of the owners of the magazine (and also the webstite where the announcement is made is "www.adweek.com", which may be an indication of how independent a source it is); an announcement of an appointment of Binn to a post; a page about him on a website which claims to deal with "an increasingly complex marketplace" which "heightens the need for information and competitive intelligence", which to me reads very much like marketing speak for saying they provide PR; an announcement of his marriage; a 12 page newsletter from a charitable organisation, which on page 12 has a one sentence mention of the fact that Jason Binn has done voluntary work for the charity. In short, this is a typical example of bombardment of an article previously deleted for lack of notability with large numbers of references, without regard to their quality. I see no more evidence of notability than there was at the time of the last AfD. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I went through the references and found two dead links and I repaired them. The references are about Binn, and most have him in the headline or in the first graph. He is notable and an American publisher. His magazines are generally fluff, so it is no surprise that some say he is fluff. but no more than Page Six, E-Entertainment, or other such glamour publications. It does not make it less of publication, and they do get significant subscribers. For the record, I work in PR and have sought out Binn's magazines for my clients. He, however, is not a client of mine.Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One thing is for certain looking through sources, Binn is always mentioned in relation to Niche Media and/or his publications. Articles and/or interviews: Forbes, CNNfn, Bloomberg, The Boston Globe,The Washington Times, WWD, Observer, Miami, Advertising Age. Way too mentions in sources to list here, just a few: The Washington Post, Marketing Weekly News, Bloomberg. From The New York Times: One, Two, Three, Four, Five. A couple of results from Google book search: 1, 2. Keep and improve.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are either advertorial, interviews, trivial mentions or anything else like this is unacceptable. Considering this was also deleted, not only by AfD not even a year agp, it's been deleted numerous other times....thus there's not the considerably convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article has everything needed to show its credible and worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Jason Binn is not just a businessman, but has created several well read and established publications and has been a subject of many media eyes and pens. It fits the protocols for a recognized individual and is definitely notable. 152.206.140.174 (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

152.206.140.174 has made no other contributions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Jason Binn is an established publisher and person often talked about in media. The article and it's notations meet Wikipedia standards and show a history of notability since the 1990s Fairlysimple (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based from the 2 comments aboce, that's not convincing for establishing notability at this article, however. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Talked about in the media" is insufficient rationale for keeping this article. WP:NOTNEWS may apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promo content about a non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The source presented are mostly interview about the publications that Binn launches; for example, from the NYT MediaDecoder blog: "If you answered yes, then, aside from being extremely lucky, you’re just the reader for Du Jour, a new digital and print magazine. The publication comes from Jason Binn, founder of luxury magazines like Hamptons, Ocean Drive, Gotham and Aspen Peak, and a chief adviser of the Gilt Groupe, which offers online bargains on luxury goods." This, and similar sourcing, are trivial mentions insufficient to build an encyclopedia entry. Here's another one: "Binn (born Binstock) is the 37-year-old CEO of Niche Media LLC. Niche publishes free glossies that target the upper crust of New York, Los Angeles, Aspen, and the Hamptons. Binn also has a stake in separately held SoBeNews (as in South Beach), which publishes Vegas and Ocean Drive. Binn's job is uniquely suited to his signature traits: imperviousness to ridicule and a penchant for self-promotion. He has leveraged being a besotted fan into close friendships with stars (on stage together at one Binn gala were Russell Simmons, Heidi Klum, and Bill Clinton). He's very good -- and relentless -- at winning over audiences, whether they're readers, advertisers, or celebrities." K.e.coffman (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Jason Binn is a notable figure and is often quoted in third-party sources that are not his own publications. This article is well-sourced and demonstrates that. I believe it meets the criteria for Wikipedia.Fisherderek (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- the vote just above should probably be discounted as this is the only edit ever made by this editor: Special:Contributions/Fisherderek. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article meets the criteria and Binn is notable. It's not puffery, it's genuine and if you take the time to look this guy up you'll see he gets plenty of third party ink. The article could be fixed a bit, but is certainly notable and proper.Veggies 2 (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this vote should probably be discounted as it was made by the creator of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based purely on the merits of the article - there have been no significant changes to the article since it was previously deleted, meaning there are no new reasons to retain it. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable, per the article's references #1, #2, #9, #20, & #24, and maybe others. The article itself needs some work, but notability isn't in question. BoyRD (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jason Binn is obviously a publisher of very superficially oriented material, and the news on him is about who he is seen with, which celebrity he was mingling with, or to whom his publications are geared for. Granted all of that, he is a nationally known publisher and entrepreneur who is notable enough to be mentioned by media on many occasions and clearly sought after by segments of our society. Whether he is married, divorced, where he lives, where his offices are, etc. it seems to me that he is interesting enough to mention. We don't have to like the subjects here, and we don't need to subscribe to their beliefs or ways, but we need to treat them the same across the board. Noteworthy is Noteworthy, not necessarily popular.ChasTayn (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the above vote should be taken with a grain of salt as it comes from the editor who created the article on Binn's DuJour Media. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There should be no question of the subject's notability. He is mentioned in plenty of sources which are cited here. Binn is a noteworthy figure in the media industry.Greengrass333 (talk) 16:12, 12 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 13:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ostermoor & Co.[edit]

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

Promotional, unsourced, fails WP:GNG. The only information on it available online - other than the company's website - is nearly a decade old. Suggest speedy delete. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I removed most of the promotional content from the page but it does not meet general notability requirements and has very little coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'm honestly not sure why this had not been A7'd as it is.... SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the puff words removed, the sources provided or those found on an internet search do not indicate notability. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 23:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royal broil 11:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- typical advertorial with insufficient sources to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 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. Nominator "putting this here for community input" more than anything else: input has been unanimously to keep. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Gigantic[edit]

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

Was csd-a7 deleted way back in the day, then recreated at much improved level, however I am not sure there is enough information to justify a notability claim. I'm putting this here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article still has some overly promotional text that needs pruning, but the band is certainly notable. A 2015 Billboard article describes them as "a rare sort of festival staple – equally at home playing ‘heads-only’ outings like Electric Forest, Shambhala, and Camp Bisco as mainstream festivals like Coachella, Lollapalooza, and Ultra Music Festival. They also remain hometown heroes in Colorado, where their annual Rowdytown concert series at the hallowed Red Rocks Amphitheatre – set to kick off this weekend from Sept. 25-26 – has sold out every year since its 2012 debut." [3] Other potential sources include [4][5][6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos, the Billboard and Rolling Stone articles establish notability, and the New Times article can be used to flesh out the article even though it is local. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they have been covered in multiple notable publications such as Billboard and Rolling Stone as stated above. This meets WP:BAND. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its has coverage in reliable sources including one from ABC news in my search results to meet GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 15:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG. This coverage wasn't hard to find: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. --Michig (talk) 19:30, 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 procedural close. Article was already deleted by discussion here, and has thus been deleted per G4. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imam Hasan (Mosques)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emam Hasan (Mosque)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No indication of notability and no coverage in reliable sources. It seems to be cross-wiki spam. All interwikis were created on July 17/19. Pedrohoneto (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it back already? WP:G4 speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emam Hasan (Mosque) and its retitled version Imam Hasan (Mosque). I wonder if a range block for the creator is feasible. I think not though, because the previous page was edited by various IPs, making me think that we are dealing with a mobile connection. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that accounts for the odd disambiguation -- always a good idea to check when you see an oddly disambiguated title. I've placed a speedy deletion tag on the article with a link to the previous Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Armor[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Apart from press releases or posts by business partners, the only sources are a few mentions in the Charlotte Business Journal as e.g. one of the best places to work in the small business category. Nothing substantial, not the necessary indepth independent sourcing for an article. Fram (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely advertorial with nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient sources to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 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. Sandstein 13:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amol Kirtikar[edit]

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

Delete. Article itself establishes that person is not-notable since the page reads "He unsuccessfully contested Vidhan sabha election". Fails NPOL. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet notability threshold as politian or officeholder. Quis separabit? 19:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The subject is a non-notable person of a non-notable organization. The organization Yuva Sena, which the subject is head of, may not meet the notability guidelines and doesn't cite any sources. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 15:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arun, Arun Kumar SINGH I dont understand why this page has been marked for deletion. It is about a known politician and youth leader in Maharashtra. He is all India general General Secretary of Yuva Sena, youth wing of Shiv Sena political party and also has contested Maharashtra assembly elections. I have provided enough references for validation. Please comment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtaprohitd1987 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A person gets a Wikipedia article by winning election and thereby holding office, not by running as a candidate and losing. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing claimed or sourced here is a credible WP:NPOL pass. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 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 The consensus is to delete. Sockpuppetry concerns should be handled at WP:SPI. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Steel[edit]

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

This is an article about an individual created by the individual, which is clearly WP:SELFPROMOTION and contravenes WP policies. Despite being advised that there is a clear conflict of interest the editor, Andysteel123, has continued to edit the page about himself. The article fails WP:BIO and many of the references provided by Andysteel123 are either self published or taken from blog sites. Other references are simply mentions in passing. This is a clear case of an individual trying to promote himself by creating his own WP page. It should be noted that there's no inherited notability simply because he founded a company (which only marginally survived an AfD). The PROD notice on the article was removed by a single edit editor - possibly a sock puppet. Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sailor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom David.moreno72 00:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely nothing shows that the subject is independently notable. I'm actually having doubts if the foundation is notable as well. That combined with the clear ducky behaviour shows that the article is being used solely for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible sock User:Andysteel123 created the article while the PROD was removed by another editor User:Mythwaugh (whose only edit was removing the PROD). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article about non-notable subject. Lepricavark (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not provide Reliable Sources to meet the General Notability Guideline. BoyRD (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indication of notability and searches do not turn up anything. Dodgy editing behaviour suggest this article is being used entirely for self promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 12 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 07:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Fort Myers nightclub shooting[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. WP:NOTNEWS. With a few exceptions, mostly local, the media have moved on. No connection to umbrella social issues. If editor interest reflects media interest, two editors have made two minor edits[18][19] in the past 48 hours, and the article is still slightly more than a stub. Another crime that was sensational enough to make the national news for a couple of days. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Likely delete but I suggest to let it run the full 7 days as the media was busy with the RNC and now the DNC and might pick up on the story afterwards.--TMCk (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep or merge - I concur with TracyMcClark, that the media is busy with National Conventions. That being said, if the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Lee County Sheriff's Office (Florida). --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would it be redirected to the Lee County Sheriff's Office? The crime happened in the city of Fort Myers and the Fort Myers Police Department is the agency with primary jurisdiction. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - nvm --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The media was there. I was personally at the scene and there were almost as many reporters and news trucks as there were mourners. Reporters from CNN down to the FGCU paper and bloggers. (yeah, I know that's not a RS, not the point). It wasn't lack of attention or the conventions diverting attention. It's a case of the 24 hour news cycle flooding it for a cycle and then watching the coverage drop off, as predicted. There will be a predictable local blip when someone comes up for trial, but there won't be continuing coverage. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the media was there at first but they are likely too busy for a follow-up. We'll see in 7 days (or less) if there is more to come. Doesn't hurt to follow protocol.--TMCk (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was more there than I expected to be honest. And they stayed the entire day. I've predicted the drop off all along. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:NOTNEWS; although they may have a follow up about the shooters motivation (which wasn't terrorism), I don't see it passing WP:N anytime soon. Per arguments of Mandruss' last line. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It may have been notable at first given the similar-sounding 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, but as the coverage died down and we got more details on what happened, I doubt this is going to stay notable for long. Parsley Man (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No link to terrorism, racism, or any other -ism. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete shooting happened in a dangerous part of town where these types of events are frequent. Outside the venue, no different from any other shooting. Prevan (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a mass shooting well covered by national media after the largest mass shooting in American history (also in a Floridian nightclub). WP:NOTNEWS is irrelevant. 184.90.237.3 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)— 184.90.237.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why is it irrelevant? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
after the largest mass shooting in American history (also in a Floridian nightclub) - If you're suggesting that this article inherits even a little notability from 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, you're quite mistaken. If you're not, I don't see how that part of your comment bears on this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Large number of victims, lots of coverage, reactions by major figures. Beejsterb (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's of short-term coverage doesn't establish notability. As NOTNEWS says, most newsworthy events aren't notable. Aside from the obligatory reactions from the governor and AG, which figures are you referring to? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A horrific shooting with no indication of any major implications or long-lasting effects to propel this past the WP:NOTNEWS zone. GAB^gab 01:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some of the article should be merged into Fort Myers or something because I believe that it is notable enough to at least have a mention. Beejsterb (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think it should. This is very similar to a shooting nearly a year ago [20]. A spike in national coverage, which died off quickly, then the local coverage died off. Gets mentioned once in a while as still being unsolved. In the overall, this event, like the Zombiecon shooting, will likely barely be a footnote in the city history. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should, either. There are no other crimes listed there, so this one shouldn't be included unless it's the worst in the city's 150-year history. Let's try to maintain a sense of proportion and avoid WP:RECENTISM. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per good sourcing, per relatively high number of deaths, per extensive coverage by media. NOTNEWS does not apply as Wikipedia is based on news. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High number of deaths? There were 2 deaths. Sadly, that's not a high number at all. And while Wikipedia actually is not based on news, the guideline you dismiss specifically says that most newsworthy events are not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy, not guideline. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously WP:NOTNEWS, maybe mentionable in a list but doesnt qualify for an article.--Savonneux (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: Clearer consensus? After you eliminate the Keep arguments that are wrong on their face (e.g. 2=relatively high number of deaths), there isn't much left. Consensuses don't get much clearer than this at Wikipedia. It ran for the full 7 days per TracyMcClark's early comment. There have been 6 edits since I nominated eight days ago, averaging 0.75 edits per day, and the article is still slightly more than a stub. This has had ample due process and it's time to move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If having a discussion last 7 more days is really that stressful for you, perhaps you should take a wikibreak for the remaining duration. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you reached that conclusion from my comments, but thanks for the concern anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic in its isolated form. Supraregional news covering has almost stopped after a day, except for local news. It could however have its place in Fort Myers in a paragraph on crime rates: 54th on top100 dangerous in 2016, and since several years around position 50 [21] and [22] --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Neighborhood Scout was a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reference to start with, and another site says «it’s up-to-date and accurate».--Havang(nl) (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A non-RS says that another non-RS is reliable? Well that solves everything. Want the technical answer? First, NeighborhoodScout uses numbers for areas outside of the city limits. Since the article in question is about the CITY of Fort Myers, it is skewed. Second, the presumption is that all crimes are equal. An Aggravated assault and a murder aren't equal since you can actually be convicted of an aggravated assault without ever even touching the person, much less causing serious injury. Third, they claim to separate out "armed robbery", while the FBI generally lumps in all robberies as a single classification. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of see that as a separate and independent issue from this AfD, debatable at Talk:Fort Myers, Florida. My ADD brain likes nice, neat, organized boxes. If you disagree, carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even local coverage has pretty much evaporated. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Widespread national news coverage was just not there for this one. Even though I did contribute a little to this article I knew that if it got here I would support a deletion; this pretty much fails WP:N and WP: NOTNEWS. United States Man (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there was sufficiently widespread coverage. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 13 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 08:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PacificFlier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH, per several source searches. The first AfD discussion was closed as no consensus in August 2011. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a one plane airline that existed for 5 months. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this should've honestly been either PRODed to begin with in 2011 or relisted at that time, nothing at all convincing and this is simple clear close. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- typical advertorial with insufficient sources to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Simply not notable enough. Class455 (talk) 00:05, 12 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 Elstow. Closed as redirect to Elstow according to accepted practice, without prejudice to restoration if theestablishment later achieves notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elstow School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. The school's headteacher received some news coverage when she took a holiday during term time, but I don't think that makes the school notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 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 Speedy Delete per G5 by Ponyo (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Bollywood actresses[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP stuff and WP:TRIVIA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this had better sourcing it could be potentially useful, or useful as a category instead (if reliably noted and cited in each article). I'd say Userfy it until such time as the creator gets a clue of how to reliably source information. At the very least, each entry needs a reliable citation that they are a practicing Muslim (not just born into a Muslim family). Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But does the "Muslim Bollywood actresses" even pass GNG? If not then why have it in any form? If there are reliable sources of Bollywood actresses liking pink colour will we have List of pink-colour liking Bollywood actresses? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same as List of Christian Bollywood actresses, pure WP:TRIVIA, no indication that religion influences acting skills. Cavarrone 09:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 09:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 09:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 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 Speedy Delete per G5 by Ponyo (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Bollywood actresses[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP stuff and WP:TRIVIA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 09:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 09:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same as List of Muslim Bollywood actresses, pure WP:TRIVIA, no indication that religion influences acting skills. Cavarrone 09:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 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 Speedy Delete per G5 by Ponyo (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Duets[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TRIVIA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:20, 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 Speedy Delete per G5 by Ponyo (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling Soundtrack albums in Bollywood[edit]

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

Delete as WP:OR. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:19, 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Charms[edit]

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

Fails all three criterias mentioned in WP:PORNBIO and is not a WP:1E, not notable to have an article. Pahlevun (talk) 05:49, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pseudobiography of one event. Makes no claim of passing PORNBIO. Glamour model/porn star goes to Iran. Iranians are upset. Tabloid fodder not of encyclopedic interest. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable and fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iranian foreign minister is interfering on the subject. the controversy is underway right now some important media such as daily mail, RT and VOA is messing up with the subject. Amir Muhammad 22:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, BIO1E not enough, if the Iranian government is upset, then redirect to their article. Daily Mail not RS for foreign policy kerfuffles. Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "She is known for her Large enhanced breasts.[citation needed]" .... really ? ..... Having large boobs isn't a free pass to an article!, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she may not be notable in her fields, but only BBC wrote about his controversial in Iran . i thing its Important. The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 23:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's important whatsoever. –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

maybe . tnx anyway The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 14: 42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Focus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Agent Focus

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

Notability - reads like an advert Newusers112 (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself planned to PROD, nothing at all actually convincing and that's not surprising for a 6-year-old company, searches are currently not finding better. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article doesn't even make a claim of any notability. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly provides high quality products, but no indication this meets WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:25, 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 deleted TomStar81 (Talk) 08:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EZappt[edit]

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

Non-notable software company, fails WP:CORP, refs do not even mention company or product by name, created by SPA who has not made another edit in six years. MB 04:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I abstain --AbstainFan600 (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment has been struck, as the user is a self-confessed troll and sockpuppet. Joseph2302 06:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches found nothing better than a routine product sale announcement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 21:27, 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 speedy deleted by Drmies per WP:G5, "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Katz[edit]

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

Minor league baseball player without significant coverage beyond routine sports reporting. No significant awards in college. About to turn 26 and just made it to AA ball. Not seeing anything that says notability here. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:47, 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. czar 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Burroughs[edit]

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

Has been a college basketball player, an NBA D-League head coach and an NBA assistant coach, none of which meet WP:NBASKETBALL. The only coverage I find is routine reporting of his being hired or leaving positions, plus one Philly.com article about him being recruited in high school in 1990. I don't think that meets WP:GNG. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G5. The creator is indefinitely topic banned from creating sports-related articles in mainspace and there are no substantial edits from others. Omni Flames (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isis Taylor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Taylor is a throughly undistinguished pornographic film actor. Her awards are what one expects from an industry that gives out awards left, right and center. The gossipy coverage of her being hired as an intern by Charlie Sheen is not enough to justify an encyclopedia article. Back in 2011 this article was deleted and nothing has changed in the ensuing years to justify having it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a minor porn actress who has won a few minor internal porn industry backscratching awards and hung out with Charlie Sheen briefly. She is no more notable than the winner of the "Iowa Locksmith of the Year" award, which means not notable at all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails PORNBIO and GNG. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO, no awards, just nominations. The Sheen-related coverage is barely a flicker, nowhere near GNG/BLP requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Fails PORNBIO and the blip of tabloid coverage is 1E without ongoing interest. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable and fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- connection to a celebrity is NOTINHERITED. Doesn't meet GNG. Montanabw^(talk)
Delete as Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Finnegas (talk) 19:54, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NSEASONS - Substantial independent coverage in sources is lacking - the school and team website are not independent and do not qualify as secondary sources. Associated Press coverage of previous games and previous seasons are not substaintial coverage of this topic. Previous and current schedules are routine and not in depth coverage of this topic. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL; a championship season or a post season is an unknown; so this is probably WP:TOOSOON. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there has been substantial coverage of UConn's upcoming season already and this will only increase in the coming weeks. Articles like this and this and this represent significant coverage from reliable sources and articles like this and this are storylines of the upcoming season. Rikster2 (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the sources Rikster provided above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team. Following was my rationale before, which seems applicable here: "[Keep] per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. [It has] some verifiable information on the future season e.g. committed recruits, committed opponents, and/or committed early-season tournaments. I'll pre-empt any WP:CRYSTAL concerns, as the policy states: 'It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.' Based on past seasons, there is little doubt this upcoming season will take place, and the team will be notable. Deleting would require creating more work to WP:PRESERVE this useful information somewhere else ..."—Bagumba (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consensus is that Division I college basketball seasons satisfy WP:NSEASONS. We go through this every year. And even if it weren't inherently notable, the sources provided more than satisfy WP:GNG. Stop with the WP:POINT-y nominations, already. Smartyllama (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster2, Bagumba, and prior AfD precedent. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In answer to Bagumba - part of your quote states "if discussion is properly referenced", which this article is not. Only one of Riskter's sources cover this topic. The others are stories about athletes without analysis of this season and does not qualify for significant coverage. I don't see why Div 1 seasons articles deserve special treatment pertaining to notability standards. Properly referenced is the standard here on Wikipedia - so all of these "seasons" articles probably should wait until there is coverage.

Also, the above mentioned AfD probably closed as keep because only one point of view, which was shared by all (except the closing admin), was able to prevail. This AfD is a good example. Only one of Rikster's sources cover this topic. Yet others jumps on the bandwagon citing Rikster's sources. And if the Admin only sees a discussion that claims an interpretation of wp:beaucracy and ~~an interpretation~~ of wp:crystal that supports this view - then what choice does a closing admin have ---Steve Quinn (talk)

Per WP:RUBBISH, articles are not deleted merely because they are poorly sourced. In this case, the information is verifiable, even if unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba - I didn't say anything about poorly sourced. I don't know how you got that out of what I wrote. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, then its unclear to me what you meant by "In answer to Bagumba - part of your quote states 'if discussion is properly referenced', which this article is not."—Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was, not only is significant independent coverage of this topic is not available, there is only Risker's source that covers this topic - [23] and even this says it is "too early to start any serious previewing of the 2016-17 campaign". There is some speculation in the second section regarding the upcoming UConn season - and I have to agree that this is useful coverage for this article. But the other sources do not directly support the topic of this article. Under normal Wikipedia conditions it is doubtful this article would survive.

So, my position is this article should not be in the main space until there is significant coverage in reliable sources that directly supports this topic. This is pretty standard in other areas of Wikipedia. But I am not seeing this standard applied in this area of Wikipedia. And I am not saying this is right or wrong. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Rikster2's first source, Jeff Jacobs: At UConn, Ollie's 5 Newcomers Have Melded To Become 1, which discusses the incoming freshman class for Connecticut's 2016–17 season. Why do you not consider that significant coverage for their upcoming season?—Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not accurate to say only one of the articles I provided deals with the 2016-17 season. One talks about how five new players will have an impact ... On the 2016–17 season. One says a player is ready to step into a leadership role ... In the 2016–17 season. One talks about how a traumatic event has an existing player changing his number ... For the 2016–17 season. One says the school is looking to change conferences, a decision that will be a storyline for the 2016–17 season. That's the thing about coverage of a season, it takes many forms. It is incorrect to suggest that only articles that start "let's preview the upcoming season" are doing just that. Rikster2 (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the link I provided is apparently not working - I should have checked it. Second, this is the link to which I was referring - [24] - I believe this Rikster's third source. Third, it is accurate to say that only one of the articles deals with the 2016-17 season because the subject and the focus of those articles are the athletes. I can change this to say only one of the articles provide significant coverage rather than "deals with". Please forgive my inaccurate statement. One mention in an article is not significant coverage. The topic is 2016-17 season of this men's basketball team. Those articles do not cover this season. Only one does; the one that I just linked to. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but you are wrong. A long article about the impact of five freshman on the upcoming season is an article about the upcoming season. An article about a player stepping up to be a leader on a team is an article about the upcoming season. An article about a player changing his number for the upcoming season is an article about the upcoming season. This is the nature of continuous coverage – articles about various aspects of the upcoming campaign and the plays and circumstances surrounding it. Rikster2 (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rikster2: It appears that you are correct. Sufficient coverage is out there to sustain keeping this article. Although I don't agree on every reference, here is my analysis of the sources you provided (above and below?):

!. The first refernence is about the "top 5" and covers these five players [25]. Where is coverage of the 2016-17 season? Also, how much are these players likely to play during the season given that they are freshman? It seems doubtful that they will have signifigant impact on the season. At the same time, there is no speculation or coverage on how they will impact the season - and I think these concerns would be related to counting as independent coverage, or whatever, for the season.

2. The subject of the second reference is Alterique Gilbert, I think a junior, who has a shoulder injury [26]. Obviously he is one of the best athletes in the U.S - but where is the coverage of the 2016-17 season? Again, there is no signifigant coverage or speculation on how he will impact the season. Maybe it can be inferred, but there is no way to tell how much of the season he will play, given he has had a recurring shoulder injury.

3. The third reference is really good and qualifies for signifigant independent coverage [27]. There is much material related to how well the players are expected to do during the upcoming season.

4. The fourth reference discusses Pervis's tribute to his almost brother (who died way too young) by wearing "15" during his final UConn season [28]. Combined with the third reference I think this is helpful as signifigant coverage. I would think other sources would cover this as well - just ruminating.

5. The fifth reference is about maybe reaching out with an official pitch to join the Big 12 [29]. I don't see how this relates to the 2016-17 season?

6. Without much commentary - this sixth reference pertains to this season. It is a longish article about Rodney Purvis returning to play for UConn, even though he is possibly able to go pro, and other stuff he will be doing during the season.

7. The seventh reference pertains to the "top 5" and I guess this is an important part of the story about the season [30] - I didn't realize this. I guess they get along really well, and already cohere as a team. Also, "this could end up being a special group at UConn...the Huskies’ highly-touted freshman class–ranked in the top 5 in the nation by some outlets" ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can see that the "top 5" players are a powerful addition to the basketball program, I am not seeing their significance pertaining to this specific season. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment consensus has not determined that Div 1 basketball seasons are notable - before satisfactory coverage in independent sources satisfy WP:SEASONS, otherwise there would be no WP:SEASONS. This how it breaks down (based on wp:seasons):
(A) "For college sports teams weigh both the season itself and the sport" - it is impossible to weigh the season because the season is not yet underway, and no commensurate significant coverage has occurred.

(1) "A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable" - except the championship season or any other kind of season hasn't begun - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL.

(3) "A season including a post-season appearance or a high final ranking in the top collegiate level is often notable" except again there can't be a post season without a regular season first, and we don't know how things will turn out this year.

(4) This program might be considered elite being in the top tier - but the season still has to be covered in reliable sources, which it isn't.
(5) Lastly, "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one !voter has cited SEASONS in favor of keeping, but that same person also cited GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You keep truncating the guideline to elminate this wording: "* For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g. Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline)." the UConn men's team is a top 10-15 program all-time and gets just about year-round media coverage due to he high interest level around the program. All of their seasons will be notable due to this, regardless of finish. With respect to the 2016–17 season specifically, I have demonstrated that on-going coverage as of August, 2016 is focused on the coming season and it already meets GNG. This is the nature of the top programs, which UConn certainly is. I am still researching the other programs you put up for AfD because I don't necessarily disagree with the premise that not all NCAA D1 program seasons are notable, but you happened to pick an elite program with this entry. It was about a 5 minute Google search to establish that the upcoming season is already notable. Rikster2 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not truncating the guideline - if you look you will see #4 discusses an "elite" program, and the season must still be independently (and significantly) covered in reliable sources, according to WP:SEASONS. And saying "they might be notable" is similar to fortelling the future, which wp:seasons does not support - because the season must still be independently covered in reliable sources - which is not possible - because a season does not exist yet. So, in fact, this article is about a place, time, and whatever else that doesn't exist.

I agree that Level 1 UConn teams probably gets year round coverage - and that is about the teams - but this is about the 2016-17 season - which is a different topic and which is not currently happening. I don't see any demonstration of GNG with one article specifically covering the topic. In other areas of Wikipedia, such an article would not survive. I am sorry to say, then please produce your sources that you discovered on Google that demonstrate this article about the 2016-17 season is notable. This is not the same as the team - that is a different topic - and notability is not inherited. I don't think conflation works on Wikipedia. If a season article exists, then there should be sources that support the season. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already produced five articles discussing the upcoming season for the program and have explained how they are discussing the upcoming season, which the article is about. You have said that those don't discuss the upcoming season, but in my opinion you are mistaken. But if you like, here and here are a couple more. There is more than enough to prove notability for Wikipedia articles. And always has been. You have not proven your case, man. Rikster2 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, the topic you've sourced is more like "Preseason coverage for the 2016-17 UConn Huskies", and even if you claim that it meets WP:GNG, WP:Notability has a higher standard for such cases, called WP:SUSTAINED, which is related to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Unscintillating (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preseason coverage is coverage about the 2016–17 season. The article is about the upcoming season. Full articles about how various players and circumstances are expected to impact the upcoming season shows there is interest well before the season's opening. If you want to talk sustained coverage, the coverage about the 2016–17 season basically started before the last season ended (example). And since we know UConn is a top program and that WP:NSEASONS allows that some programs are such that every season will meet notability standards, we know that A) the season will happen, and B) there will be significant coverage all year. But there is already enough coverage for the article to exist. Rikster2 (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even before I analyzed the above sources, I had to agree that pre-season coverage is coverage - and what I was looking for. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you now think that this article should be kept, then you may want to withdraw your nomination. Rikster2 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate This is too soon for an article on this topic, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Based on the schedule in the draft, there is no season to report until 31 October 2016. Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate on why it is too soon? I'm sure you are not also proposing that United States presidential election, 2016 be incubated until November 8.—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything a reader in the year 2026 would want from the current article? I don't see any such thing. The article is a framework and a work in progress. Comparing this with the 2016 presidential election is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, although if you want my views they have been posted elsewhere. Unscintillating (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, yes, in 2026 readers will still go to this article to see who was on the team, just as they do today with 2005–06 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team. I am not saying the article is fabulous as is, but even the information in it as I type this will be referred to for years to come. Rikster2 (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true, why does the Roster say "Roster", and not "The 5/28/16 Roster"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is information that is intended to be trashed. Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't intended to be trashed, the 5/28 date is the meant to show the last update as numbers, heights and weights may change at various points (as well as added or removed players). It is the same form you will find at 2012–13 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team. It is possible that the roster was adapted by cutting, pasting and updated from the previous season but that the person didn't change the update date. Rikster2 (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if players may be added and removed, there will remain no record of the Roster as of 28 May 2016, in 2026. Who is the intended audience of this article with an unsourced roster dated 5/28/16? Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's uncommon for players to shift, but it happens. The last roster update was a recent number change which is coved in one of the sources I have already linked in this AfD. The article is getting 60+ views a day so there is interest in the subject. What people in 10 years will look at that is already there is the roster, which will be pretty close to what is there today. I just don't find your argument that nothing on the article today will be referenced 10 years from now. Information still changes on historical figures from 100 years ago when new info comes up but that doesn't make the previous versions any less valid. That the article unsourced is a separate point, I don't think anyone has argued it is a well-sourced article, but that's pretty easily fixable. Rikster2 (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to quickly find sourcing for the roster in the sources you have provided. What sbnation says on 14 July 2016 is, "it's still too early to start any serious previewing of the 2016-17 campaign." So is this article for "non-serious" previewing? You seem to continue to view the roster as of 28 May 2016 as something of enduring interest, but I think it is intended by editors to be trash as soon as anything changes in that roster, and IMO the only way to ensure that the roster is correct as of 30 October 2016 is to not publish the article until 31 October 2016. Unscintillating (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Conenssus absolutely is that NCAA Division I basketball seasons are notable, per Prior AfD precedent. As I said, it seems the nominator doesn't like taht precedent and is trying to prove a point. Don't. Smartyllama (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your point? That it is ok to use mainspace for draft articles? Why not use draftspace for draft articles? Do you think readers are impressed by the quality of workmanship they see here? Unscintillating (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD does not speak for consensus at this AfD. I don't know where that information comes from. Prior AfDs do not form policies and guidelines, nor are these effected by an AfD. Local discussions do not count as Wikipedia-wide consensus. Discussions that are Wikipedia-wide can change policies and guidelines. An AfD with only seven participants who are of similar mindsets regarding the creation of college basketball seasons articles - before the season begins - will not change Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time I am being accused (by User:Smartyllama) of unsavory behavior as if I am editing or acting in a manner that is somehow pointy. I do not appreciate this, because this is a serious accusation. The first time you brought this up in several current and ongoing AfDs I ignored it. And, there is no way you can attribute motives to me that I don't have and have never exhibited during my seven years of editing on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with my editing behavior then take it to WP:ANI. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not appreciate being baited by telling me "Don't". This is inappropriate. Please continue the AfD discussion with normal indentations. I indented like this so it can appear as a side note (actually unrelated to this AfD). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I am getting from these conversations, the concern is not that these pages will not become notable, but whether they are currently notable before the season starts. I would argue that they are notable because there are hundreads of reliable sources with pre-season information (ESPN, Yahoo, NBC, FOX), including the release of the official roster. More of those sources could be added to the articles for additional verification. WP:FUTURE #1 says that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.", which they are, and "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." which can be verified by number of reliable sources. I have personally been involved in discussions about this numerous times a year for many years and it has always stemmed from the ambiguity in WP:NSEASONS, which I think should be updated to specify what they mean by an elite team (D1 MBB, D1 WBB, D1 football, other D1 sports that are broadcast nationally, etc.) and specify that articles can be created during the pre-season as long as they are appropriately sourced for said elite teams. If this is not done I am afraid that quality could be lost if all 351 articles need to be created during the season. Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball has been working non-stop on the 2016-17 article campaign since April and it is still not done for the 2016-17 season which starts in just two months. Starting in November, I think would greatly sacrifice the quality of articles, and there is no reason to when the majority of the information in the article is known beforehand and can be written in accordance with WP:FUTURE #1. Those are just my thoughts on the subject. Mjs32193 (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is going to exist in a few months either way. What good will be accomplished if we delete it now? Lepricavark (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This challenge is a ludicrous waste of time — the current year is here, the current season is approaching, if people want to start getting these inevitable articles rolling now, more power to them. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since I see no reason to continue this ridiculous exercise. Out of all the teams, powers like UConn can get a sourced article several months in advance. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:47, 12 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 SMU Mustangs men's basketball team[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NSEASONS - Substantial independent coverage in sources is lacking - the school and team website are not independent and do not qualify as secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL; a championship season or a post season is an unknown; so this is probably WP:TOOSOON. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is that Division I college basketball seasons are notable, and I feel this is a WP:POINT-y nomination by someone who doesn't like that consensus. Enough with these. Smartyllama (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment consensus has not determined that Div 1 basketball seasons are notable - before satisfactory coverage in independent sources satisfy WP:SEASONS, otherwise there would be no WP:SEASONS. This how it breaks down (based on wp:seasons):
(A) "For college sports teams weigh both the season itself and the sport" - it is impossible to weigh the season because the season is not yet underway, and no commensurate significant coverage has occurred.

(1) "A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable" - except the championship season or any other kind of season hasn't begun - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL.

(3) "A season including a post-season appearance or a high final ranking in the top collegiate level is often notable" except again there can't be a post season without a regular season first, and we don't know how things will turn out this year.

(4) This program might be considered elite being in the top tier - but the season still has to be covered in reliable sources, which it isn't.

(5) Lastly, "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Conenssus absolutely is that NCAA Division I basketball seasons are notable, per Prior AfD precedent. As I said, it seems the nominator doesn't like taht precedent and is trying to prove a point. Don't. Smartyllama (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time I am being accused of unsavory behavior as if I editing or acting in a manner that is somehow pointy. I do not appreciate this, because this is a serious accusation. The first time you brought this up in several current and ongoing AfDs I ignored it. And, there is no way you can attribute motives to me that I don't have and have never exhibited during my seven years of editing on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with my editing behavior then take it to WP:ANI. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not appreciate being bated by telling me "Don't". This is inappropriate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That AfD does not speak for consensus at this AfD. I don't know where that information comes from. Prior AfDs do not form policies and guidelines, nor are these effected by an AfD. Local discussions do not count as Wikipedia-wide consensus. Discussions that are Wikipedia-wide can change policies and guidelines. An AfD with only seven participants who are of similar mindsets regarding the creation of college basketball seasons articles - before the season begins - will not change Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion would be pointless. Lepricavark (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lepricavark and prior AfD precedent. I also agree with this excellent comment in a similar AfD discussion as to the practical logistics of deleting and recreating this entire series of articles (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY ought to come into play here). Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:54, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Cincinnati Bearcats men's basketball team[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NSEASONS - Substantial independent coverage in sources is lacking - the team website, school website, and Google Docs are not independent and none of these substantially covers the subject. Unfortunately, the mega-schedule is routine. Other sources appear to be paragraph size announcements in media sports sections. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL; a championship season or a post season is an unknown. This is probably WP:TOOSOON. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is that Division I college basketball seasons are notable. We've been through this before. Must we do this every year? Smartyllama (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Season hasn't started yet, practies don't start until October more info will come in the coming months, don't see other school pages being targeted yet that just have roster and schedule posted. The sources I have used are good Bearcats_fan (talk) 19:07, August 5, 2016 (UTC)
Comment consensus has not determined that Div 1 basketball seasons are notable - before satisfactory coverage in independent sources satisfy WP:SEASONS, otherwise there would be no WP:SEASONS. This how it breaks down (based on wp:seasons):
(A) "For college sports teams weigh both the season itself and the sport" - it is impossible to weigh the season because the season is not yet underway, and no commensurate significant coverage has occurred.

(1) "A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable" - except the championship season or any other kind of season hasn't begun - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL.

(3) "A season including a post-season appearance or a high final ranking in the top collegiate level is often notable" except again there can't be a post season without a regular season first, and we don't know how things will turn out this year.

(4) This program might be considered elite being in the top tier - but the season still has to be covered in reliable sources, which it isn't.

(5) Lastly, "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Conenssus absolutely is that NCAA Division I basketball seasons are notable, per Prior AfD precedent. As I said, it seems the nominator doesn't like taht precedent and is trying to prove a point. Don't. Smartyllama (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time I am being accused of unsavory behavior as if I am editing or acting in a manner that is somehow pointy. I do not appreciate this, because this is a serious accusation. The first time you brought this up in several current and ongoing AfDs I ignored it. And, there is no way you can attribute motives to me that I don't have and have never exhibited during my seven years of editing on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with my editing behavior then take it to WP:ANI. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not appreciate being baited by telling me "Don't". This is inappropriate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That AfD does not speak for consensus at this AfD. I don't know where that information comes from. Prior AfDs do not form policies and guidelines, nor are these effected by an AfD. Local discussions do not count as Wikipedia-wide consensus. Discussions that are Wikipedia-wide can change policies and guidelines. An AfD with only seven participants who are of similar mindsets regarding the creation of college basketball seasons articles - before the season begins - will not change Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's tough for me to see how these AfDs really serve any purpose. Lepricavark (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lepricavark and prior AfD precedent. I also agree with this excellent comment in a similar AfD discussion as to the practical logistics of deleting and recreating this entire series of articles (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY ought to come into play here). Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This challenge is a ludicrous waste of time — the current year is here, the current season is approaching, if people want to start getting these inevitable articles rolling now, more power to them. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tucker (musician)[edit]

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

Nominating along with The Orange Lights and Jason Hart (musician). Paul is noteworthy as a member of The Lighthouse Family, but unlike his band mate Tunde Baiyewu he doesn't seem to be independently notable. Paul hasn't had significant or substantial coverage independently of that band and The Orange Lights, in my view, fail to meet WP:BAND themselves which would mean he hasn't been a member of two noteworthy bands. KaisaL (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a key member of two notable bands he satisfies WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note This can't be determined until The Orange Lights AFD is closed - if that goes to a delete your reasoning would be moot, if it is kept then yes, this would justify inclusion - no matter how bizarre I'd consider that to be. KaisaL (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And neither can your assertion that one of the bands that he was/is in is not notable. --Michig (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to band as there is no substance for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Orange Lights has been closed as a no consensus due a lack of quorum, according to the non-admin closure. I have challenged this because three deletion arguments and one keep argument would not support a close in this way, so arguments that Paul is eligible as a member of two notable bands are still disputed - only Michig has argued for the inclusion of both him and the band. Participation has been low, which is troubling because no consensus can appear to be a keep by virtue of a split opinion, which scarcely seems to be the case. KaisaL (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Orange Lights has been re-nominated for deletion. Discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Orange Lights (2nd nomination). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 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 redirect to TISM. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, Start Your Egos[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TISM, seems to be insufficient material for a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 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 keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leticia Quezada[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a person notable only as a trustee on a local school board. This is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL in and of itself; a school board member might be includable if she could be sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG (or if she went on to hold a more notable office than the school board itself), but does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing. But of the five footnotes here, there are really only two distinct citations, with the other three being mere reduplications of one of those two -- and two references is not enough to get a person over GNG if they haven't cleanly passed an SNG. (And even if this were to be kept on the basis of significantly improved referenceability, it still has campaign brochure overtones that would have to be significantly rewritten for WP:NPOV compliance.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - almost no school board members are notable, and none are automatically notable; however, as with Lewis Powell, board membership on a large or well-known school board confronting serious controversies can get national attention. This subject appears to pass the POLITICIAN test. In this case, she was the board member of a gigantically huge district that is the 2nd largest in the United States, and she got into media spotlight often. The article needs some copy editing and more reliable sources, but it's not that bad. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see Gnews results for a different Leticia Quezada, a Mexican assemblyperson? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as it's the only first Hispanic person for that particular group, simply nothing else actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School board members are not inherently notable, but they are not inherently non-notable either, especially for school districts as large as LAUSD, with bigger numbers of students than the total population of many countries. And SwisterTwister's claim that this is too low-level an ethnic first, and therefore that she is non-notable, is a non-sequiter: she doesn't have to be notable for that one thing to be notable. I just added two recent book sources to the two in-depth major newspaper articles that were already used as sources. I think the fact that she is still being cited as an example nearly 20 years after she left office is a clear indication of WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I expanded the article based on even more sources. Don't look to the new "Later work" for much additional notability (the positions listed there are much less in the spotlight than her work at LAUSD, and her losing run for congress wouldn't change the outcome for WP:NPOL) but I think it's an important chapter in her life that should be mentioned. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Another update: the New York Times story that I just added provides significant and non-local contemporary coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as meeting WP:GNG and thanks to the edits made by David Eppstein. Enos733 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expect that I would recommend deleting 99.9% of articles about school board members. This is the exception to my own personal rule. The LAUSD has nearly 700,000 students and an annual budget of about $6 billion. Quezada did not just serve as a "trustee", but as president of that massive district, second largest in the United States. The references now in the article show notability, thanks to David Eppstein. The "campaign brochure" concern seems misplaced, since her last run for public office was 24 years ago, long before Wikipedia began. A Google Books search finds that at least 15 books devote significant coverage to her. That is exceptionally rare for school board trustees. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unambiguously passes both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN (#2), per David Eppstein's sources: in-depth coverage, over a significant period of time, in major local and national news media as well as reliable history books. FourViolas (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She clearly meets the General Notability Guideline. BoyRD (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes GNG from sources already showing in the piece. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roscinda Nolasquez[edit]

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boa Sr., I don't think that being the last known speaker of a language is sufficient to pass WP:BIO. Again, it's not a "well-known and significant award or honor" and I don't think we can say that the *person* has made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" as the only mention is that she made "a serious effort" late in life which isn't that specific. Otherwise the sole reliable sources here does go into detail about her but entire notability is basically a mix of being inherited from the language's notability and her longevity alone. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum Either merge it to Cupeño language or the content contributors may decide to leave it standalone. There is nothing for AfD to consider here. Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with deletion? There's nothing more than at best a single sentence about the last known speaker and even then it's not like there's a need for a List of Cupeño language speakers article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is no other policy basis for a deletion, are you arguing for a WP:IAR deletion? We assume the good faith of our content contributors, for one, and WP:AGF is a policy. The nutshell of WP:Editing policy states, "Preserve the value that others add, even if they 'did it wrong' (try to fix it rather than delete it)." WP:DEL8 does not apply when the topic can be redirected. WP:IAR is used to improve the encyclopedia, but deletion here IMO would do damage to the encyclopedia.
Have you considered that if you think this topic is non-notable, you can merge the topic and see if anyone objects? If they object and you don't agree, you can request an RfC on the talk page of the article. RfC is specifically mentioned in WP:Deletion policy. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there be a need for a redirect? Yes, I think this topic is not notable and no why should I have to engage in a month-old RFC to see if someone else objects to whether this is a notable topic? The policy basis is that just being the last speaker isn't enough for WP:BIO and there's no indication that this person passes WP:GNG so the person doesn't pass the standards required for WP:N. How is that NOT a policy based reason for deletion? What are you arguing for? If "being the last speaker" is sufficient for WP:BIO on its own, then someone can write that into WP:BIO but otherwise how is this the wrong forum? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to insist on a WP:IAR argument for deletion, that is your choice. But any argument that there is any other way to get this topic deleted on a policy basis at AfD is IMO without merit. References to WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:GNG, are irrelevant in a deletion discussion when they don't rise to the level of WP:DEL8. If you are convinced that this topic would be deleted as a redirect, you can skip the non-policy arguments at AfD by merging the article and then taking the redirect to RfD for deletion. I am wondering what your deletion argument would be there. As for the WP:IAR argument, I have already stated that IMO such a deletion would do damage to the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you arguing about? This isn't an IAR argument, WP:DEL8 explicitly says that "this doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO, WP:N or WP:GNG" is a reason to delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are arguing that you don't have an argument at RfD for why this redirect can be deleted, and your view of WP:Deletion policy is derived by taking WP:DEL8 out of its context? Have you read WP:BEFORE A1? "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:...A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines...1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion and the various deletion processes" Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a redirect so RFD would be the wrong forum. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't make a deletion argument for RfD, you don't have a deletion argument for AfD; i.e., the correct forum is not a deletion forum. Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting merging or keeping entirely since there are no actually convincing claims of substance from her "best known as the last speaker". SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article is a mere stub currently, this particular speaker is also a published author on the language, and a long time collaborator with Jane Hill, a well-known linguist who wrote a grammar of the language. Personally, I think any person known to have been the last speaker of a language is worthy of an article, but that argument could be had elsewhere, as Nolasquez is notable for other reasons. I will add some citations to the article, hopefully my efforts won’t be in vain. babbage (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What secondary sourced evidence is there that Nolasquez is a published author? The mention is in the second citation citing the work itself which is a primary source for that point. She's not an academic from what I can tell so is her authorship related entirely to her work with the other linguists? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (change from Redirect to Cupeño language. But both articles should be expanded, as they are rather sparse. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
Keep. There is sufficient material in the references to expand thate article. A person can become notable though their specific historical situation, and just a first person to ... is accepted as notability if the first is important enough, so should we accept last .... DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment & ping @DGG:: this source states that the subject was one of the last speakers of the language: Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. On the other hand, the same source does cite a 1973 book by "Hill and Nolasquez", so she could be considered a published author? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 2 books

see Worldcat, [31]: I'i Muluwet:: first book of words in the Cupeño Indian Language of Southern California. by Roscinda Nolasquez and Anne Galloway ; edited by Susan Norwood. Pala, Calif: Alderbooks, 1975. and Mulu'wetam: the first people: ; Cupeño oral history and language. Edited by Jane H. Hill and Rosinda Nolasquez. Banning, Calif., Malki Museum Press, 1973 . I doubt they are really enough for the usual sort of notability as an author , but they should certainly be included in the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and K.e.Coffman's arguments. I also believe that we should establish a guidline that the last known speakers of a language are notable because of the attention from academia and the media they receive as well as their contributions to linguistics. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree, both with the keep argument and the proposed guideline that being the last known speaker of a language is de facto notability. DS (talk) 17:00, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Ryan (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, at this time; a lower tier player. Kierzek (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly lacks a claim to notability. Lepricavark (talk) 14:52, 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 20:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Calla[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines. Lepricavark (talk) 19:41, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John de Gray (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate coverage. Lepricavark (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His hockey career falls just short of meeting the guideline for hockey players, and he doesn't meet the General Notability Guideline. BoyRD (talk) 04:50, 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. czar 09:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hillier[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and yet another non-notable hockey player born in 1988.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject lacks sufficient coverage. Lepricavark (talk) 19:47, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Armstrong (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage appears to be WP:Routine. Lepricavark (talk) 19:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pasilalinic-sympathetic compass[edit]

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

Many unsourced paragraphs, relevance not established. The apparatus appears to have been invented more than 150 years ago and, according to the article, quickly abandoned after it became clear that it did not work. Coverage only includes one article in "The Sceptic", another source that apparently has been takes down now, and an 1889 book. Laber□^T 03:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but consider moving to more common term "snail telegraph" that currently redirects there). I don't think there's any question that it didn't work, but it has received intermittent significant coverage in the years since, in books [32] [33] [34] [35], academic journals [36] [37] and magazines [38]. Qwfp (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious -- "Historic Oddities and Strange Events " is apparently one of the sources. Does that not sum it up? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For German-speaking editors, I've also nominated the German version of this article (which was initially translated from the English one) for deletion, read the discussion here.

delete, incorporate into the Jules Allix article. It will not be a loss for Wikipedia, if the article will be deleted. It is even not wikilinked from Telepathy article (because it is probably worthless to add such information to the article). It is currently wikilinked as a text from Jules Allix only. It should be added as a section in the Jules Allix article as it is on the French wikipedia. --Snek01 (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because it's an old article with few references doesn't mean that it should go - things were different when this was written NINE years ago. We don't have limited space, it's notable enough to feature in several books and magazines. Fix it (or tag it as needed) rather than delete it. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I think this article is unfixable. If I would delete all unsourced and/or dubious content, little of the article would remain (I am not comfortable doing this while an AfD is underway). --Laber□^T 13:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Laber□^T 14:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Laber□^T 14:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD at the German Wikipedia has now been closed as keep, which I appealed on the closing admins talk page. --Laber□^T 14:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (change from Redirect to Jules Allix). ~~Not notable on its own. Would also beef up the Alix article.~~ The article is well sourced at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The German admin declined to reopen the AfD discussion. --Laber□^T 05:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I would request previous commentors to reconsider their !votes in light of the changes I have made to the article. This dif shows the changes I have made today. The nominator claims the article as nominated had "many unsourced paragraphs", but not counting the lede, there were no unsourced paragraphs. That said, the sourcing in the article as nominated needed improvement. The article as nominated cited 2 sources, one of which is currently a dead link. The current article cites 9. This 9 includes the original 2, plus articles from Wired and Atlas Obscura, as well as a number of older books and mentions from the late 1800s and early 1900s. With the exception of the Atlas Obscura article I tried to avoid things written more recently than 2006 because I wanted to avoid circular referencing issues. The current article includes a brief section on the influence this event had on the Paris Commune and a modern Japanese manga storyline. There is an additional magazine article that I would like to look at and possibly include, but it's paid and I don't feel like paying for it - the reference for that is on the talk page if anyone wants to look at it. At any rate, I feel the current iteration of the article is an improvement over what was nominated for deletion, and adequately demonstrates compliance with verifiabilty and notability. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:13, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viddedit[edit]

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

Non-notable web-service, Google found no in-depth coverage. Current sources fail to establish notability: #1 and #5 listings, #2 and #3 general articles about video editing, no mention of Viddedit, #4 user-written general article (user viddedit's only post), no mention of Viddedit, #6 self-published "About" information. Article was created by a now-blocked member of a larger sock-farm. GermanJoe (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable web related service. Trivial information piece at this point in time. Kierzek (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly sourced article and my searches are identifying no non-primary sources that could indicate notability of the company or its service. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertorial on an unremarkable company. Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:15, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Care and Share[edit]

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

Local food bank with local press coverage. Nothing I could find would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:GNG overall. CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable for stand alone article. A local interest story at best; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable local food back. Sources insufficient to meet NORG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 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 redirect to Virgilijus Noreika. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Virgilijus Noreika Competition for Singers[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. No independent third party sources given and none available by search. Prod contested by author. shoy (reactions) 14:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Virgilijus Noreika after whom the competition is named, and where it can be mentioned. No wonder no good references exist now, first edition of the competition is in 2017. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Podriabinkina-Kalytiene (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)I have included a competition link to Virgilijus Noreika page, it should not be considered as an orphan anymore?Thank you, Sam Sailor[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. czar 09:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhullar[edit]

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

Unreferenced; appears to not pass WP:GNG Brianga (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added some references and more can be found here hope it help to support GNG. GSS (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator, clearly fails WP:GNG. Most of there articles regarding the Jat clans those have been created as a directory have been PRODed and were successfully deleted in the recent past. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 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 redirect to Polar Bear (American band) . Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chewing Gum (EP)[edit]

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

Unreferenced track list. no suggestion of notability Rathfelder (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for editors looking for sources, the band's name was usually written as one word, Polarbear, not Polar Bear... the biography article Polar Bear (American band) itself seems unsure as to which spelling to use. Neither this nor the articles related to their two EPs and sole album are sourced. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Polar Bear (American band) -- a non notable album on its own. The band article may also stand to undergo an AfD but seems like a good enough target for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I attempted to find sources for PolarBear / Polar Bear, and that one of the few mentions that I found: ""Avery returned to music with his short-lived side-project (Polar Bear), but when he couldn't secure a label deal for Polar Bear, he lost his "momentum" and completely turned his back on music, he said." So it pretty clear that an album by Polar Bear would be highly non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 12 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. czar 09:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyeka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All the sources given are either press releases, blog posts, directory listings, or not about the company at all. Prod contested by author. shoy (reactions) 12:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I removed some promotional hype and added data with solid references, which I found with no problem at all. There is plenty more that can be added to improve the article. Water technology is a a global issue and information about new technologies should be on Wikipedia. So I see no valid grounds for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a typical advertorial on an unremarkable company ("Awards and Recognition", etc etc). Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Keep as above. My position has not changed on this. I added information and sources, and believe that the article is worthy.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)~~ - Duplicate !vote[reply]

Comment -- all the coverage I see is either about the partnerships, awards or exhibitions, which suggest that the company is not yet notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:43, 12 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. czar 16:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Williams (actor)[edit]

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

British actor with a career full of unimpressive roles, and a comedian who is apparently "award winning", but it is unclear what award he has won. The independent sources cited mention him only in passing (if at all; one fails verification completely). No evidence that this person meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working President[edit]

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

Unsourced since 11 years and doesn't seem much a notable post either. Nor does it seem different from President of the Indian National Congress as of now. I considered boldly redirecting. But such a generic title would be wrongly redirected there. Hence proposing deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 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. Unopposed. Sandstein 13:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of This Morning presenters and reporters[edit]

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

I suggest this article 'be merged into This Morning (TV programme)#Presenters because this article is already in prose form there. The only people who edit this page are the I.P.s and they seem to not be able to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. There is no sense in having this article when it's already in a different style format at the parent article. Corkythehornetfan 08:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If done, there it probably be protected so that the IPs can't recreate it/revert the merge. Corkythehornetfan 08:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like a merge proposal, why not follow WP:Merging instead of listing at AfD?: Noyster (talk), 12:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Noyster: I've tried merging before, but it doesn't work. This is why I nominated if for deletion. All of what is in this article is in prose form in the other article. It's either delete (which is what I'd like to see happen), or protect the page from I.P.s... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't checked page history, but nor did the nomination make the position clear. The redirection was announced on the article talk page and no-one stepped up to object or discuss, they just kept on reverting the redirect - so support delete: Noyster (talk), 09:13, 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. consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Hiking Team[edit]

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

Non-notable trekking company. Google search revealed no additional independent coverage. Current sources are: #1, #2 passing mention; #3 reader-based ratings or reviews don't establish notability ; #4, #5 self-written post and company description, readers' reviews; #6 neither "Thapa" nor "2009" are mentioned in this reference, only a link under "Sitografia"; #7 Crunchbase listing. None of these sources is "independent" and "in-depth" about the topic itself. GermanJoe (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: I cleaned up the article a bit pre-nomination (promotional content). The article creator is a now-blocked part of a larger socking incident. GermanJoe (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by all means nothing at all close to convincing substance, and I frankly would've PRODed, but at least we have G4 for the future. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Notable per coverage. JessikaRita (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This reference (http://travelboatinglifestyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Silkwinds-Mar16-Nepal.pdf) is the only one in the article that confirms Ganga and Balaram Thapa as founders, though it gives the date as 2007. Still, it is only one reference.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable "business"; not enough for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references and searches verify that this is a firm going about its business, but I see no substantial coverage that could demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH for notability. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of mentions on travel sites & travel guides. Nothing in-depth from independent reliable sources. Gab4gab (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertorial on an unremarkable firm. Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Charles Boldt, Jr.[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Boldt Inherited money but other than that, the article doesn't assert notability. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obituary in the NYT so he passes WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – president of Waldorf–Astoria, with photo in the LoC, seems like GNG enough. Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "Obituary in the NYT so he passes WP:GNG.", huh? just had a look at wpgng, can't see where an obit in the new york times is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".(my emphasis) for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fannie Pennington is an afd where a nyt obit (plus it had some other refs.) was not enough for the original article to be kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The NYT times obit is a good reason to presume notability. While it is true that, as Collabahapple says, the GNG requires multiple sources, if there was a NYT obit there are probably only sources out there, even if they have not been digitized. Also, I don't see any mention of a NYT obit in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fannie Pennington.--Cerebellum (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the sources appear to be out there to establish notability. For example, a contemporary (1916) source calls the subject "America's most famous hotel man". Here's a substantial write up: 1917 Year Book. More in Bain's New York. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 12 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arisha Razi[edit]

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

No apparent credible assertion of WP:NOTABILITY to satisfy WP:BIO. Article has been deleted previously under A3 and PROD critera, and as last deleted under G5 (creation by blocked/banned user), so I think that WP:SALT should be entertained here if it gets deleted. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added new references from credible sources like The Express Tribune, Aaj News TV, Pakistan Herald and Rotten Tomatoes. These references must be checked before final decision. I can provide more. Arisha Razi article is linked with 15 Wikipedia articles Sneha Hurrain (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above comment plus good idea to check pageviews -- 200+ per day usually a sign that a person is notable (eyeballs correlate with notability). Source here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:49, 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. Sandstein 08:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geomajas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Years after the prior AFD, it seems like it's still the same problems, there's still no independent reliable sources that would evidence notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- self-cited advertorial. Insufficient sources to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Open Source Geospatial Foundation. I could not find sufficient reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:29, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go Goodwins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable bus company again Fails GNG, (I had tagged it under G4 assuming it was created recently however after being rollbacked I've realized it was created back in April), Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 12:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also there was a first AFD however that for some reason deleted hence it not being above, cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 12:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've moved the 2nd AFD to 1st and this nom to 2nd as the 2nd nom should've technically been the first anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by all means simply a local transportation company, I'm honestly not finding anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep small article, well cited in both local and industry press. Cygnes64 (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually convincing for convincing substance, however. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertorial on an unremarkable company. Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable local outfit. Fails WP:CORP.Charles (talk) 08:30, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:38, 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. Sandstein 07:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uknowva[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB as written. No third-party reliable sources. PROD contested by author so here we are. shoy (reactions) 14:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing significant coverage; fails WP:WEBCRIT / WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shoy. We have added all the external sources that we have currently and since it is a growing product in popularity we don't have many sources yet. However, the sources that we have provided, I assure you, are completely legit and properly sanctioned. I'd prefer you do not delete the page, but if you ave to and before you do, I'd appreciate it if you could tell me how we can prevent the page from getting deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojamenon27 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references are predominantly primary, with just some start-up product coverage from 3rd parties. My searches are finding nothing better than the usual listings, so failing WP:CORPDEPTH. (Regarding the above comments claiming growing product sales and use, it is worth noting WP:CRYSTAL, and there is probably a WP:COI that requires to be declared on the article.) AllyD (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- self-cited promotional material. Not notable yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I trimmed the article a bit of "product brochure" and self-cited and / or trivial details, and there's just nothing there. I cannot find any sources at all. No sources have been presented during the AfD process. This may be WP:A7 territory. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Rescue Education[edit]

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

Nonnotable bsiness Staszek Lem (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I frankly am not finding anything better and there's nothing else minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advert on a non notable business. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not notable, would describe writing style as advertorial. User:Kowal kowal's contribution history also has me questioning the user's WP:POV and WP:PAID, as most of the things they edit seem to be directly related to a group of companies. Nicnote (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto Zakłady Azotowe Puławy. I also agree with Nicnote that we have a likely COI here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the topic is not even merge-worthy, or at the very least it would be a one or two line merge with the contents still smelling of WP:PROMOTION. It doesn't even have a page in the Polish wiki... Nicnote (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this page on the Polish Wiki was deleted via the Polish Wiki AfD seen here after the author didn't even comment on the merge proposition. Best, Nicnote (talk) 13:30, 12 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel P. Franklin[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:PROF. reddogsix (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF -- multiple books. What is lacking is the article-- he is the author of 5 significant books, the most widely in over 400 copies a/c WorldCat. I've added the others to the article. I;'vee also added some of the reviews. . This is an strong publishing record for an asociate professor; if I had not checked worldcat, I would be !voting delete. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the editor who removed the CSD:A7 template from this article as the article contained a Claim of Notability under WP:PROF - the existence of a claim (the guidance doesn't require the assessment of the strength of the claim) is all that is required to rule out a speedy deletion and my removal of the CSD template was purely to enable an assessment of the strength of the claim to take place before the article was deleted. I'm now in favour of the permanent retention of this article as there are claims for notability under both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. As stated in the comment by DGG, the article itself is very weak, requiring a lot of work. I was the editor who tagged this article with Notability, Conflict of Interest and RefImprove templates but I do not consider these issues to be grounds for its deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, in my opinion you did right to remove the A7 speedy.And after you removed the speedy, a tag was placed for the different reason G11, entirely promotional , I removed that one, saying "Factual; not entirely promotional " This is the sort of article that needs discussion. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just needs proper sourcing and a rewrite for encyclopedic style, but the sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 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.