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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trausti Sigurbjörnsson[edit]

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

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Unreferenced BLP. No reliable third party sources identifiable via Google News or Google Books. Fails WP:NSPORTS#Association football (not senior-level international, or professional) While the sourcing issues have been addressed for the most part, but the notability concerns remain. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As there are no professional leagues in Iceland, the player has not played with an foreign club and has not played with the national "A team".--Snaevar (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-fails WP:GNG, not notable.--Church ^Talk 16:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. No evidence that this person has ever played in a fully-professional league. Omni Flames (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:02, 24 July 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. Going to be bold here, even though I have contributed. Subject has met the subject specific guideline since the start of the AfD. No reason to keep this open for bureaucratic reasons as deletion rationale would no longer be appropriate were the article nominated today. Fenix down (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anid Travančić[edit]

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

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - now meets WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note- FK Novi Pazar is going to play their first match of 2016-17 season in two days i.e. 23 July 2016. If Anid Travančić plays in that match then he will become notable as per WP:NFOOTY because Serbian SuperLiga is a fully professional league. [1], [2] These references indicate that he is definitely a part of Novi Pazar's roster. Hitro talk 16:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do come back here and post if he does, I'll be happy to change my vote. Fenix down (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The game was postponed so he didn't play and therefore still fails WP:NFOOTY. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Match has been postponed till 30 July 2016 due to severe flooding in Novi Pazar, Serbia, however the league has started in other part of country. If consensus is reached to delete the article then I will recommend this article to be userified so that the original creator may get another chance to recreate it later (ofcourse if subject passes on WP:NFOOTY). Hitro talk 09:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the notability requirements of footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Query. Is Serbian SuperLiga fully professional or not? Bearian (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fully professional as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Men.27s_leagues. Hitro talk 22:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is fully Professional but he has not yet made his debut for Novi Pazar in the Serbian SuperLiga .Last game against Vojvodina was postponed but may play today's game against Javor Ivanjica.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY has made his debut in Serbian SuperLiga a WP:FPL as per this and this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not sure the point of nominating player who is on verge of professional debut. Waste of everyone's time. Especially now he has had professional start. Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - He just made a debut in the Serbiian SuperLiga thus passing notability. AT time this nomination was made he didnt played yet in any professional league, now he did! FkpCascais (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to have qualified for inclusion since the original nomination (the goalposts haven't moved but he now fits between them) - Arjayay (talk) 06:30, 1 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falgun Rathod[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Sources are weaker than they first appear:

• The Hacker News doesn't appear reliable. (Not to be confused with Hacker News, although The Hacker News's favicon is obviously derivative, which is... sketchy.)
• Silicon India also doesn't appear reliable, and the mention is just a listicle.
• Pentest looks borderline to me, and may accept user submitted content. Regardless, the specific claim that he was the first Indian on the cover couldn't be verified.
• The India Today source is reliable, but it provides no specific information about Rathod at all. It lists him as one of several "famous personalities" in a profile of ethical hacking as an "offbeat career".

Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I had actually speedied this in April but it was removed with absolutely no explanations which is typical; examining this simply found nothing convincingly better at all. I frankly would've even PRODed sooner myself but I was not interested if it was simply going to be removed also....at least we have G4 now for the future. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I went with the AFD. From the editing history it seemed like a prod was just delaying the inevitable. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable hacker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW - there is not even an allegation of notability ("known"?!), much less real evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 28 July 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 Kick (association football). (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 13:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volley (football)[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:MANUAL or WP:GUIDE. All this article does is act as both. Prisencolin (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just leaving this here. Vítor (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, bicycle kicks are quite a bit more famous than the volley.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft... Push and run, Kick (association football)... Category:Association football tactics and skills. Vítor (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - to Kick (association football), no need for a fork. Fenix down (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Kick (association football). This is a WP:CFORK. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as above. GiantSnowman 07:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:A7 and WP:G11 by Ohnoitsjamie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Soft[edit]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock User:Davewhelan Theroadislong (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' as regardless of who started this article, examining this has still found nothing minimally convincing at all to suggest this would've even been convincingly notable to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 21 July 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 by BethNaught. Salted by Mkdw. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bidsketch[edit]

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

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

article created by blocked sock User:Cong.thang44 Theroadislong (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and this is nearly tickles at being speedy material, but not quite enough to tag; regardless, examining this still has found nothing at all close to convincing independent notability, nothing at all convincing frankly. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 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. promotional article , by soock, probable paid editing in violation of the trems of use DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Webgility[edit]

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

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

Non notable and created by blocked sock User:User:Davewhelan Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as all of this is simply showing it's a local company with some happenstance coverage, examining this still found nothing confidently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 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 deleted by BethNaught. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 14:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ossic[edit]

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

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

article created by blocked sock User:Saraerani Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' and I frankly consider this speedy material as nothing here is at all close to being convincing and it's not surprising the article focuses with simply its funding, none of which would be convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Zlatan Ibrahimović. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 13:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Views of Zlatan Ibrahimović[edit]

Religious Views of Zlatan Ibrahimović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't think it is of encyclopedic interest to know a footballer's religious views. Its content could be integrated into the main article. What's next, an article about Arjen Robben's favourite food? OscarL 21:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a tiny bit of information to Zlatan Ibrahimović. Too much speculative or irrelevant material. The detail is really excessive, but I have nothing against a brief mention of his body art in the "personal life" section. So we could reduce that to a sentence and merge. GAB^gab 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of our personal opinions, the fact is that Ibrahimović's religious views are obviously deemed enough of a matter of public interest for CNN to ask him about them. The phrase "Ibrahimović religion" averages 1,900 searches every single month in Google (by contrast, "Robben favourite food" averages zero). Additionally, as he winds down his career, the non-footballing aspects of his life are only going to become more prominent.Montedia (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ibrahimovic is among the most notable footballers of the past two decades so the off-shoot articles seem worthwhile. Doubly so since I sem to recall his religion being discussed quite a few times. 88.104.38.32 (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any pertinent information to Zlatan Ibrahimović. The rest is either speculative or merely unencyclopedic. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as an appropriate and DUE amount about his religious affiliations is already included in the main article. Jclemens (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any valid content properly sourced and then delete. GiantSnowman 06:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the properly sourced facts, and get rid of the rest - most of this article is WP:OR. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Ilikeeatingwaffles.--89.180.159.93 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Octet Ensemble[edit]

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

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

NN musical group. No assertion of notability, only released one album. The album may be notable, but it doesn't appear that way at present. MSJapan (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I myself have simply found nothing actually better, the article basically says it all too; nothing at all close to minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG .Now only one debut album Scatter My Ashes has been released by William Susman in 2011.It is case of WP:TOOSOON at best.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another of the plants in the WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Fails GNG and NMUSIC. One album is not sufficient and there is no coverage anyway. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:42, 28 July 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 to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Susman[edit]

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

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

A longtime composer, but cannot find independent sources to meet WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSIC. There's no notable composition, he doesn't write for theatre, and he doesn't meet any of the other four criteria either, nor is there any basis to claim the "Other" five are met either. On the WP:NMUSIC front, he releases everything on his own indie label, so there's no separability there. I can't source his airplay on radio to any more than the single programs listed. The majority of the references that were cited were namedrops or didn't actually mention Susman at all. The awards he received I can't find information for, so there's no way to determine if even the ASCAP awards mean anything. MSJapan (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in addition, the article seems to be copied word by word from his website, copyright violation. If not deleted, it needs a rewrite. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Francesco Di Fiore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (an article on one of the other composers for the Belarca label) was deleted for copyvio reasons in 2006 – don't see why it should take ten years more for this article that afaics primarily tries to misuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, - assuming he is notable (AllMusic, Naxos, links in our film articles, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), I cut a lot of the flowery language, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete – neither William Susman, nor his Belarca label, nor any of the artists performing for that label can be found on the www.naxos.com webite (Naxos does list recordings of labels such as Capriccio which they distribute). All five Belarca CDs are distributed through NaxosDirect (naxosdirect.com/labels/belarca-4365), which is an online shop. As far as WP:GNG goes that is as trivial as being available on Amazon... There simply aren't enough independent non-trivial reliable sources for this composer. His name is mentioned in the Native New Yorker (film) article, and that's about as far as Wikipedia can go imho. ASCAP also is as trivial as trivial goes if no independent reliable description (as opposed to mere mentioning) can be found that describes this as meaningful for this artist. I tried hard to find out whether it would be possible to keep Belarca Records (currently a redirect to the William Susman article) as an article that would group the information on this composer and the related (groups of) artists and recordings with AfD notices, but it simply doesn't seem feasible under Wikipedia's current notability standards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Keep" per Voceditenore below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete being listed at AllMusic and ASCAP databases does not confer WP:N or pass WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. We need biographical depictions from WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems that notability has been properly established below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Plan (without changing my !vote above for the time being)

Originally I had said, at the William Susman AfD, that I didn't think Belarca Records would be viable as stand-alone article, however, this may be sufficient independent reliable sources on their CDs for such article:

• at www.textura.org: discussion of the Tazawa CD
• at www.acousticmusic.com/fame/: discussion of the Scatter my Ashes CD – discussion of the Music for Moving Pictures CD

So the article could be somewhat like this: its lead section about the label's founder and the Naxos distribution;

• First section about artists and ensembles: current AfD articles that may redirect to this section:
  • William Susman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Susman as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
  • Octet Ensemble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octet Ensemble as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
  • Erika Tazawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Tazawa as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
  • Matteo Sommacal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matteo Sommacal as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
  • Piccola Accademia degli Specchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piccola Accademia degli Specchi as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep

Also the formerly deleted Francesco Di Fiore may redirect here

• Second section about the label's releases. Current AfDs that may redirect here:
  • Fate of the Lhapa (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fate of the Lhapa (soundtrack) as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
  • Oil on Ice (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil on Ice (soundtrack) as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep

Other titles can be made into redirects to this section too.

(sorry for the unusual presentation of this plan: I created this reply on a separate page in my userspace in order to post it as a now substituted template on several AfDs concurrently) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with this, if I have understood you correctly, is that Belarca Records is not a notable label and currently redirects to William Susman, who at least has a marginal notability. It is basically no different than a self-published book. It has very few recordings, and all of them including or devoted to Susman's work. And note that it is marketed through Naxos Direct, which, as has been pointed out. is no different to Amazon or CDBaby. It is not a sub-label of Naxos Records. Finally, small labels like this draw their notability from the notability of the artists and ensembles who record for them. If none of them are independently notable, then neither is the label. In my view, this is not helpful. The decision should be made on each of the artist/ensemble articles separately. This kind of transclusion of a sub-discussion also causes a potential mess in AfDs. Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll "subst:" the template content to the AfD pages in order to avoid creating AfD confusion. Can we keep the centralised discussion on this idea at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Susman#William Susman then (no need to do the same discussion over in the different places)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should still not be an editable subsection, in my view, but I agree that keeping the discussion in one place is a good idea, although I really think this proposal to redirect all the articles to a non-notable record label is very misguided. Voceditenore (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it a non-redirect Belarca Records would need to pass WP:GNG and/or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There's nothing misguided about trying to find out whether that would be possible. "If none of [the artists] are independently notable, then neither is the label" seems far more misguided, and not a notability standard as applied anywhere on Wikipedia. Belarca Records passes WP:GNG or it doesn't. Whether the required multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources are on its founder, its artists, its releases, or whatever else that highlights the company, does not make a difference. Compare List of cantatas by Christoph Graupner: maybe none of the cantatas listed there would pass WP:GNG for a separate article, but that doesn't prevent Wikipedia from having an article that treats a group of topics with possibly insufficient "notability" in their own right. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

I agree but think I found enough independent mentioning of the composer, now assembled in External links, to also keep him.

• Susman Music - Official Website including audio files and scores
• Music for Moving Pictures A review written for the Folk & Acoustic Music Exchange by Mark S. Tucker
• William Susman Fromm Music Foundation, Commission 1986
• National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. to Screen Award-Winning Film Native New Yorker :mckenzienewsservice.com
• Contemporary Directions Ensemble Short biography, University of Michigan School of Music 1987
• First Dissertation Recital Short biography, University of Michigan School of Music 9 July 1987
• Native New Yorker 8th United Nations Associations Film Festival (UNAFF) 2005
• Sound of Silent Film: NYC acmusic.org
• In Conversation With William Susman Interview in The Voice Magazine, 2014

There's a decent bio from 1987, and his name comes up at recent film festivals. Some of them could become references. If he is not "notable", something is wrong with our criteria. - I heard his name yesterday for the first time, so feel without conflict of interest. I tried to make the article more concise and neutral, - help wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the above are mainly "trivial"-type links (trivial in the WP:GNG meaning of not giving substantial independent coverage, e.g. the Fromm link is a mere listing void of prose text, interviews don't add up to WP:GNG, others, like the short bio, don't seem independent of the (education) institutions with which the composer has a connection,...) – The CD reviews are most tangible as independent reliable souces, if they pass a minimum standard of professionality (which needs to be looked in to) – as these reviews are not independent of each other in William Susman's case (all on the same website, www.acousticmusic.com) they leave too little ground for an independent article. So I think the "Belarca Records" article solution best to get started with, with all the others as redirects. This also avoids deletion of article history, making it possible to revive independent articles once they would get enough body in sources that add up in the WP:GNG logic.

For clarity: most of the above links can't be kept in the "External links" section of this article anyhow, per WP:EL. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted this. Please don't add editable subsections to AfD discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I substituted the content of User talk:Francis Schonken/Belarca above in order not to confuse discussions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt has two contributions to this debate starting with a bolded !vote-word, can this be reformatted without giving the illusion of a double !vote? Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Gerda, I am not impressed with the current external links. 1. is the subject's own website. 2. Is a self-published website with reader contributed reviews. 3. simply attests to a commission from the Fromm Foundation. 4. is a paid press-release which states quite clearly at the top "McKenzie News Service can help increase attendance to your events. Details" It mentions "a breathtaking original score by William Susman" but this is not is not an independent review at all. It is an advert. 5. and 6. are duplicates of each other and are from a program at the U of M music school where the contents are supplied by the performer. It is not an independent review or evaluation of the work being performed or of the composer. 7. is a press release written by Susman for the film. 8. simply lists Susman as one of the five composers of this film's score. 9. is a brief article in a student magazine at Athabasca University. I'm holding off !voting at the moment, but as far as I can see, the only marginally notable award is the first ASCAP one, which he did win (it's for composers under 30). The second ASCAP one is basically an undergraduate grant. The films are not particularly notable. Most are very short, and the article on Native New Yorker (film) (a film lasting 13 minutes) was created by one of the editors who has created and/or extensively edited all the articles in this suite. The commission from the Fromm Foundation at Harvard is a plus. The AllMusic bio ditto. This is different from a simple listing of the CD and they're written independently. Some of Susman's music appears to have been played on two or three specialist radio stations. I can find no evidence of premieres or concerts featuring it in major venues or performed by notable ensembles/musicians, or even reviews of these premieres. This is a very niche genre so a certain amount of slack can be granted, but the question is how much. I'll see if I can find more coverage of his work and report back. Voceditenore (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This NYT review article mentions the premiere of one of his pieces by the Harrington String Quartet (it is one of the references used at it:William Susman). Doesn't help much as a GNG-grade additional source though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets COMPOSER criteria 2 multiple times if one includes movies and shorts. Won numerous musical prizes, not well-known ones, but its hard to ignore that many, including film festival awards not in his biography. Has score composer credits for eighteen films. Likely meets, or comes very close to meeting the GNG from the sources on his page.  The Steve  10:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO criterion 12. There was a two-hour program devoted to Susman and his work in 2003 on Concertzender, at the time part of the Dutch Public Broadcasting System). Note also that it is now a private station devoted to classical music and seems to regularly broadcast his work (10 times in 2016 [3]). Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 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) 17:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Voceditenore; meets MUSICBIO. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets Musicbio. He won many prizes as a composer. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: has adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 25 July 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 this discussion —SpacemanSpiff 08:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Everett Wyatt[edit]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock User:Sunilseth15 Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as both my searches and examinations are not finding anything convincingly better at all, particularly in that WorldCat and Scholar showed nothing. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 21 July 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Christina Radziwill[edit]

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

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

Anna Christina Radziwill, daughter of Caroline Lee Bouvier Radziwill, who is the sister of First Lady Jacqueline Bouvier "Jackie" Kenney Onassis, is not independently notable for her own article on Wikipedia. WP:GNG has not been met. There is no Significant coverage coverage of the subject that speaks of her directly and in detail. If you do a quick Google search, you will find that Anna Christina Radziwill is only mentioned in passing with her notable mother Caroline Bouvier Radziwill and other notable family members. She is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources, such as here. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 19:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Gryffindor (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 23:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG Coderzombie (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the Kennedy family being called "the American dynasty" they do not have any sort of positions as members of it, and JFK's wife's niece is not quite a member anyway. Nothing about her is enough to constitute notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability policy guidelines. Engleham (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly doesn't meet any notability guidelines. I'd suggest we create a Wikidata item if she links to other notable people genealogically. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:51, 29 July 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 for lack of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of the Lhapa (soundtrack)[edit]

Fate of the Lhapa (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. AllMusic is not a source for notability, and no one else has reviewed it. It has not won a major award, gotten any substantial coverage, etc., and it really doesn't need to be redirected - we don't have an article on the documentary. MSJapan (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NALBUM. Another of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN articles around Willian Susman. I don't see any good redirect target here - multiple people have worked on the album and the documentary doesn't seem to be notable. A clear delete--Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NALBUM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:45, 26 July 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in The Heart of The People[edit]

Islam in The Heart of The People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Aside from the terrible writing -- which is a fixable issue -- I can no find reliable sources indicating this film meets WP:NFILM in any way, shape or form. (Also rather surprised by the somewhat dubious claim that former Turkish minister Abdülkadir Aksu wrote the film.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete. The only hits I got with Google are ~1min youtube videos (<100 views), wikipages, facebook (with only a handful of likes) and imdb with a synopsis that looks copied straight from a wikipage (double square brackets etc). No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever, so clearly fails GNG. I would even consider WP:A11 speedy deletion. - HyperGaruda (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only 7 G-matches and, as stated above, these are eerily similar (Creator has 6 live edits and 15 deleted ones - maybe an admin could check these?) - Arjayay (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like the IMDb page was copied from the prior version the now-blocked editor has written, given that they use brackets and that it was written after the prior Wikipedia page was created. It's not a copyvio candidate, although it is decidedly non-notable. This looks to be the latest attempt by the editor to add himself (four prior attempts) and his film (one prior attempt) to Wikipedia, so I've given him an indef for self-promotion and disruptive editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I PRODed it initially but the author removed it. There is nothing to suggest that the topic is notable enough. Also, I could not find any good sources for it. Fails NFILM. Yash! 23:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would have speedied this. I thrice deleted and salted Bilal Akbulut's article about himself, and I've now blocked User:Tobey Espinosa as a sock of that account, previously blocked by Tokyogirl79 (Tobey is his character in the film) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to go ahead and close this one a few days early (as I didn't give any actual argument either way). The consensus here seems to be quite clear at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 25 July 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. Opinions are split between either keep or merge/redirect. While several opinions are quite weak, there are valid arguments on both sides, and whether somebody transcends BLP1E is a matter of editorial judgment. The article therefore stays by default ... for now.  Sandstein  16:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith McIver[edit]

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

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

Reason GoldenSHK (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Seems like this lady is an unknown ghost writer (by definition they're not supposed to be known anyway) and she happens to be trending right now due to Melania Trump's "speechgate" controversy. What are the chances she'll do anything notable again after this week or if this trending issue really is of longstanding importance?[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 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I realize there is a possible BLP1E theory at the moment; this seems likely to be gone before the end of the AfD period.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: eight days later, I think I could support redirect to an article just on the speech controversy, but unfortunately that's been merged for the time being and is getting short shrift. I think the speech controversy is something people will want to look up in future years.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: Agreed, but I don't think editors will see value in the article unless/until it is fully expanded. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect for BLP reasons. It can always be turned back into an article later. For now, there are serious risks of this just being a coatrack of criticism. I always tend to think that people read BLP1E too strictly, since the third criterion disqualifies a lot of BLPs that might otherwise meet the criteria. However, while the third criterion may be met in the current news cycle, it's unclear if it will remain so in the future. My guess is it actually will remain notable, and as the event and McIver's role are both covered more, that third criterion will ultimately be met. But for now, I think we ought to err on the side of caution. There's a much greater risk for harm in keeping this article than in provisionally redirecting it. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect for BLP reasons. Completely agree with the above. I just didn't know that was the exact rule that I needed to reference. Thanks PinkAmpersand. 100% same thought. Should be redirected to the Melania Trump Speech Contreversy which funny enough even has a "Main article" tag on McIver's article. GoldenSHK (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy (assuming that article doesn't also get deleted) sounds like a good idea to me. Funcrunch (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as a plausible search term, but a BLP1E case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy. The most significant coverage I could find about her prior to the current event was this: [4]. While somewhat entertaining, it is not significant coverage about her, and her role in the current event is both WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT at this time. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Keep. A reliable source [5] has now connected her to two independent incidences, separated by a number of years, where she has been identified by the Trump Organization as the author of damaging mistakes. In combination with some preexisting coverage regarding her ghostwriting role on Trump's books this bio now satisfies WP:GNG and no longer fails WP:BLP1E in my estimation. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect as a low-profile one-event BLP. Gee, this one is fast even for Wikipedia. Can we confirm that this staffer is real yet? • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think full deletion should be an option. McIver's name appears on my television screen as I write this sentence. People are and will be turning to Wikipedia for information. If people are searching for her by name, they should be directed to something. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete99.244.94.62 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per WP:BLP1E, specifically #2. Likely to remain low-profile. AugustusVarius (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - especially since her existence is not proven. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there sources questioning her existence? This and this might help? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Who Is Melania Trump’s Speech Writer Meredith McIver?, Time
• Who is Meredith McIver, the person behind Melania Trump's controversial RNC speech?
• Who Is Meredith McIver? Read The Trump Speechwriter's Statement On The Melania "Plagiarism" Debacle

---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per coverage in multiple reliable sources. Seems like we should give this article some time to develop, especially since outlets are creating profiles about her as we speak. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E. The linked article above are about the plagiarism, not the individual, and other sources I've seen do not corroborate notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy--or, better yet, to 2016 Republican National Convention#Melania Trump's speech--per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E --Shadow (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E - not enough info about this person to do a credible biography —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If she exists as claimed - Trump's staff speechwriter and ghostwriter of several of his books - then surely she's notable enough, regardless of the plagiarism controversy. If she's in any way fictitious then the story of how that happened is also notable. Eric Blatant (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eric Blatant. If she authored or co-authored the four books as stated, then this isn't a BLP1E. Brianga (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. As a ghostwriter she is notable. There is likely to come a number of news articles on her: "I just finished up the first of many interviews to come. Be on the lookout for it soon." [6]. — fnielsen (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty sure that's a fake Twitter account. This photo is clearly Photoshopped from this one (the latter is from this press release). Funcrunch (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the correction! I recalled that photo, actually. I am very confused now. Is Piers Morgan ironic? [7]. — fnielsen (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other image is of course also photoshopped [8]. — fnielsen (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I hope this discussion continues for several more days, because new articles are revealing more details about McIver. Take this one fore example. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for better or for worse - her role as to the plagiarism controversy and ghostwriting for the Trump organization makes her notable, if only slightly beating out BLP1E. I would second a redirect/merge with Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy if said article is in-depth. As of now, both articles should remain. Ellomate _{(questions? talk/consult my lawyer)} 23:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable co-author of numerous best-selling books, despite rumors to the effect that she doesn't exist,[9] which are all the more reason for us to serve out our encyclopedic purpose here. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Ahh! Ghostwriter. This explains why there are so many mistakes in Trump's tweets but not in books written by this ghostwriter in his behalf!--Alcoaariel (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy. I believe it falls under WP:Too Soon. Arguments for keeping this article have been convincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not redirect: Even if Melania Trump had not given a speech at all, McIver would merit notability as having ghostwritten several of Trump's books, given the events of the past year. The facts that a) there was controversy surrounding Melania's speech and b) there was a question raised as to whether McIver actually existed both make the existence of a McIver WP article important. KConWiki (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above discussion, notable aside from the Melania Trump speech (and that page no longer exists, was merged to the convention page) which actually is notable enough for this page's inclusion. Randy Kryn 16:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: she is admittedly a minor actor in the 2016 election, but has had a long-term significant involvement with Trump and his family. She has consistently been chosen as Trump's coauthor. She is involved in two controversies which have received attention during this election (see contribution from IP 24.151.10.165 above). Sufficient reliable sources are now available to support the article content. --Mirokado (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm still not convinced that she even exists, or perhaps is a nom de plume of some other person, such as a Russian spy. I want to see her birth certificate. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• cute, actually, pretty funny. but, User:Bearian, you may want to revisit so that this can be closed. I assume that you're joking, but, on the chance that you are not kidding about the delete, come back and give a serious reason.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm kinda 50/50 on the BLP1E thing but notability is certainly there and given a chance overtime the article will improve, If it doesn't renominate it and we'll all scream BLP1E like banshees . –Davey2010^Talk 20:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not strictly BLP1E because of the coverage of her as a Trump assistant and ghostwriter, credited as co-author of his 2005 book, and writtnen up as such in The NYTimes, the Guardian and other papers back in 2005/ 2007.(links on page) It's more like an actress who has a speaking role in a blockbuster movie, once, then, 10 years later, has a speaking role in a second blockbuster movie. In that role she plays maybe the private secretary, but in that role she has this one famous line. So we keep her. Becase people years form know will stumble on that moment and want to know who she is. Also WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 28 July 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. vanity page for nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gurpal singh oppal[edit]

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

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

See WP:Junk; Autobiography Ethanlu121 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under A7 and G13. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:43, 20 July 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) 13:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumping Ground Future Characters[edit]

The Dumping Ground Future Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A "future characters" article isn't useful because it will be empty most of the time and, once the series is over, forever. Future characters can be listed in a "future characters" section of an existing article on the series or on the characters of the series. Largoplazo (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• MERGE to List of The Dumping Ground characters. That way the characters can be freely moved from "future" to "present" and thence to "past" as appropriate. Crow^Caw 17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of The Dumping Ground characters as per Crow, since they might as well be included with a note that they have been announced. A separate article for this is not helpful in the long-run. It's not doing too much good now, since it contains just one individual. GAB^gab 23:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC) See below. GAB^gab 23:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Redirecting is useless because no one's going to search for "The Dumping Ground Future Characters", "The Dumping Ground Characters" yes but the former no!, I've merged the content in to the characters article so there's no need for this article. –Davey2010^Talk 20:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, thanks, Davey2010. Now, I think we can delete, as it makes more sense to have a single "characters" article, rather than a "characters" article, a "past characters" article, and a "future characters" article. GAB^gab 23:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries GeneralizationsAreBad, Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's nothing actually suggestive of keeping this as there would simply not be anything close to convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:37, 27 July 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. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 13:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Witold Szczypiński[edit]

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

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. This is essentially a CV based on primary sources (press releases, etc.). There are three news sources, two are very court and essentially press releases as well about the subjected becoming a CEO; the third is a bit better - an interview about his family (mostly his father) in a more reliable newspapaper ([10]). Still, it is not really about him. Overall, I do not see what makes the subjected notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. The article is part of a series about a certain Polish company created by an otherwise WP:SPA; the company may be notable - but it's CEO does not seem to be. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is similar to the one in Polish Wikipedia : https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Szczypi%C5%84ski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowal kowal (talk • contribs) 08:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting that. I've added interwiki links and stated the AfD on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2016:07:06:Witold Szczypiński. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 11 July 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kongu Riders Cricket Club[edit]

Kongu Riders Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This being a minor club only the article would seem to be breaching terms of WP:GNG. It is also seeming to be not in compliance with WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 13:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not only is a newly started group, there's also still nothing for the applicable notability, nothing at all convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable minor club. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Wikipedia is for providing information to people about the history of the club regardless of being a Non-notable minor club or a popular one. All related references & citations were given in the page appropriately. All guidelines were met while creating the page. It is properly updated on a weekly basis and more importantly not clustered. It is not a newly started group as noted by other editors, only the page has been created recently to update all the information for viewing. Ashok4u2cool (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Ashok4u2cool (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. )

• Comment, article creator has also made articles on the club's grounds - Arumuga Koundanur MR Garden Ground and Arumuga Koundanur Teachers Colony Ground, are these notable? Ashok4u2cool, please take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep References for notability have been provided in the page already, for the club's participation in district level matches. Below are the citations provided in the news section of Coimbatore District Cricket Association (CDCA), which is a member of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA), India. Participation in 2014 district tournament^[1] Participation in 2015 district tournament^[2] Participation in 2016 district tournament^[3] 103.59.185.242 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC) — 103.59.185.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. )[reply]

• Delete Seriously, this massively fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a directory for local non-notable clubs. Please show me in-depth coverage of this club in reliable newspapers like The Hindu/Times of India/Hindustan Times. Till that time, I am going with delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep References for publication in reliable newspaper in "The Hindu" about the match article as requested^[1] Also listed in one of the cricket teams in India by "Times of India" in their website ^[2]

103.59.185.242 (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 103.59.185.242 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.)[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 09:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Thornton[edit]

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

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

Only a single self penned reference . PROD removed. No evidence of any notability . Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notability. The single source given is by the subject, and thus does not demonstrate notability. Google news search brings up lots on Simon Thornton (golfer), but none on the recording engineer. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article sourced only to a Wordpress blog. My searches are finding very little, just a brief mention on the old Guardian Music Blog in 2008 [11]. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 19:26, 20 July 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. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 13:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (toy line)[edit]

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (toy line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a list of toys with nothing to establish notability for the toy line itself. TTN (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:35, 20 July 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. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 13:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pawtoberfest[edit]

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

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

Local event organised by non-notable local organisation, and written up in local media. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. PamD 22:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pawtoberfest has received national recognition in the form of an Animal Planet acknowledgement.57Watt 20:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable local promotional campaign by a local campaign. I'm sure they do good work, which we should all support, but this is a GNG fail. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  
• What exactly would Pawtoberfest need to qualify for preservation?57Watt 17:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to the above comment by 57Watt - it would require two or three good sources dealing substantially with the subject published in independent books, articles, or newspapers of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 02:10, 18 July 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) Mhhossein (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Films[edit]

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

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

My own searches have simply found expected passing mentions but no actual substantial coverage, there's no inherited notability from their clients and I have found nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meeting WP:CORP and improve this sad stub article about a company which has won multiple industry awards (yes, some minor),[12][13] as diligent searches find the accompanying media coverage due to those awards.[14][15][16][17] Tone and sourcing of an arguably notable topic is a matter for editorial attention, not deletion. As with similar articles, it is expected that sources would write about the product of a production/distribution company. Per guideline: "'A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." My emboldening as WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a requirement of WP:SIGCOV (intentional redlink to underscore that it is not a mandate). Multiple sources are available. Time to address issues. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:02, 18 July 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. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 13:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analytical Graphics[edit]

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

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

My own searches have simply found unacceptable sources overall, advertorial contents, press releases and other unhelpful links. My examinations here have found nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability, there's certainly not inherited notability from having Space Foundation certification. I'll note I frankly nearly tagged as speedy or PROD. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for corporate advertising. Sources inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Hi, first time poster just signed up to plea with you not to delete this article. The advertising you cite is likely for products that are free such as STK and Cesium. Also worth noting the page has been in existence for at least eight years. Please to inform me what sources are inadequate or missing and I will be more than happy to improve the article. Astronika (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronika (talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Astronika: we need to see significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. See WP:GOLDENRULE. ~Kvng (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Multiple offices and a significant web footprint. Meets GNG, I believe, see, for example THIS coverage in the book The Future of Business: The Essentials, by Lawrence Gitman and Carl McDaniel. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 23 July 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 Zee Entertainment Enterprises. (non-admin closure) ansh666 01:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Nung[edit]

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

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

The article shows no evidence of notability, and is untouched in terms of actual content since its original upload, save for the tags added by myself and User:Edward321. The article is also very poorly written, and it seems like it was simply pasted from Google Translate. GammaRadiator (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Press coverage is there, suggesting the subject passes the GNG.[18][19] --Paul_012 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but it appears to be from an affiliate member of the ZEE group. Therefore, it is self advertising and is ineligable as a source.GammaRadiator (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean the articles read like advertorials? They aren't noted as such, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Source 1 (ZEE News) has only a passing reference to ZEE Nung, instead focusing on ZEE Sine, a ZEE franchise in the Phillipines whereas Nung broadcasts in Thailand. The second source links to another unrelated article discussing one of ZEE Living's (NOT ZEE Nung) presenters being nominated for an Emmy. Because both articles are unrelated to ZEE Nung itself, there are no apparent sources and it therefore fails to meet GNGs. GammaRadiator (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I thought you were referring to the Bangkok Post and The Nation articles I gave above. My comment wasn't referring to any of the refs currently used in the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises I found an article to show that it "exists". But there is no significant coverage about the channel itself (also it fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a huge margin). More importantly, I found that the channel doesn't have its own original programming but is simply replaying popular Indian programmes owned by the network's other popular channels like Zee TV. Since it doesn't have its own programming, I would say redirect it to the parent organisation per WP:NMEDIA --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sensible. Either way, Nung is definitely not worthy of its own article. GammaRadiator (talk) 20:24, 23 July 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. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 13:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire (Fahrenhaidt song)[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG. Mentions of the song are in passing on articles about either Fahrenhaidt or Emmelie de Forest. PGWG (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:57, 30 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Savarapu Vijaya Kumar[edit]

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

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

Middle-ranking government official and writer with no indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. He's written some books on Indian government regulations of no apparent notability per WP:NBOOK, and the claims of multiple government awards are both unreferenced and of unknown notability. I can find no significant coverage of him online in WP:Reliable sources, just author credits for his written works. OnionRing (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WPBIO, No RS Uncletomwood (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR .None of his books are notable and fail WP:NBOOK.Non notable Government official.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 27 July 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. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 13:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divyen Raithatha (Producer)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG & relies mostly on self-published sources. for (;;) (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--a puff piece for a very, very non-notable person. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 3 July 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 Planting Peace. Opinions are split between merge and delete. The compromise is to redirect and let editorial consensus determine what, if anything, should be merged from the history.  Sandstein  16:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz[edit]

Billboard of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is about one billboard, which received coverage from a few sources on the day it went up. (In addition to the sources listed in the article, I found it also got reported by the SF Chronicle and by "NBC Out".) I could find no coverage in the week since then, and no indication it had any impact on the convention, or on the national discussion of the issues involved. I believe it should be deleted, as too trivial for inclusion here. But if people favor a merge, it should be to Planting Peace, the organization that put it up, rather than to 2016 Republican National Convention, on which it had no effect. MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Planting Peace or to another article that covers anti-Trump sentiments. While there is a modicum of sourced, preservable content, I believe a stand-alone article is not warranted here; a paragraph in an existing article should suffice. pbp 17:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. TimothyJosephWood 17:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per coverage in many reliable sources. There is enough content to expand this article about an ephemeral protest and work of art. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, I would certainly encourage you to expand the article if possible. However, I would note that of the sources you list, EVERY ONE of them appeared on July 14, nothing since; and only a few are what would be considered mainstream sources (as opposed to things like www.liberalamerica.com and www.usuncut.com). Also, they pretty much all say the same thing: what the billboard shows, who put it up, and why. If you can find additional material so as to expand the article, or if it receives further Reliable Source commentary or followup, I could be persuaded to withdraw my nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI: I've added some additional sources to the above list and to the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be a WP:CRYSTALBALL assumption to suggest the subject will receive more than just a WP:ONEEVENT-ish amount of coverage, so in case the amount of reliable sources covering the billboard doesn't expand beyond the sources published upon the day it was put up, than Merge to a related article, but do not delete in any sort of way. editorEهեইдအ😎 17:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not merit a redirect. Ad campaigns can merit redirect, but not from the handful of mentions this one received. It was a cute billboard, but it was hardly Morning in America or Daisy (advertisement). It lacks the kind of media analysis and ongoing coverage garnered this year by America (advertisement), and ad that charmed me into creating an article, but that itself may or may not stand the test of time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Political art in the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign or something - there are several attention-getting artworks of this kind that could perhaps best fit together.--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pharos: Would the short-lived Trump-Pence logo be included in that article as well? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's a phase in political art history, much like the 2008 campaign, which surely deserves its own article too. For context, I'm a bit of a campaign paraphernalia junkie, I wrote Tippecanoe and Tyler Too a few years ago.--Pharos (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Planting Peace, by WP is not news and should not have an article on each thing that is reported by the news media. I will not ask if the billboard itself is homophobic since it seems to depict two men kissing as a bad thing. (Joke) Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is already mentioned there with what seems to me to be about the right amount, just needs the references added.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivial. Merger is unnecessary because Planting Peace article already covers this (although without a source - someone should add a ref). Redirect is unnecessary as this would not be a common search term. Neutrality^talk 20:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend, at the same time, that someone userfies this in case the subject gets more coverage to be just more than an one-news-event thing editorEهեইдအ😎 23:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - many reliable sources. Wikipedia does not censor. Roseohioresident (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Planting Peace or to another article that covers anti-Trump sentiments per WP:NOTNEWS. It will not be notable in the future, especially if Trump does not become president. Sorry to say, but suffice to say, it really has no historical background to it. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 01:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Planting Peace, too important to delete, not notable enough for its own page. Bakilas (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to Planting Peace. Does not need a stand-alone article as per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT. This billboard won't be up much longer. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS or WP:NOTENABLEROFSILLYPUBLICITYSTUNT. Carrite (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Planting Peace. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh please delete. Is it election season or something? Drmies (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The billboard is now mentioned in the Planting Peace article (with a photo, to boot!) GAB^gab 14:55, 28 July 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 05:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nico's Last Concert: Fata Morgana[edit]

Nico's Last Concert: Fata Morgana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Outside of a mention in The Rolling Stone Album Guide, this does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Non-notable album by a notable artist per WP:NALBUM. Merge with artist space.

1. …has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works…: Not demonstrated 2. …has appeared…national music chart: Not demonstrated 3. …has been certified gold or higher...: Not demonstrated 4. …nominated for a major music award…: Not demonstrated 5. …in rotation nationally by a major...: Not demonstrated 6. …subject…substantial broadcast…national radio or TV network…: Not demonstrated Nikto wha? 02:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 18 July 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 10:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Brown[edit]

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

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

Article's subject does not meet the criteria WP:MUS. Brownsc (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Repaired malformed nomination on behalf of another user. However, I'm expressing no formal opinion on the article's merits — as the original nominator the first time, I will say that I still don't see any substantive evidence that WP:NMUSIC has actually been met at all, but (a) my participation was canvassed, (b) there's some circumstantial evidence (username + prior edits — actually predating the existence of this article — to the same high school the topic attended) that the nominator may actually be the article subject himself, and (c) I'm not really all that interested in actually re-engaging with this, and so I'm staying out of it apart from fixing the discussion formatting. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I note that this has still had no participation after two relists, and may be in danger of closing as no consensus. However, I wanted to point out that Brownsc, the original nominator, did confirm in a post to my talk page that he is the subject himself. Accordingly, under the circumstances I'm now recommending that this be deleted per WP:BIODEL, as an article about a low-profile individual who has personally requested deletion. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 25 July 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Lahti[edit]

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

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

Camp with no evidence of importance. I can't see why the A7 was declined. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Detele - Sources show no evidence of notability whatsoever. Aust331 (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]