< 21 July	23 July >

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Evans (businessman)[edit]

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

Appears to only be notable for being the CEO of the now-defunct lowcostholidays, and thus falls under WP:1EVENT. Laun chba ller 21:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I looked for other sources to claim notability but was unable to find anything to make this person notable. Does not meet WP:GNG.--Church ^Talk 22:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can't find credible sources. However, this article was created before March 18, 2010 and we may need to revisit this page Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people Split25 (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I wonder why that date was picked?--Laun chba ller 17:28, 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 all. Jujutacular (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Jelisic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because Nikola Jelisic has not played for any fully professional team. Kingjeff (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these players are also not notable. Kingjeff (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - None of them have played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning all these articles fail WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nikola Jelisic per WP:G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as the articles do not establish notability in any way. JTtheOG (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They all fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. I have G4'd Jelisic as the only information added to the article since the last AfD is that he now plays at an even less notable level. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 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 speedy delete. Clear G4, nothing added to article following last AfD, no achievements by the player that would indicate GNG or subject-specific guideline notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Hürzeler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fabian Hürzeler is not a notable player. Kingjeff (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:G4. Not much has changed in the last two years. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:50, 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 delete. Jujutacular (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Jewelers[edit]

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

This is an overtly promotional article created by an editor who seems to creating similarly promotional articles for other jewelry stores. There are sources here, but nothing that would substantiate a claim of notability and no other such sources were found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is meant to be information on Corinne Jewelers in Toms River, NJ. It is to service for information on a local institution, whose notability have a small range, but is very much alive in the Toms River area. As for the wont of sources, that is regrettable, but I am working on finding more sources, and plan on keeping the page updated when any new, reputable sources arise from local New Jersey press or other larger scale publications/websites. As for my other pages that are similar, the same sort of reasoning applies. These are locally notable businesses, and offer a level of interest for jewelry enthusiasts as well as for locals who are interested in the economic history of their hometowns. Further, nothing stated in the article is meant to be promotional, as they are facts that can be verified by the sources provided. Considering this cannot be stripped down further, claims of overt promotion are subjective and unsubstantiated. J.Showcase (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE fails [WP:CORP], a local retailer is not inherently notable. No independent signnificant reliable coverage. MB 02:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept on Wikipedia. It is an informational article about a business. Meets GNG. Zpeopleheart (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable outside a local area. Kierzek (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because it exists and is a going concern does not mean it is notable as a business. In fact, we tend to delete articles on local stores, and this seems to be another little local suburban jewelry store. We are not a web host for businesses, the Wikimedia Foundation is a private charity. This is objectively promotional because it literally uses its "catchphrase 'Bring her into Corinne.'" Also, citing a press release from "mail.instoremag.com/shine-press" is the very picture of promotion. Many business were affected by Superstorm Sandy; if we had an article on every one of them, we'd be JerseyShoreandFireIslandPedia, not English Wikipedia. A "custom 1.64-carat radiant-cut pink diamond" is not that special. The store was established in 1964, the same year I was. That's not old, I tell myself. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Steimel[edit]

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

Daniel Steimel has not played in a fully professional league. Therefore the article fails the required notability. Kingjeff (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:50, 24 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) 07:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY, may be WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Rothenbücher[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports). He has not played in a fully professional team. Kingjeff (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:50, 24 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) 07:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY, may be WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paris, Texas (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct band. Tagged for lack of WP:NMUSIC since 2011. Time to flesh it out or clear it out. — JFG ^talk 20:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BAND #5 says a band "may" be notable if they've released two albums on "one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)". They don't meet any of the other 12 criteria of WP:BAND I don't think so let's look at #5.

They released one album on New Line Records which is an arm of Warner Bros. (but the film studio, and so not part of Warner Music Group or Warner Bros. Records I think), but anyway New Line Records has released several albums by blue-linked artists so I guess they qualify as a "label... with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" even though they're an an arm of large film company and not really an indie label, if you want split hairs and think it matters (maybe it does, I'm not a music maven). And then they released an album on Polyvinyl Record Co., which is an indie label and which has roster of quite a few blue-linked artists, so I think they qualify.

So that just means they may qualify. But they also have some EPs on these labels, and they have an actual bio with words and stuff on Allmusic.com. There's a long quote in the article from CMJ New Music Magazine (whatever that is) but there's no ref. Here is something about them on Last.fm, which admittedly is Last.fm. So it's questionable whether they meet WP:GNG. The Allmusic.com bio is half of what they need. I'm going to vote that meeting #5 of WP:BAND, and also having some EPs on top of that, and also being on Last.fm and other random places like here on MusicBrainz (whatever that is) is enough extra sufficient to squeak them in as a borderline keep. Herostratus (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the band meets notability standardsMasterknighted (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Releases and coverage sufficient to establish notability. Coverage includes: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. --Michig (talk) 06:28, 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 delete. Jujutacular (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Vancouver earthquake[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. The only source I can find gives the magnitude as a rather tame 3.2, and, with no injuries or damage, notability is not attained. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Coquitlam ain't Vancouver, and in Vancouver, I didn't even feel the earth move under my feet. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every earthquake that occurs at all does not automatically get its own standalone article just to assert that it occurred — for a Wikipedia article to be justified or warranted, some properly sourced evidence of significance (e.g. property damage, loss of life, long-term effects, and on and so forth) would need to be shown. But there's no evidence of any significance here, as witness the fact that there's been no significant coverage — even on a Google search, I find a couple of "this just happened" blurbs but no evidence of the coverage extending past the hour, let alone the day, of the event, which means nothing can be added to beef this up. There was a minor earthquake in my hometown a couple of weeks ago, too, but nothing happened that would get it an article in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails EVENT.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Earthquakes/notability_guidelines. *rant* even if "WikiProjects are all a bunch of fanboy inclusionists", it would be nice to at least acknowledge the existence of specific notability indications when they exist */end rant* Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether these guidelines are fully officially adopted or not, they do provide a rational threshold. This article is well below the level of encyclopedic interest. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:44, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Deepak Narayan Amarapurkar[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Dating of maintenance templates gives suspicion of an earlier removed version of this article. Non-relevant prizes that give no notability. A quick Google test revealed just 378 (effectively 42) hits, what is no indication of a well known man. Google Scholar stops at 6 hits...The Banner talk 19:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The weirdly dated maintenance tags seem to come from the page Vipulroy Rathod, which was used as a template for Dr. Deepak Narayan Amarapurkar, as far as I can tell from the page history. - HyperGaruda (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lack of coverage in reliable sources in this article. I also did a search but couldn't find any to add. The sources that are currently used do provide some verification of facts but those included are either self-published, examples of his own published research or primary sources related to his professional activities. Notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and yet another overly promotionaly article on a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. Engleham (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello Wikipedians, thanks for your time! It was my first attempt at publishing on Wikipedia and it would be really disheartening to watch it being deleted. I would be obliged if instead of just pointing out the faults, you might consider editing and removing irrelevant points. Also, I had used the template of another Doctor for reference since I didn't have much idea on how to proceed, but I have rectified it and sincerely hope that the issue is resolved. Please point out an other discrepancies and let me know which points are irrelevant to the cause of Wikipedia so that I may continue contributing further. Makemelive (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Makemelive, thank you for taking the time to work on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the editors here not questioning the quality of the article, but rather if it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia in the first place. Wikipedians have chosen to establish a standard for "notability" as a guide for this. The editors here feel that Dr. Amarapurkar does not meet that standard. As you can imagine, one could write a similar article for millions of other professionals. Such a set of articles would quickly become unwieldy and Wikipedia's quality would wane. I would suggest looking at the links on your talk page for good ways to work on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Jujutacular (talk) 03:23, 30 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. WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11 JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah ethell[edit]

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

Non-notable subject with zero coverage. Blackguard 18:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete extremely blatant promotionalism, fails WP:A7, WP:A11 and WP:G11 and I am tagging for speedy as such. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - A7, G11 clearly apply. GAB^gab 19:56, 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 keep. Jujutacular (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Eckersley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for biographies. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actress, writer, producer, and 2015 award increases notability; I note also that in the previous AfD discussion there was a clear lean towards keep. MurielMary (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has enough roles as actress and other parts of production to pass NACTOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate coverage by third-party publications independent of the subject. GNG met. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:09, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Lee Harris[edit]

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

I have removed from this article claims that the subject played professionally for Gillingham and Lincoln City, both of which were demonstrably false. With that gone, I can see no verifiable claim left in the article that the subject ever played in a fully professionall league, and as he also seems to quite comprehensively fail WP:GNG, he is non-notable on all counts............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:50, 24 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) 07:47, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Driver (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Inadequate evidence of notability. The only possibly acceptable reference is to the pocketgamer site. Maproom (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still confirm everything at my PROD which was removed with no explanations at all.... SwisterTwister talk 18:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, software company bio article with only one brief RS ref focused on the individual, and the rest incidental mentions or non-RS sources. A search turned up no additional RS coverage, and one 1-paragraph article is insufficient to establish notability for this person. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources not adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - As mentioned by nominator, all but one of the sites are "cheap sources" that can list almost anyone, so that they do not evidence notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO ukexpat (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not inherited from the company one starts or people with whom one works. Bearian (talk)
Delete -- non-notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete un reliable reference sources. Split25 (talk) 16:58, 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. Sandstein 09:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hor Ying Ying[edit]

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

The article claims that the subject is best known for being runner up in a talent scouting competition, and starring in a webseries. Surely doesn't pass notability criteria for biographies. Slashme (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolute delete as it fails GNG and NACTOR. The best news sources contain trivial mentions, see [10], [11] (and the latter one is a tabloid btw). Frankly, this is a WP:TOOSOON --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NACTOR as well. "Run Rachel Run" is a minor webseries by Toggle. This This source is a profile on Toggle and is not an indepenent source as the subject is affiliated to Mediacorp/Toggle. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per above. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 03:50, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar xo[edit]

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

The one best claim of significance is for apparently being the "best known" in the country but #2 source never actually says this and my own searches have found nothing better, especially considering the currently listed sources themselves are not convincingly acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this should have been S.Ded as promotional. Nothing notable could be found about the subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References in the article do not provide any evidence of notability. Aust331 (talk) 07:34, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shanna Forrestall[edit]

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

Sometimes you take articles to AfD because you're convinced they need to be deleted; other times you take articles to AfD because you don't know what to do with them and you want the community to decide – this article is one of the latter. Subject has been a journey[man/person?] actress since 2005, but a quick perusal doesn't suggest she passes WP:NACTOR as either her roles seem minor, or they took place in non-notable productions. I've done some WP:BEFORE work here and added info from a Variety and THR source, respectively, but it looks like there's nothing else out there on this subject. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress and film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've done some clean up and added added a few more references. WP:GNG met. Article needs expansion and not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see how any of that clears her past WP:NACTOR... Also, why did you change the date formats? – That should not be done under WP:DATERET. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This one is a "maybe" in my book. Interesting, seems to meet WP:GNG by significant coverage in her region, NACTOR is only one guideline to consider. Would like to see more sources, if possible. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails GNG. The coverage in reliable sources [12], [13] is restricted to passing mentions. The other sources which do have significant coverage are unfortunately all local sources (and even them some of them are interviews, and hence primary sources). This seemed OK at first glance, but it seems this is a newly established "online only magazine" which I tend to consider as WP:SPS. The subject wouldn't pass WP:ENT either. I also think this is WP:TOOSOON. At this moment, not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. there is nothing here that might possibly be notable except being host of a local show. That's not enough. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, Southern Fried Homicide isn't "local" – it's on cable's Investigation Discovery channel. But I agree that the show itself isn't particularly notable, and the subject's only other credible claim to notability is the work she's done for the New Orleans film industry which I personally don't think is enough to justify an encyclopedia entry here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Rathod[edit]

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

I found nothing substantial about the subject. He fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself was going to nominate, nothing at all actually convincing for independent notability, a few local news aren't enough for convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...A little WP:BEFORE gives us WP:INDAFD and its results for Mohan Rathod

@Johnpacklambert: what other credible source is there aside this one that clearly indicated it was copied from a blog?

Keep per sourcability showing he meets WP:BASIC for a suitable stub that may grow over time and with regular editing through WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT. And what is perhaps missed is that WP:BIO specifically states "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a phrase from your quote reads "may be considered". The subject is obviously WP:TOOSOON. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... per guideline "may be considered". And like it or not, I "obviously" prefer to base an opinion on policy and applicable guideline (which over-rule consideration of SNG's only) and not upon a personal opinion nor helpful essays. But since I wrote it, I point you to the (perhaps missed) clarification at WP:TOOSOON#Biography notability basics that addresses how the essay TOO SOON is not always applicable, as the instructions of WP:BASIC are quite clear and a sourced stub article does not have to be immediately perfect. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was already deleted once; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohan Rathore. — Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under a different name, and that was then and this is now and please, WP:BASIC does not require any of the many supportive critera be also met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to India's Raw Star as is normally done for such contestants. Only this not directly related is a small PR piece reproduced from an industry blog. Not good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:08, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Jajcinovic[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that the Moldovan top flight is fully pro. While accurate, this point is also moot, since he has not made appearance in that league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

26 games for the player in Croatia top league during his football career and he is on deletion talk. This is joke i believe.

I don't see any reason for this article to be deleted, he has games played in a professional football league and know he joined another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovix0408 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is now playing his first game for Milsami Orhei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovix0408 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The player's relationship with Milsami and the Moldovan National Division is indeed moot. Of the player's 105 matches for NK Hrvatski Dragovoljac before he ever joined Milsami, 26 were played in the Croatian Prva HNL, which is listed as a fully professional league as referred to in the subject-specific notability guideline WP:NFOOTY. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As nominator. I apparently read the soccerway profile as showing only 2. HNL appearances. Since, he's played in the Croatian top flight, the article meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as he has played in the Prva HNL a WP:FPL. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTY has played in Prva HNL a WP:FPL in the 2013-2014 and 2010-2011 seasons as his club Hrvatski Dragovoljac was relegated he played in lower divisions in other seasons per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:49, 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 nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Sharma (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:2DABS. At the moment, there aren't enough entries for page and we just look at what exists on WP - after all, if others are created, it would take two seconds to re-start a dab. At the moment, people go to Pooja Sharma, realise it's not who they are looking for and so click on the link to Pooja Sharma (disambiguation). They then have to read it through and click on the TV actress' link - a time sink - or realise at this stage that the TV actress is the only other one on Wikipedia and the one they are looking for can't be found - another time sink, as this could have been found out when they saw a direct hatnote to the TV actress at the top of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's page. Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unnecessary dab page, whose function is better served by the hatnote at Pooja Sharma. PamD 16:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. There is a Pooja Sharma on the winning women's team in Kabaddi at the 2010 Asian Games, but she could also be included in a hatnote. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn PamD, Clarityfiend, I now think this is my error - as well as Calriftyfiend's additional entry, I've found 2 fictional characters to add. I don't know how I missed them first time, sorry. Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a DAB page which some readers might find helpful, and that's good enough for me. Narky Blert (talk) 01:22, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Hakimi[edit]

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

No proof in this article that mr. Hakimi is notable. Article and sources on Google point to a man with a job The Banner talk 07:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to show he is notable for poetry, and his government and media postions are no where near enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails any test for Wikipedia notability. Engleham (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the best I could do at sourcing is a single quote he gave to a Deutsche Welle interviewer about a politically sensitive Turkish movie, DW described him as "said Haroon Hakimi, spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of Information and Culture." [14]. No sources = no article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich The Kid[edit]

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

Terrible sourcing, doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria for musicians GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree it is terrible sourcing (presently) and could use some copyedit, not sure about his music notability, but I think he passes WP:GNG though - In depth coverage in: Forbes, Complex Magazine, W Magazine, he is mentioned in: Billboard, Rolling Stone, Vibe, Highs Nobiety, Spin, BET, MTV-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references in the article currently can be improved a lot and it would be great if someone has the time to do it - a simple Google search retrieves plenty of reliable sources. 2Flows (talk) 11:58, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Komala Pata[edit]

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

As per WP:FILM, a film is notable subject if sources are provided. The article is about just a 12 min general video. It is also not something that has created a sensation. Not notable, probably made up by the creator. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 00:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF. It is incorrect for the nominator to state a film is a "notable subject if sources are provided" because, even if unsourced, a topic might be notable if sources are available, used or not. That clarified, I was unable to find decent sources in my own search and so believe a delete is the proper outcome. If or when proper sources become available, bring them forth and the topic could then be resurrected without prejudice. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 12:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Schmidt, . Also note that the only reliable source is IMDB, and they don't have much on it other than it was released on Facebook, but I can't even find the original video there. Pianoman320 (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pianoman320: While IMDB is useful in encouraging our own expanded searches, for various reasons it is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. See the essay WP:CITEIMDB. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks for the tip. Pianoman320 (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate search tools of WP:INDAFD give limited results: "Komala Pata" "Robin Chandra Roy" Being a short film without media coverage is a deficit. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:24, 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 delete. The consensus is that the photos do not establish the requisite level of verifiability required. If evidence of this school's existence does show up in the future, there is no prejudice held against this being recreated. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Star Secondary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:VERIFY. This article has previously been nominated for deletion, but was kept with the rationale that "Secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES". However, that ignores the part of SCHOOLOUTCOMES that states "except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists". No sources are cited in the article, nor were they supplied in the previous AfD, and I have been unable to find independent sources that could be used. Upholding the consensus reflected by SCHOOLOUTCOMES should therefore involve deleting this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay, not a guideline; it must not be read to override our notability guideline and verifiability policy. Anyway, SCHOOLOUTCOMES only says what has commonly happened in past debates; it doesn't say that articles about schools ought to be kept. The introduction to OUTCOMES further stresses that notability and verifiability are the determining factors in debates, not past outcomes. Rebb ing 18:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A photo of a sign isn't enough to verify anything. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(!vote Updated with stronger reasoning below) Fails WP:V. While I generally support WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this is only if the school is a verified accredited school. I have not found a single reliable source which indicates that the school exists and is accredited. Till such sources are found, this is a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the closer even I disagreed with this whole SCHOOLOUTCOMES bollox however regardless of anyones opinions all schools were more or less kept, Anyway that aside there's not one source that confirms the school evens exists!, Should've been wiped the first time round. –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional soft delete in which the only AFD-specific requirement for returning to the main encyclopedia is sufficient evidence of existence that the school would be kept under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and insertion of that evidence into the article prior to or immediately after it becomes part of the encyclopedia. With all due respect to Clarityfiend, the sign would be enough for me to NOT recommend deletion if this were the first go-around (I was neutral in the first AFD) but enough time has passed that if there was more proof the school existed and editors cared enough to add it, it would be there. Of course, all the usual non-AFD-specific requirements such as "no sockpuppetry" apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it does exist, it appears to be an elementary school, so it fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in any case. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked this source which lists secondary schools in Nepal. I was unable to find the school here. This means it is either not a high school or it is not accredited. Even the bare minimum criteria in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not satisfied here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, you already commented with a delete above. ansh666 19:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, apologies. Changed my first !vote to a comment now. Thank you for letting me know. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not an elementary school--the tenth grade in India is the highest secondary level that directly prepares for university. R+Tho SCHOOLOUTCOMES only refers to accredited schools we have also usually kept unaccredited ones as well. The question here is real existence. The evidence for this was the photos discussed at the previous AfD. From the course of the information there the school exists. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question for DGG (and anyone else who wants to chime in): If a US state were to allow anyone to open an unaccredited school and that state treat that school's students the same as it treats home-schooled students, would Wikipedia keep articles about every such school that happened to teach 12th graders? Doubtful.

On the other hand, if such a school got as much news coverage as a typical 12th-grade school does (say, due to sports and other programs), the article for that particular school might be kept. There are entire categories of high schools in the United States, such as special-purpose disciplinary-alternative schools, whose members generally have almost zero independent press coverage from reliable, 3rd-party sources. I don't recall ever seeing a Wikipedia article about such a school, but if I did and it were at AfD, I would probably recommend soft deletion until such time as it got at least some press coverage. I recommended "soft deletion" for this school, but a similar high school were in the United States, where English-language records are more likely to be accessible, I would recommend outright deletion if there wasn't at least some record of the school's existence in a reliable, independent source such as a newspaper or government record. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keluro[edit]

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

Non-notable company / product - see WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Current sources are 2 passing mentions and a self-published press release. A Google Search did not reveal any other promising in-depth coverage to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The listing mentions in the Figaro and PC Portal articles are not substantial coverage, nor are Google and Highbeam searches identifying better. Fails notability both as company and as product. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both newly started and also then nothing at all for substantial independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bat algorithm[edit]

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

This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually):

These article all detail research done by Xin-She Yang. All suffer from the following problems:

Most citations include Yang as one of the authors (i.e. are primary).
Citations numbers of the article look superficially impressive, but include many self-citations and even reek of a citation circle.
Articles have been created by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun, why likely is Yang himself.
I could not find any respectable overview books and articles describing this work as considered relevant in the field. —Ruud 14:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My general belief is that much of the work in this sort of metaheuristic is junk science, but the high citation counts and numbers of hits for this topic in Google Scholar make clear that, regardless of that, it is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These algorithms form a large part of the currently growing research in metaheuristic techniques. It is obvious that the number of self-citations are high but instead of deletion, inspiration should be taken from the Grey wolf optimizer page and addition of applications of the algorithm under question should be encouraged. Majority of the work lies in applications using these algorithms.--Capn Swing (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC) — Capn Swing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with David Epstein. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckoo search[edit]

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

This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually):

These article all detail research done by Xin-She Yang. All suffer from the following problems:

Most citations include Yang as one of the authors (i.e. are primary).
Citations numbers of the article look superficially impressive, but include many self-citations and even reek of a citation circle.
Articles have been created by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun, why likely is Yang himself.
I could not find any respectable overview books and articles describing this work as considered relevant in the field. —Ruud 14:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My general belief is that much of the work in this sort of metaheuristic is junk science, but the high citation counts and numbers of hits for this topic in Google Scholar make clear that, regardless of that, it is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - endorse for the reasons given by David Eppstein. It is not sufficient to indiscriminately delete widely used algorithms merely on the grounds that they are "nature-inspired". There may be a lot of junk offerings from some parts of the world, but there is useful work as well. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nature-Inspired

A direct quote from Xin-She Yang himself from his book Nature-Inspired Metaheuristics which has been repeatedly published by Elsevier.

Researchers have drawn various inspirations to develop a diverse range of algorithms with different degrees of success. Such diversity and success do not mean that we should focus on developing more algorithms for the sake of algorithm developments, or even worse, for the sake of publication. We do not encourage readers to develop new algorithms such as grass, tree, tiger, penguin, snow, sky, ocean, or Hobbit algorithms. These new algorithms may only provide distractions from the solution of really challenging and truly important problems in optimization. New algorithms may be developed only if they provide truly novel ideas and really efficient techniques to solve challenging problems that are not solved by existing algorithms and methods.

Sadly, the scientific community rewards those algorithms that are able to produce better results on a set of benchmark functions Test functions for optimization . Coincidentally, these "inspired algorithms" have been performing well in solving such test cases along with other complex problems, hence the high number of citations. Although, these algorithms may appear to be "metaphoric", most of the original algorithms in this field share at some level, the same level of similarity in terms of "population", "fitness", "operators", "solutions" etc. Hence, singly out "inspired" algorithms for deletion based on a few handful of publications outlining its negative "novelty" against the large number of publications outlining its "effectiveness" is still a matter up for debate. It is true that research at this point of time is mired at the metaheuristic level but till the time the scientific community decides over the debate of "fittest" vs "novelty" , as an knowledge sharing site, both the pros and cons should be weighed infront of the reader, meaning both the applications that have been conspicuously blanked for some algorithms due for deletion and the criticism like the one already been put for firefly should together be put up as information. Furthermore, to clarify some of the claims but these "algorithms" have been published not only in 2nd tier journals or conferences but reputed journals like Elsevier , Springer Publishing , Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, wiley etc. Capn Swing (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see a real problem for Wikipedia here. There is clearly some confusion around the current fashionable flurry of "nature inspired" algorithms which is perhaps getting in the way of clarifying the underlying mathematics. But that is something the scientific community needs to sort out, not, as Ruud seems to be implying above, something that Wikipedia editors should try and sort out. Out role is to faithfully report what mainstream and reliable sources are saying. If there is some measure of confusion and dissent within that literature, then we should be reporting that as well - not trying to play God and sort it out ourselves. In other words, we should treat these algorithms on a case by case basis, and accept ones that are sufficiently cited in the literature. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:45, 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 delete. Sandstein 09:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Van Flandern–Yang hypothesis[edit]

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

This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually):

These article all detail research done by Xin-She Yang. All suffer from the following problems:

Most citations include Yang as one of the authors (i.e. are primary).
Citations numbers of the article look superficially impressive, but include many self-citations and even reek of a citation circle.
Articles have been created by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun, why likely is Yang himself.
I could not find any respectable overview books and articles describing this work as considered relevant in the field. —Ruud 14:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Split up the request, since most of the pages appear to have adequate sourcing from secondary publications, with the possible exceptions of Fowler–Yang equations (2 sources, one of which is Yang), and Van Flandern–Yang hypothesis (4 sources, 3 of which are Yang). Circular citations happen in academia, especially in very specialized areas. Nevertheless, they count as secondary sources. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are already 6 separate nominations. I'll clarify my nomination to make that more clear. —Ruud 15:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on this topic found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found that the 1st and 3rd hit on google scholar were this article from sources other than wikipedia. One is the APS website, which has an article, but I don't have access to. I think a nomination to delete should be withdrawn if the evidence is incorrect. StarHOG (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find nothing meeting our notability requirements either. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Skeen[edit]

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

"Assistant Strength and Conditioning Coach" does not look like a serious claim of notability to me. Zero search hits for this person (though there are homonyms). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delet: Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Alan Hardest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Mskeen84. Nothing in the article indicates biographical notability. There is a day-in-the-life piece on his employer's site, but searches are not finding anything to meet the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 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 delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 09:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Roman Mysteries characters[edit]

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

This article lists the characters from this series. The series and some of the books may be notable, but notability is not inherited, and the characters are not notable per WP:GNG. This might also fall under WP:PLOT. Short descriptions of the four major characters could be added to The Roman Mysteries, but the minor ones should be deleted as non-notable. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 16:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: I understand that a list can be notable when the individual items are not, but the characters don't seem collectively notable either. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 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 delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Fedotov (entrepreneur)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still nothing actually convincing for establishing his own independent notability with there of course being no convincing inherited notability from the company itself (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resume Games (retailer)) and there's still nothing regarding coverage as my searches simply found the same exact links. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 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 already deleted. by RHaworth for A7 (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh kushwaha[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and looks like a google translate from Indian. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 10:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TomStar81 (Talk) 10:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor and model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG - Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. All sources in the article are primary. Google search shows 158 results. A Google News and Highbeam search gave only 1 result. - Taketa (talk) 09:33, 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 Speedy Deleted (procedural close) twice as A7/G11 and A3 .(non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty Shades of Gay (FSOG)[edit]

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

Slightly promotional article about a group that doesn't seem to be notable. Possible conflict of interest too. Searching for "Fifty Shades of Gay" and "Shubham Mehrotra" bring few results. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Article seems to be written by a representative of the group and offers no sources other than its own website. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: tagging it per A7. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 10:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Couldn't find much info in reliable sources to confirm notability. Hitro talk 10:39, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ormskirk Grammar School[edit]

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

School not notable under WP:NSCHOOL/WP:ORG Comicmuse (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPeedy keep: long-established high school, building designed by notable architect, many notable alumni ... what more do we need? PamD 10:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being linked to notable individuals does not make it prima facie notable itself, surely? The new section noting the existence of an archive would seem more convincing on that front. Comicmuse (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- obviously: There is a long history of annoying requests for deletion- it has been discussed for a decade all over WP. Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). It is summed up on the Schools guidelines page. Wikipedia:WPSCHOOLS/AG

In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes. Articles on elementary/primary schools or middle schools will normally be merged into the locality article (such as a village or town) unless they can clearly demonstrate that they can meet the notability guideline. Articles on elementary/primary and middle schools should normally be merged into the school district article or the appropriate locality article if this is not available. Due to continued controversy over deletion of school articles, they are formally exempt from the speedy deletion A7 criterion, though not A1 or any other of the general or article criteria.

Is it notable- it has 400 years of documented history, it has records in the National Archives and is the subject of a book. Have a look at the truncated list of alumni. It is a referenced stub with a lot of potential that needs lots of attention. ClemRutter (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)bb[reply]

Keep per long standing consensus on secondary schools, plus it appears to be GNG notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:09, 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 speedy delete. A11 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Villain (2017 International film)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article, written by its director, about an unreleased Youtube film. Fails WP:Notability (films). Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V and WP:N, not to mention the WP:COI from the page creator. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts. Add WP:SELFPROMOTION as well. MarnetteD|Talk 21:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all close to convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I wish the film's crew well, but this just isn't notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:A11 speedy delete. Plot unfinished, some of the "lead actors" cannot even be found in a regular google search, yeah... the article creator made this up one day. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:32, 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 Parametric design. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parametric Landscapes[edit]

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

Not clear there is a topic here at all. Seems to be trying to apply “parametric landscape” to a variety of fields. Yes, all of them can be described using parameters, but none of them is called a “parametric landscape”. Don’t know if anything can be salvaged for a new or existing article, but as-is this is pretty hopeless. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Parametric design. This article looks like a synthesis, per WP:SYNTH and I haven't found any secondary sources that ties all the concepts together; as the nom says, the article is ill-formed in its current state. However, there is the book Flux: Architecture in a Parametric Landscape and more generally the architectural movement of Parametric design that covers the parametrically designed landscapes and urban structures mentioned in the article. Hence I think this could be usefully redirected to Parametric design, where the topic is discussed more generally. --Mark viking (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Article is sub-literate. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:36, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Vox[edit]

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

Notability Guidelines not met Exemplo347 (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I originally PRODed this, it was removed with the apparent basis of "improvements " but there's simply still nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean the page will be deleted? (This makes me very angry— how freaking prissy and high standard Wikipedia is. This place isn't the Encyclopedia Britannica, quit acting like it) Anonymous64bit (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References are from Reddit and Bandcamp, which is not acceptable. The only acceptable-looking thing is this, but it's poorly written and inspires little faith in the editorial quality of the publication--plus, it's really just a glowing write-up, not good journalism. There is no notable record label, no hits, no nothing, so the group doesn't pass WP:NBAND either. Drmies (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to move this to a draft? This would take it out of the mainspace, and therefore wouldn't cause any problems. TheSheepGuy (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. After being open for over a month, there has been only 1 !vote on this AfD, safe to say consensus has not been found and it would be a waste of time to leave this open for any longer. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economics Network[edit]

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

No sources or indication of notability, likely advert Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable organisation in the context of UK HE and academia and economics. Will try to add more indications of their notability. I think the collaboration with the BOE in a conference is the most obvious line but there my be other lines to go down. (I created the page so may be biased.) (Msrasnw (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 01:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This debate isn't listed on any log pages, relisting so it gets added to the 22 July one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:22, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ducktails (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was afd'd before, deleted, then apparently reappeared, but there is still no credible claim of notability and some of the material back in the article is taken verbatim from the deleted version. I am placing this here for community input, but I should note that if consensus if once again for delete it should be WP:SALTed to prevent recreation. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obviously notable, and the reason it was deleted at AfD before was because it had been copy and pasted from userspace at a time when the sourcing was lacking, not because there was in any way a consensus that the subject wasn't notable. It was hugely expanded and sourced before being brought back to mainspace. Look at the coverage cited - notability can't seriously be questioned. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability can be seriously questioned, the question is whether its relevant to the case at hand. In this case it may not be, if what you say is right. I'm indifferent to the outcome, just concerned about its apparent use of material in its previously deleted state. In fairness, articles of this nature always have a 50/50 for which way they will go, and if it turns out you're right then we are better off for keeping the article. In any event, sine no one ever seems to contribute to these things anymore, I thank you for taking the time to opine of the afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems a clear pass of notability requirements for bands. Was previously deleted for, in my view, a strange reason. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

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

Keep. Whatever the editing history and the rationale behind the prior deletion, we now have a substantial article, sourced in detail and including coverage in first-rate music sources like NPR, The Guardian, CMJ, and Spin, describing a clearly notable band. No reason for deletion now. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:07, 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 merge to One Direction discography#Music videos. No need to delete the history of List of Most Popular Music Videos of One Direction as it's a valid redirect. I've merged the list of 18 most popular videos into the main article. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most Popular Music Videos of One Direction[edit]

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

See WP:Junk Ethanlu121 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant statistics to One Direction discography#Music videos. I appreciate the author's enthusiasm for creating content, but per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I think our readers would be best served by including this information in the list that exists at One Direction discography#Music videos. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I'm not sure that the number of YouTube views can be used to state definitively that the music video is "the most popular"... how about number of requests on TV music channels, for example? Richard3120 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Popularity, (in whatever objective sense measured, per Richard3120) should be a sortable column in a table of the obvious merge target. No need to delete this before redirecting, but certainly no need to duplicate data in slightly (and perhaps subjectively) rearranged form, either. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of Champions (2016)[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadblock (2016) recently deleted three articles in a similar state. All three failed WP:GNG and this one does too, the only new argument is that tickets for this event are on Ticketmaster, this is not enough to establish notability per WP:EVENT. I had previously redirected this to List of WWE pay-per-view events; this current article contains no information that isn't there. LM2000 (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I'm really surprised that LM2000 is suggesting this article be deleted. You are usually pretty level-headed and understand how wrestling PPV pages work. Once WWE announces an event on their site and then when Ticketmaster puts tickets on sale, especially now that we're only about 2 months away from the event, that is usually more than enough information needed to confirm an event. Also the information included on the article notes that this is a brand new PPV event and that it is not a continuation of the Night Of Champions PPV series, something that WWE notes themselves in one of the included sources. A lot of people are assuming this PPV is using the same chronology as Night Of Champions and they keep making edits to the Night Of Champions page to include Clash Of Champions. If, for no other reason, this page lets people know that it is indeed a brand new event. There have been plenty of times in the past where pages for a PPV event are created several months before the event takes place, why is this any different? Heck, WrestleMania 33 already has a WP page and that show is not for another 8 and 1/2 months! OldSkool01 (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", see WP:SIGCOV. I think the project has a tendency to prematurely create these articles before the subjects are notable. Comparing the PPV that replaced Night of Champions to WrestleMania, WWE's Superbowl, is apples and oranges, although nothing of value would be lost if we redirect that to the main WrestleMania article until they start building toward it after the Royal Rumble. We almost did that last year with WrestleMania 32 and we probably should have.LM2000 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. It's not apples and oranges at all. In fact this page has more relevant references to the subject than the WrestleMania 33 page does. I even added a reference directly from the arena holding the event which gives a tentative list of wrestlers that are scheduled to appear at Clash Of Champions. Also in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadblock (2016), the main discussion point for deletion of those pages was that those shows were not yet confirmed by either WWE themselves or Ticketmaster. In this case, Clash Of Champions is confirmed by both as well as the arena site. Is your argument that pages shouldn't be made until matches for the event are announced? Because that then becomes a completely different conversation. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is that this clearly fails WP:GNG. You've added WP:PRIMARY sources from the promotion which will put on the show and from stadium which will hold it, you've also referenced the website selling the tickets; none of this counts GNG as they're not independent of the subject. Significant coverage from independent secondary sources does not exist. That was why the nominator of the Roadblock AfD, @Reddogsix:, nominated that, and that's why I voted delete.LM2000 (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. This is the exact opposite of the discussion I had with someone on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadblock (2016) page. There I provided independent sources confirming the event will be taking place and their argument was the independent sources didn't count unless WWE or Ticketmaster themselves confirm it. Now in this article I provide sources directly from WWE and Ticketmaster and you're saying it's not good unless we have independent sources. Something is screwed up here. Also there is an independent source on the page from PWInsider. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lone independent source and it's a passing mention and WP:ROUTINE. WWE confirming its existence isn't enough per WP:ITEXISTS.LM2000 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also want to note that's the same source that was provided in the last AfD, it wasn't enough there and it shouldn't be enough here. The fact that the PPV is in late September also means nothing, Backlash is scheduled sooner than Clash of Champions and that got deleted with Roadblock. My hope is that these AfDs establish new criteria for when the project creates these articles, when WWE and Ticketmaster announce the event is irrelevant and not based on policy, articles should be created only when the subject passes GNG.LM2000 (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're saying ppv pages shouldn't be created until matches are announced. And even then, the majority of references come directly from WWE.com. The only time there is more independent coverage is after the ppv is over and other websites cover the results. Go look at SummerSlam 2016 and WrestleMania 33. How many "independent sources" directly mention those events on their respective pages? You won't get many, if any, independent sources for an event until matches are announced. And if you feel a new rule should be implemented where ppv pages are not created until matches are announced then we need to open up that debate to other editors because that is a much bigger conversation and this isn't the right forum for it. OldSkool01 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for a new policy, I'm asking that we follow current policy. Some events will never be notable, others may be notable many months in advance.LM2000 (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just added 2 more independent sources. So now we have independent sources and direct sources from WWE, Ticketmaster and the arena. Not sure what else you're looking for. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first F4wonline link was put forth in the other AfD and contains the same trivial mention that PWInsider reports. The second F4wonline source doesn't mention the PPV at all. No sources describe the event in detail as needed per WP:SIGCOV.LM2000 (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In detail? There aren't any matches announced yet! Other than the date, time, city, arena, etc.(which are all sourced) what other details are you looking for? Until matches are announced, there isn't going to be much more detail available. Which goes back to my earlier point, you're basically saying ppv pages shouldn't be made until matches are announced. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at SummerSlam 2016. How many independent sources describe that event in detail? OldSkool01 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the difference between Clash of Champions and the three other pages recently deleted is that the event is verified to be happening with a high degree of certainty. There isn't a pressing need to have an skeleton article in place so far out for a B-show, but there really isn't a parent article to easily redirect to (ordinarily, it would be WWE Night of Champions–as it has a similar name and in the mid-September slot–but there's no verified source either way saying if the event gimmick is going to be kept). Sceptre (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have supported a merge if this event had been Night of Champions (2016) instead of Clash of Champions (2016)?LM2000 (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a continuation of Night Of Champions then all we would need to do is redirect this page to the main Night Of Champions page for now and just list this year's event with the rest of them. But WWE is calling this the inaugural Clash Of Champions so there's no evidence yet that this is following the same lineage as Night Of Champions. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase that. If this article was another edition of an annual event (I used NOC as an example), rather than the first event as this is, you would be okay with redirecting it to the main article rather than leaving a stub like this? Because it's not uncommon for these stubs of dubious notability to get left like this.LM2000 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how much information we can confirm for the event, how far away the event is, etc. I wouldn't want to make a blanket statement for every ppv. It should be a case by case situation. In this case I wouldn't mind if Clash Of Champions redirected to its own main article if there were previous WWE Clash Of Champions events. One of the main reasons I'm supporting to keep this page is because there isn't a main article with previous events. OldSkool01 (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWE confirmed that Clash of Champions will be a Raw exclusive event. They also confirmed Backlash 2016 as a SmackDown exclusive event. Ticketmaster also has a link for Backlash tickets. It looks like it's only a matter of time before No Mercy and Roadblock get added as well. In the meantime, can we end this debate to delete this page? OldSkool01 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: as above, I think there is enough for notability, barely, and there is no obvious redirection options anyway, so its a keep for me. Mattlore (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn I remain unconvinced that this passes the GNG bar and I believe the only useful information in the stub is already at List of WWE pay-per-view events. The differences between this and Roadblock AfD events seem negligible and the keep criteria, such as events being listed on Ticketmaster, seem arbitrary and not based on policy. This has been relisted once and probably will get relisted again, by the time it comes to its natural conclusion the event may actually be notable. With that, I understand that this isn't going to get deleted and that this AfD isn't going to end the policy of creating these stubs many months in advance before the subject is notable. However, there does seem to be some agreement that if this had been a reoccurring event, such as WWE Night of Champions, a redirect would have been fine in this case.LM2000 (talk) 04:45, 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 no consensus. Lack of discussion renders consensus undeterminable. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 03:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Census of the North West Frontier Province[edit]

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

This is a transcription of a primary source that is known to be unreliable. It includes links to numerous other articles that may or may not in fact be the communities designated in the census. Basically, it is verifiable only due to a failure to comply with WP:RS. Without context, and with the links, it is effectively useless. A similar article by the same creator has already been deleted. See: AfD of 1901 Census of Rajputna. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 11:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Blank and redirect to Census in Pakistan, just as it has been done with 1998 Pakistan Census. No need to copy data across. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to something on censuses in pre-independence India: see comments on 1901 AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect targets have been suggested, but more input is needed for a specific target (if the discussion continues in the direction of a redirect result) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the target I imagine Peterkingiron had in mind was Census of India prior to independence. Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -- That is probably what I had in mind. I also recall discussions that 19th century British censuses in areas like Bihar that had long been under British rule were thoroughly unreliable, because many people managed not to get counted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 02:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:15, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish Tv Series[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

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

Only source is IMDb, and list is hard to navigate, not sure I see the point of listing every Turkish TV series ever, we already have categories. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:List of Turkish Tv Series

this list is all true and active... Wikipedia has got a lot of list like this (examples: List of South Korean dramas, List of Gossip Girl episodes , and List of The O.C. episodes). Also this list has got episode number... Most true is list about Turkish tv series. It isn't vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.218.219.165 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 15 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it is vandalism, but I'm not sure I really see the point of this format. List of South Korean dramas is easier to navigate than this. Episode list articles are an entirely different thing and irrelevant here. (Also, please comment here, not on the talk page of the article, as this isn't a speedy deletion nomination.) nyuszika7h (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:List of Turkish Tv Series

this list is all true and active... Wikipedia has got a lot of list like this. example: List of South Korean dramas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Korean_dramas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gossip_Girl_episodes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_O.C._episodes Also this list has got episode number... Most true is list about Turkish tv series. It isn't vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.57.183.236 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 July 2016

Again, you are commenting on the wrong page. Also, to reiterate, nobody said it is vandalism, that's not the only reason to delete a page. Of course an episode list is going to have episode numbers, that's a completely bogus argument here. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This might be one of the few instances in which WP:TNT is a good idea. But if deleted, it should be without prejudice to a proper List of Turkish television programmes (or "lists of...") being created, as a complement to the Category:Turkish television programmes category structure per WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-purpose into the years given at List of years in Turkish television, per MOS/Lists. The current one is indiscriminate. — Wylie pedia 17:33, 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 keep. Consensus is that subject is notable for inclusion. Disputes regarding article content can be tackled on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semliya[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable place. Just a small village that doesn't have many google hits and there's no indication of much significance in the article. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 12:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As per WP:GEOLAND, the article can be kept, provided there is at-least one source to verify the subject. However, the entire article is completely written in Hindi and is no use on English Wikipedia. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 16:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per [WP:GEOLAND]]. Judging by satellite maps, this is a small village about 4 kilometres east of Namli with perhaps a few hundred inhabitants, but it does seem to get just about enough gazetteer coverage to allow for an article, though a mention/redirect in an article on its local area might be enough. The previously Hindi part of the article has now been mostly translated into English by the article creator - this all seems to refer to a Jain temple which is highly likely to be notable if sources can be found to back up the claims made (if not, the material on it will largely need to be removed). Having said that, the village does not seem to be the only place called Semliya even within its area - there appears to be another only about 30 kilometres further north. And there are at least a couple of Jain temples not that far away that are definitely easier to document than the one detailed here. PWilkinson (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:GEOLAND. The Article is a right and correct description of events happened in Semliya.The temple was quite famous in medieval age however today many few people know about it.It has been only 5 years since the pilgrims have regularly started to visit the magnificent temple from states of Madhya Pradesh,Rajasthan and Gujrat.This is a precious source of information for the people of Jain community. Such articles should not be discouraged. You cannot get evidence for genuineness of a place importance by just Googling it.The other couple of temples near Semliya by google maps were probably Bhopavar,Vibrod and Maksi and they are mentioned in the article as well and are combinedly called panchtirthi including Semliya.The place has a lot more to offer if you actually visit it.I strongly recommended to keep this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenilworthWhisp (talk • contribs) 13:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC) — KenilworthWhisp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I encourage you you read WP:VNT. "Right" or "correct" is not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. Notability and evidence of it from citations are the standard for inclusion. Even if the actual place has a lot to offer, as you say, it should not be kept if it doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. Judging by the lack of citations in the article and lack of Google results, it doesn't appear to have significant coverage. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 12:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a webpage reference for your perusal. Please read it carefully.It will tell you about the history and importance of Semliya in brief.The information matches with my page.I hope it will do.Thanks!Anmol Pagaria (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - A single source with a single paragraph of information for an over 800-word page is nowhere near enough. Most of the article is still unsourced. Also, if a tourist guide is the best source out there for this place, that only gives the article all the more reason to be deleted. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a place for promotion. The current tone of the article reads highly promotional, and I think it would need to be completely rewritten from scratch for it to have any chance of being encyclopedic. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 13:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the only source out there for now.That is why I tried to share detailed information on Wikipedia platform and since the information is in detail and so far unique(on Internet)it will be hard to verify.Besides i don't think anyone is looking to do a PhD on this topic and hence need to verify every minute information(It's all correct though...Alas!).I politely disagree on the point that article is written in promotional tone.It just gives information about travel and room convinience available within temple premises.They have been included because I thought it will be helpful for visitors to plan their trip in such a remote place with limited amenities. I have no personal gain in favouring the trust.The trust belongs to temple itself and gives room and food facilities to visitors for a very nominal charge even that for maintanence(for the service and sake of visitors).I don't think a 2 line mention of trust services makes the whole article promotional and hence does not need to be rewritten from a scratch ;). People objecting content perhaps need to read it again this time carefully. All the Sadhus-Sadhvis have nothing to do with temple affairs.I've mentioned their names because it's a common practice in jain community to give names of the Sadhus-Sadhvis stayed in Choumasa time of year in the temple. Anmol Pagaria (talk)16:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  - Wikipedia isn't the place to publish original information. The information may very well be true, but for it to be included it must all be verifiable. There cannot be any original research in any Wikipedia articles. All information on Wikipedia must already exist in another reliable source. Your statement that the source currently in the article is the only source out there only strengthens the claim that the subject is not notable. If the place gets more media coverage in the future and notability can be demonstrated, it would be worthy of inclusion. However, it doesn't meet that requirement at this time. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, I take back my earlier claim about the article needing a fundamental rewrite. There is non-promotional content, but the page does still read like a travel guide. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 22:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND ie. its a Populated, legally recognized place, here is a link to a 2011 census - [15], also not sure about nom's rationale - "Just a small village" - there goes a few (hundred?) thousand articles, " there's no indication of much significance" - Article content does not determine notability, although Eventhorizon51 needs to be aware of WP:BURDEN in that the temple info can/should? be deleted (or at least moved to the talkpage?) until appropriate sources are found. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per GEOLAND and Coolabahapple's source. There are over 4K residents BTW, which makes for a pretty sizable village. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely a population center.[16] The issues the nom speaks about (looks like a travel guide, etc.) are all surmountable problems and don't mean deletion is in order. --Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lead, convert table into infobox, and split/fork out the temple into a stand–alone article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:20, 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 delete. Clear consensus is shown below that season articles for clubs in the fifth tier of English football are not notable per WP:NSEASONS.

Of the keep votes presented, none attempt to deal either with NSEASONS or GNG, The first is an other stuff exists arguement, the second is a combination of WP:INTERESTING / WP:MERCY. The final keep vote is clearly refuted with reference to prior deletion discussions.

My decision, given that this is an article on a forthcoming season does not preclude the fact that sufficient independent may arise during the course of the season to satisfy GNG, in which case the article can be restored. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Torquay United F.C. season[edit]

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

Season article in a club playing outside the fully-professional leagues, so fails WP:NSEASONS. See this AfD on season articles for clubs in the same league in the same season, which was deleted unanimously. Number 5 7 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, you might as well nominate Torquay's previous 2 seasons for the same reason Seasider91 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the fact that Torquay's previous wiki seasons have been approved and nothing has changed in Torquay's league status or notability [Captain9237] 13:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC) -- — Captain9237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Most of Torquay's history was spent in fully-professional leagues, so passed WP:NSEASONS. This is not the case for this season, and I will be nominating articles for their other four seasons in the fifth tier for deletion shortly. Also worth noting that this is the first-ever edit by this user. Number 5 7 16:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - page should not be deleted. Torquay might be in a league that is not 'fully professional' but they are still a fully professional club. Also it is interesting to see statistics over the season and be able to compare and contrast with previous seasons. Please please do not delete this page :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billboothsbeard (talk • contribs) — Billboothsbeard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The above comment was mistakenly put on the talk page of this AfD, so I have moved it here. Note that it is the user in question's first ever edit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. It is a little arbitrary to have a barrier at League Two/National, but we do seem to need one with these and therefore it makes sense for this to go. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the last 3 season articles in the same league have been fleshed out with no concerns made - no reason to think that this is not true. Some seasons of the same team in the 5th tier failed at AFD previously, with little support for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torquay United F.C. season 1996–97. Nfitz (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, that was a bulk nomination in which all but one of the articles passed WP:NSEASONS. Secondly, one of the contributors notes that "The WP:FOOTY project has always operated on the basis that teams playing national professional leagues (the top four levels in England) were OK to have such articles". And of course, even if there was consensus then to have fifth tier articles (I don't believe there was), this has changed. Number 57 07:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hasn't changed. A primary argument, and the reason I didn't challenge it, was that future season article was too soon. There is still no consensus - and I think we've seen this in other more recent AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season. Nfitz (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It hasn't changed because there was never consensus that fifth tier seasons were notable. Every AfD we've had this year on a National League season article has resulted in deletion: 1, 2, 3. In fact I've just checked through our AfD archive, and there is not a single occasion on which an AfD on a season article for a club at this level has resulted in "Keep" – only a handful of no consensuses and the vast majority in delete (the closing admin is more than welcome to check this out if further proof is needed (here's another example from last year – note who has also shown up to !vote keep...). Number 57 17:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Having done a brief count, I found 12 AfDs on fifth level season articles that resulted in delete (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) and only three as no consensus (1, 2, 3, the third of which was nominated for a second time and was deleted). Number 5 7 17:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Your case makes no sense to me, we have hundreds, if not thousands of 5th (and far lower) tier season articles, and yet because the only 3 AFDs this year were delete, we should delete this one. Let's look at those 3. You've again raised the 1 that was deleted as too soon. The other two were for teams that never were higher than 5th tier, and were far lower both before and after. Compare to Torquay, which has over 85 seasons in the Football League? There's no comparision. I've not looked at the older ones, but it's clear there is not consensus to delete 5th tier season articles of teams that have spent much of their time in the Football League. Nfitz (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It makes no sense because you have an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to football-related notability consensus. We do not have "hundreds, if not thousands" of these articles. As you can see quite clearly at Category:Football Conference seasons by team, we have 95 (there are two in the 2016–17 category which does not exist), and they are gradually being reduced in number as we go through these AfDs. Unless you can present a roughly equal number of AfDs that resulted in these articles being kept, then it's clear that there is no consensus to keep them, and that (from the dozen AfDs listed above) there is consensus to delete them. Number 5 7 07:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texas a&m ring[edit]

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

Unremarkable subject. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:52, 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 no consensus. Nearly a whole month and only one !vote, Relisting would only waste time so closing as NC (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India–Vanuatu relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

as per my previous nomination. Fails WP:GNG. There isn't really much to these relations except diplomatic recognition and a one off donation for a disaster. No state visits, no agreements , no significant trade. I note that someone has added some generic information about India helping South Pacific countries but this is not Vanuatu specific. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @LibStar: The article can be redirected to Forum for India–Pacific Islands Cooperation and some history about India-Vanuatu can be added there itself. That target article should actually have historical relations of India and those islands anyways before the formation of forum. Few lines that are not generic from this article can be merged there and this can be redirected. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The relations between the two are important to Vanuatu without doubt, as the large amount of trade that the page has mentioned. I see a lot of coverage and direct, significant relations between the two, as part of the WikiProject International relations, the reason behind for keeping is obvious.Tart (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Tart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

relations being "important" is not the same as notable. LibStar (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:45, 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 no consensus. Lack of discussion renders consensus undeterminable. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 03:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick de Suarez d'Aulan[edit]

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

Zero sources found on the web (FWIW the subject is president of the company "SOC COMMERC CHATEAU HEBERTOT", but at 40k€ it is no notability claim), and the book is not independent coverage either. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article is ostensibly about a person, whose only claim to notability is that he is the heir apparent of a French marquess. However most of the content is about people who I assume were his ancestors (though this is not stated) – some of these were probably notable, though there are no wikilinks. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say the article on Jean de Suarez d'Aulan is seriously lacking, and it does appear we have severe lack of articles on the key figures in Iberia in the late 15th and early 16th centirues, although whether a Fernando Suarez de Figueroa was really a key military leader in taking Granada is unclear, it is clear there was a Catholic bishop in Spain by that same name in the years immediately before and after 1600, who may well be notable. Henri de Suarez d'Aulan may also well have been an important enough figure in 18th-century France to merit an article. Alternatively we might create an article called Suarez d'Aulan family. However the subject of this article is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:44, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Yu[edit]

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

Nonnotable businessman - üser:Altenmann >t 04:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not a notable businessman. Basically the article says he got a patent, but that is not anywhere near enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Businessman lacking significant notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:39, 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 merge to Geography of the Pitcairn Islands. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Cut, Pitcairn Island[edit]

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

Can't find any sources verifying this place exists. Google hits are to a page and book, both of which are word-for-word identical to the article text (both appear to have been created after the article, suggesting they're copying the article text). Page has an external link which also doesn't mention Ah Cut. As such, seems to fail WP:GNG. Not sure it's saved by WP:NPLACE either. Ajpolino (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The place is mentioned here as existing on a map. It's also mentioned in this news article from 1979. FallingGravity (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Geography of the Pitcairn Islands. There's not enough here for a stand-alone article and the proposed target could well hold the little available information we have here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and leave redirect behind, per NewYorkActuary. --do ncr am 01:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per NewYorkActuary and Doncram. Yvarta (talk) 20:17, 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. Sandstein 10:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Culture (journal)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator without reason provided. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your suggestions and changes in my article Physical Culture (journal) and hope you will not delete it. Physical Culture is very important scientific journal in Serbia. Meny authors from Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia... publish in this journal.(salegolub) —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is indeed a "very important scientific journal", then there certainly are reliable sources confirming this. If you have any, please list them here or add them to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes in the article and hope it's OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salegolub (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, it isn't. What is needed to meet our inclusion criteria is for a journal to be either included in at least one very selective database or in-depth coverage in independent sources. The sources that you are added today are a link to the journal's homepage (not independent) and an article which was written by somebody working at the faculty that is publishing this journal (not independent either). --Randykitty (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The claim to be the oldest scientific journal in Serbia (in the Bokan source) seems like the sort of thing that should make it notable, but to me ends up more discrediting the source, first because in what sense is this actually science and second because there are much older journals with that claim (e.g. Voice of SANU as listed in List of Serbian-language journals, Acta entomologica Serbica, or Serbian Astronomical Journal). But this journal does have a long history, and on that basis if multiple less-dubious sources that cover it in-depth turn up, I would be willing to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 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. Sandstein 09:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crozdesk[edit]

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

The article makes no clear assertion of notability. All it says is that it's a software web service, and cites a couple of industry websites that copied and pasted their press releases. Slashme (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I encountered this earlier, clearly too soon and by far nothing for the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as duplicate citations have been removed and additional media citations added to broaden assertion of nobility Jamesaeddleston 11:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's look at these citations: --Slashme (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Tech City startup Crozdesk launches web app discovery toolkit". Tech City News. Retrieved 2016-05-23. Starts with "Tech city startup Crozdesk"; published on Tech City news. I guess this is not an independent source.
"Crozdesk leaves beta to provide a handy tool for finding quality web apps | Webrazzi - Tech startup news from Europe, Middle East and North Africa". Webrazzi. 2015-06-12. Retrieved 2016-07-19. Webrazzi seems to be a pure promotion platform. All their articles are uniformly positive as far as I can tell.
"Worldwide Business with kathy ireland Highlights The Innovative Approach To Software Evaluation By Crozdesk". www.businesswire.com. Business Wire. Retrieved 2016-05-23. "Tune in to see Crozdesk on Fox Business Network as sponsored programming on October 11, 2015 at 5:30pm ET and on Bloomberg International as sponsored programming at 8:30am CET and 10:30am CDT." "Sponsored programming" = advertisement.
"Was der Brexit für die europäische Gründerszene bedeutet". Retrieved 2016-07-19. Here the founder is briefly quoted saying that Brexit will make it difficult to find international teams, and that he started Crozdesk with a team of six nationalities. This says nothing about the notability of the company, and using it to support the statement that the founder is regularly quoted on the subject of Brexit is a bit of a stretch.
Feil, Frank (2016-06-28). "Welchen Folgen hat der Brexit für Startups?" (in German). Retrieved 2016-07-19. Again, briefly quoted as an example of startup founders who are concerned about Brexit.
"Crozdesk announces partnership with Softonic to help millions of businesses find the right software". Tech City News. Retrieved 2016-07-06. And again Tech City News, this time just a press release, so worthwhile for finding facts, but self-published, so doesn't work to confirm notability.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

José Antonio de Magalhães Lins[edit]

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

Looks like not notable businessman Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the article is an attempt to make him notable simply because of his family, and it doesn't do anything other than showing that he is a business man being a businessman. One of the sources merely mentions him. A Google search didn't return anything relevant (just more mentions). I plan to request the deletion of the Portuguese article as well. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i don´t see any problem. two references were added Newsfc (talk) 18:45, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Miskin[edit]

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

The current coverage is not substantially convincing for his own notability and there's nothing to suggest the Lighstone Group CCO has any inherited notability; my searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 17:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the number of titles that include "chief" and "officer" in them at companies continue to expand from what was once just CEO, to COO, CGO, CEnO, CCO, CAO and CJO (chief janitorial officer), there is no reason to start assuming all these people are notable. Even CEO's of companies that are notable are not universally default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is promotion from an editor who does nothing but promote. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:57, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISINA[edit]

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

Non-notable local music mentorship group as my searches have found nothing better and the links listed contain no substantially significant coverage, nothing suggesting independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, google search results lack notability. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 11:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:41, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagawan Bhandari[edit]

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

Still nothing to suggest substantial independent notability with the source only being a local news story about his immigration; my own searches have found nothing better than a passing mentions at the Himalayan Times. SwisterTwister talk 18:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:41, 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 delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 10:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley Academy[edit]

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

This never lists if it's an actual degree-awarding school and there's also nothing suggesting there's the needed sources and coverage, my searches have found nothing so far. SwisterTwister talk 18:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:41, 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 delete. The keep !votes do not provide a guideline- or policy-based rationale for article retention. Presence of a Facebook page that provides information about the band does not directly confer to notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snowy Dunes[edit]

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

None of the listed sources are actually convincing for notability, only 1 album so far for a somewhat newly started band, my searches have found nothing to suggest convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to their Facebook page, they are already working on their second studio album. I have also included (in the article) some noteable appearances at international festivals.Yasir.alsaffar (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Yasir.alsaffar (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Sailor (talk • contribs) 09:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per facebook page note about this.BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An announcement on FB of an upcoming album is not something that counts towards notability. They did perform together with another Swedish band, se:Skraeckoedlan, on a short Euro tour in February (tour dates), but I have not been able to find significant coverage on them. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:35, 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 no consensus. Of note is that the nominator later stated that the subject may possess notability per Wikipedia's standards, stating (in part), "I would retract this AfD, but let's rather get a few more !votes and then tag the article for improvement" North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Harris (translation researcher)[edit]

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

This article is full of references to the subject's own work, but no-where is there a clear claim of notability. It's essentially a CV. Slashme (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned several times in Google Books as an expert in their field, which would make them meet both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. These sources include a book on how to interpret Harris's work on natural translation [17] and a book that describes him as a pioneer in using already translated texts to aid in machine translation, among others. --- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right! I saw a whole list of references at the bottom of the article, and none of them seemed to indicate any kind of notability of the kind that your search shows. I would retract this AfD, but let's rather get a few more !votes and then tag the article for improvement. --Slashme (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but willing to be persuaded. Neither publishing nor having one's publications cited by others satisfies WP:ACADEMIC, but making "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" does. I see suggestions (e.g. here) that he "introduced the notion of bi-text". But that's not a notion I've heard of, so I can say whether it's a significant impact. I don't see evidence of notable fellowships, chairs, editing, or the like. Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My !vote was a weak one, and User:Slashme's 9 July comment seems to come close to withdrawing the nomination. This is looking like a no consensus, default to keep, and I have no problem with that outcome. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm: I'm OK with that outcome as well. --Slashme (talk) 07:44, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Weizman[edit]

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

I have found links at News and browsers but still nothing actually suggesting the convincing independent notability, the Dutch Wiki offers nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have also found links at GNews, but they do suggest notability: a small biography in De Volkskrant (national newspaper); a larger bio in the same newspaper (paywall, but that's not a reason to dismiss a source) and a few more. According to these sources, Weizman will replace Ola Mafaalani as head of the Noord Nederlands Toneel in 2017, one of the four largest Dutch theatre ensembles, funded by the government. Being director of a such big organisation satisfies WP:NBIO, methinks. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the website of Dagblad van het Noorden [18] gives 17 results when you search for "Guy Weizman". – Editør (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:41, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A2 (remote television production)[edit]

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

I couldn't verify its WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:41, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wagtail (CMS)[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a CMS. Lacks sufficient available reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 19:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing my comments on Talk:Wagtail_(CMS),

From my point of view this page was initially created to enhance the Python section on List of content management systems. I think adding Wagtail there is relevant, as it is a very popular albeit recent alternative to the other projects on the list. For the separate page however I understand that it was lacking sources, particularly to demonstrate notability. I have added the ones which I think are the most relevant, as well as some (sourced) content on the project’s history. Looking at Talk:Django_CMS (one of the closest projects in this space, easy comparison), notable uses of the software seem to have been used to make notability claims. Not sure how relevant this is but I added a "Notable uses" section for Wagtail as well, with entities that already have their own Wikipedia pages. Those are sourced with the site they refer to, and other sources where available (open-source code of the site for beta.FEC.gov, news article for UPenn).

I'm obviously keen for this page to exist (I contribute to both Wagtail (CMS) and Django CMS). Looking back at my changes, I would like to get more feedback about Wikipedia's stance on using GitHub repositories as sources (for example awesome-python lists Wagtail, and would be considered a reliable source by open-source software users IMHO) and demonstrating notability with notable usages and/or users of a piece of software.

Thibaudcolas (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:40, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heads and Hands[edit]

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

Nothing at all convincing to suggest the needed independent notability and my own searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:40, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Court, Johannesburg[edit]

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

Nothing at all to suggest the needed substance for independent notability and my own searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It may be difficult to dig up historical architectural content for South Africa, but here is a book that explicitly describes this building as "important" and goes into a bit of detail about its internal appointments; and here (available in a snippet only) is the discussion of the building in another book that served as the source for the first one. If someone is so inclined, an article about the architects, the Obel brothers, would apparently be a nice addition to our currently slim coverage of South African architects. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:40, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roszheldorproject[edit]

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

Note I removed some of the advert information, but there's still nothing for convincing independent notability and my searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:40, 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 delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1992–93 Aldershot Town F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aldershot Town F.C. As NSEASONS says: "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." I'd otherwise be fine with deletion if there's consensus for that. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. Consensus at WP:FOOTY is that season articles for clubs in fully professional leagues are usually appropriate, while season articles for clubs in lower leagues are not. The Isthmian League is well below the level where club season article are notable. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 07:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lower tier semi-professional team season without significant coverage in reliable sources, and is not notable per NSEASONS. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UNC Student Action with Workers Designated Suppliers Program Movement[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence that this is a notable movement. I can't find anything independent of the movement about the movement. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is this? A sub-movement of one particular club in a university? The citations in the article are all repeats of the same and there is hardly any secondary independent coverage to show that this particular movement is notable or has had any lasting notable impact. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:35, 30 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 and redirect to USM_Alger#List_of_All-time_appearances_for_USM_Alger. Going to be bold here given there is no interest in continuing this discussion, I have moved the table to the club article and will redirect to that. The club article is lengthy so the inclusion of the table makes little difference and there is no need for a fork of such a small element. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of All-time appearances for USM Alger[edit]

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

In a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Algeria national football team season, this article was mentioned as having very doubtful notability. There is no evidence that it passes WP:GNG and there is no source at all for verification. The threshold for 200 matcher also seems like an arbitrary number. I think it should be deleted, it is simple not notable. Qed237 (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - surpassed by List of USM Alger players and doesn't merit being converted into a redirect. Giant Snowman 09:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge(?)/Redirect. All-time roster type lists are normal for professional clubs with sufficient sources to verify them, and restricting the scope by number of appearances is standard practice. However, we don't need both this page and List of USM Alger players (hence why I think this AfD should have been bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of USM Alger players). This page contains at least one player who isn't listed there, but seeing as there are no sources cited on either page, I'm not sure whether he/they should be merged or not. Redirects are cheap. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect - to USM Alger. No need for a fork for a list this small and so incomplete. Would then hat this table with a link to the main list of players noted by GS. Fenix down (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:40, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PeoplesBank[edit]

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

My searches have found nothing to suggest any actual independent notability apart from the only claim of significance, the state's largest bank. SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:39, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Ebsworth[edit]

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

There's no inherited notability from simply being the Head of Pharmaceuticals at Bayer, my searches have found no actual substantial coverage and the listed sources are not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:39, 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 delete. The one "keep" does not address the reasons for deletion, i.e, insufficient sources. Sandstein 10:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CloudRail[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I Proposed deletion a couple of weeks ago, stating that there were no independent sources at all, and MrX seconded the proposal, but the creator of the article removed the proposal. He added three references, presumably in order to establish notability, but those are a news announcement at TechCrunch that the company had secured some funding, a page at Dropbox which merely includes CloudRail in a list of 21 Core API SDKs, and a page on a web site called "disqus", which states that it "focuses on helping independent publishers grow successfully", and that "Reveal is an easy-to-use and effective native advertising solution that helps you earn money from your site. It’s integrated into Disqus where you can manage your earnings." None of these does anything at all to establish notability in Wikipedia's terms. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete Fails WP:GNG and has strong smell of advertising The Banner talk 13:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep It's hard for a page describing freeware to be an ad, don't you think? The Github stats show that it's moderately well-liked, but I'd agree that the article lacks sources. This is the case with a lot of freeware, especially backend/boilerplate stuff. I'd liken it to other backend pages like SVGALib, which typically only link to the project itself. Wikipedia seems to be more accommodating for free and gratis software. Granted, this article left me pretty confused as to what the software actually did until I read the sources.
- P.S., Do you really not know what Disqus is? If you're going to suggest web backend articles for deletion, it seems like you should recognize the big names in the field. Jergling (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:39, 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 delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Lujan[edit]

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

None of the listed sources are convincingly substantial and my searches have found nothing better, notability is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article itself says that he's best known for two animated shorts. Clearly fails notability. --Slashme (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:39, 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 delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Svyatoslav Bunyaev[edit]

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

The listed sources are not convincing for his own notability and I note this was actually deleted in May at Russia Wiki (after this article started, apparently because they listed all English contents at Ru.Wiki), my own searches have found nothing so far; the article is also rather advert-toned suggesting some connections of some sort. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:39, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). The notion of a merge can be further discussed on an article talk page, or perhaps boldly performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shift Work[edit]

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

Both searches and examinations have found nothing better since the listed links are only interviews or other non-convincing links, nothing to suggest the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Factory Floor. Will likely get more coverage in the future, but for now can be summarized in the Factory Floor article. --Michig (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:39, 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 redirect to Gormenghast (series)#Characters of the series. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Flay[edit]

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

This character currently doesn't establish notability. All I can see from the source links is once recent article talking about the character due to an actor's recent death, which would probably be better utilized on the TV series article. TTN (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gormenghast (series)#Characters of the series. The best I found was [19] from Empire and [20] from PopMatters. That's a good start, but I don't think it's enough to satisfy the GNG. If someone can find another source like the PopMatters one, I could be convinced to change my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:15, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Odissi Centre[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability requirements (only incidental and local coverage). FDMS 4 22:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:38, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Tycoon (video game)[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much reliable secondary coverage that I could find. An IGN review and that's about it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's got an entry at Metacritic with a few reviews, including [21] at IGN (mentioned above) and an offline review from Computer Gaming World. Metacritic also links to [22] from Adrenaline Vault, but this seems to be a review for Casino Mogul, a different game from the same developer. Besides that, in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search, I see two non-English reviews: [23] from fr:Jeuxvideo.com and [24] from nl:Gamer.nl. Since the CGW review snippet doesn't mention Casino Tycoon and Metacritic apparently linked the wrong game with the Adrenaline Vault review, I did a Google Books search to see if Google digitized the CGW issue. Fortunately, it did come up in a search, but it's only a snippet view: [25]. I think that's probably enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I concur with NinjaRobotPirate based on the new sources offered. The article is in great need of expansion, though. This should have been created as a draft until it was ready for mainspace... -Thibbs (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to developer Monte Cristo Multimedia. Four middling reviews with no depth on Development or any other sources at all isn't enough to warrant a separate article on the subject. Everything that needs to be said can be done within a section of its parent, which needs expansion. czar 00:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why must we merge or redirect everything these days? Four full reviews on a game is more than enough for it to have its own article, considering two is the absolute minimum amount needed, per WP:GNG. Just because it can just have a section in its parent article, doesn't mean it should. If there were next to no coverage available, I could understand, but that's not the case here. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews shown above by NinjaRobotPirate establish notability. Merging this game and all others of similar notability to Monte Cristo Multimedia would made that page too big anyway. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:57, 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 delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetano Posterino[edit]

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

Still nothing confidently acceptable for convincing independent notability, the German Wiki offers nothing better and my own searches have noticeably found nothing better; there's nothing to suggest there's the needed substantial coverage. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:37, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lander[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for WP:CREATIVE Air.light (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete This street poet appears to held in some affection locally [26]], but I do not see anyghig in my searches to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Seems like he may scrape by WP:BIO. He appears to be a local celebrity, which always raises the issue of notability requiring at least some regional coverage, rather than just e.g. local papers. There's a bit of that, but there's also the kind of language the sources use, suggesting sources for his long career may require some effort to find. Even some that I found with Google Books are not actually accessible online. Here's what I found: Nanaimo Daily News, Prism International (apparently the oldest literary magazine in western Canada -- I don't have access to the full version but from the preview it looks like biography or otherwise secondary coverage), Nanaimo Daily News, Nanaimo News Bulletin, "Tim+Lander" The Journal of Canadian Poetry (another one I don't have access to) looks to include a review of his The Glass Book), Publishing Lives: Interviews with Independent Book Publishers in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia includes a chapter comprising and interview with Lander, BC Booklook magazine... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dejobaan Games[edit]

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

Developer of notable video games fails WP:GNG; their game is notable, but notability is not inherited. On the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, very little results discuss the studio; not enough to merit its own article. Redirect to AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! – A Reckless Disregard for Gravity. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject of independent reliable coverage.[27][28][29] Video games developer notability would be better aligned with WP:MUSIC where a degree of notability is inherited - redirecting the creator of multiple independently notable works to a single notable work is not helpful, you're making a bad assumption on behalf of the reader. Just a bare bones list of games, a glorified disambiguation page would be more useful for a reader searching for the subject. - hahnch e n 08:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hahnchen:, sorry for my late reply. I did notice those results too, but do you think that those mean Dejobaan Games meets WP:GNG? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - splitting into multiple articles for notable games is inefficient and this is a game developer with 17 titles. Agree with the findings of Hahnchen above.Tarinth (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:37, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joweigha Johnson[edit]

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

nothing substantial to establish notability. fails WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable under Wikipedia policies. Unless Wikipedia is now publishing CVs. Engleham (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: This is the only notable reference in the entire world that documents this publicist. It is never enough to establish notability. From the article, there is really nothing special about him too.Darreg (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply PR, nothing at all here for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 16:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable for WP. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, no useable sources found. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with SwisterTwister I also could not find any in depth coverage from independent reliable sources to establish notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:31, 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. Sandstein 10:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent cyr[edit]

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

Examining this still found none of the needed substance for convincing notability and either some of the sources are simply trivial mentions or altogether unacceptable; my own searches have found nothing better. At best, I consider this nearly and hinting at A7 and G11 material. Please see also Vincent Cyr which has also been deleted before. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let's look at the references for this article.

In this article in Variety there is a passing mention of Vincent Cyr.

In in this article in Variety there is a passing mention of Vincent Cyr.

In this video posted on the TIME website, there is yet again mention of Vincent Cyr.

My initial opinion was "delete per nom" with a touch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I have made myself far too WP:INVOLVED to make any further comments here.

--Shirt58 (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Vincent Cyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gbawden (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor and YouTuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any notability and the presence of two near identical versions of this article (cf Vincent Cyr ) strongly hints at promotion. I assume that the closing admin will apply the outcome of this AfD to both articles since the AfD template on both articles directs to this discussion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, sources are just mere mentions, looks like WP:PROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suelyn Medeiros[edit]

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

Nothing at all actually convincing as this only focuses with the apparent sexual activities and my own searches have simply found links for this, there's still nothing actually confidently convincing; note this was deleted by PROD in September 2008 with questionability about notability also. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual content can be removed but for that, I request that she should get a chance.

Hi, She is model and actress. she is not involved in any kind of sexual activities. It was the case which happened in 2011, I added it because I found even Pamela Anderson profile had that. If this is not according to the wiki then I will remove this particular part.

Further, in 2008 when it was deleted she didn't have any notable. But Now she has worked in some many movies and film and she is the well known model. Please reconsidered it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanyna (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per having coverage to meet WP:BASIC, even if a little weak on WP:ENT. It seems WP:BEFORE may not have been followed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like the article, it's only controversies, even if she's best known for these, it's not convincing for a keepable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh.... like it or not, and even if only a stub article and she being only "known for controversies" is perfectly fine just so long as sources provide more-than-trivial information. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no personal point of view from me at all, it's simply the facts: The article's basis is with the listed controversies, not an actual acting career; it's risky keeping an article with this kind of information because anyone with any such controversies and sources could put this themselves too. Also, the listed sources and, frankly, the information show this is all simply gossip news. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unaware of (or are simply ignoring) WP:BASIC specifically instructing that SNGs such as WP:ENT or WP:ACTOR or WP:MUSICIAN (etc) do not have to be met if WP:BASIC is itself met when it shares "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". And as we have more-than-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, this person meets WP:BIO. Why she has continued coverage is far less pertinent than the simple fact that she does have continued coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepJust because someone's sextape got release that doesn't mean that they are involved in sex acts and the main point is that she is notable as per wikipedia article guidelines so she is clearly notable with notability eligibility.Drdvdc, —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some search results on her clothing line, her autobiography and her modelling suggest that she has a few different ventures going on. Notable enough. MurielMary (talk) 11:30, 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 delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katarina Zavatska[edit]

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

(Contested PROD) Does not meet the requirements for notability at WP:NTENNIS, or the WP:GNG. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see no notability here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Katarina Zavatska is only the fourth female player to complete a golden set in professional tennis since 1910.

Sofia Kenin has a Wikipedia page and she only has one junior title, ranking No. 11 in the world in junior tennis.

But Zavatska has two junior titles and two professional titles and ranked No. 14 in the world when she was a junior.

Mira Antonitsch has a Wikipedia page and she qualified for the 1st round of the French Open junior tournament, peaking at a whopping 994th in the world.

But Zavatska reached the quarterfinals of the French Open junior tournament, eliminated by the eventual champion, and is currently ranked 667th in the world.

Anastasia Detiuc has a Wikipedia page and has no titles and a world ranking of 1035th.

Dea Sumantri, Montinee Tangphong and Katie Swan have Wikipedia pages and don't seem to be any more accomplished than Zavatska.

Superdupereditor (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start. She completed the golden set as a junior. Not in the minor league ITF events, not in the minor-minor league 10,000 ITF events, and not on the WTA tour. As for the others mentioned: Kenin played on the main WTA Tour in the US Open. Antonitsch has also played in the big leagues on the WTA Tour at the 2016 Nuremberg Cup. Detiuc played for the Moldova Fed Cup team with a 3–1 record. Tangphong has played in WTA pro tour events and Swan has played at Wimbledon and the Great Britain Fed Cup team. Not sure about Sumantri qualifications. Bottom line is the juniors aren't notable unless they are ranked in the top 3 or they WIN one of the Jr. Majors. This is spelled out in the Tennis Project Guidelines for all to see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Zavatska's golden set occurred on the pro circuit [30]. I'm still stunned that Wikipedia's rules of tennis notability are so twisted that a player whose highest ranking is No. 976 with no singles titles and one doubles title can be Wikipedia worthy while a player whose highest ranking is No. 552 is not. Superdupereditor (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected... it happened in qualifying for minor league tennis. And it's not a question of ranking... both those ranking stink for notability. One has played on the WTA tour and one hasn't. It's like Major League Baseball vs Minor League Baseball. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This player is not notable by project standards; she has no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category, had no remarkable junior career (neither a Grand Slam champion nor ranked within the world's top 3), and there are no further claims that she is otherwise, at present, generally notable. Jared Preston (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this is matching the needed substance for an article, it seems she's not particularly a major top player. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shibu Thameens[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the WP:GNG, or any subject-specific notability guideline. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTPROMO and TNT (essay). I did not investigate notability as NOTPROMO is sufficient, but, even if the subject is notable, this obvious COIN piece is too poorly written to merit a "buy one, get one free" rewrite. Rebb ing 06:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 06:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 06:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm still not seeing any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Boys Code[edit]

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

Non-notable subject lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Organization article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. The only ref is a deadlink to a personal blog for a photographer. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Does not meet WP:NONPROFIT. Dialectric (talk) 16:57, 30 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 06:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barasch McGarry Salzman & Penson[edit]

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

Most likely an advertising page. I read only half of the refs ("in the news") but the pattern seems to be that one of the founders has a short line in an article about Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks, hence that qualifies for passing coverage. (Note that the first source even mispells Barasch's name) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:34, 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 redirect to Psychic TV. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edley ODowd[edit]

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

Procedural nomination; tagged for A7 but rejected due to work with notable bands. However, he may not be notable. I am neutral. Appable (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redirect to Psychic TV. Sources do not indicate notability. This edit is highly suspicious and points towards a possible copyright violation. The main article is too promotional and not encyclopedic. Fails WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV as I can't find significant mentions of the subject in independent reliable sources. Ca2james (talk) 23:19, 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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Winter Deaflympics[edit]

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

There is already an article for the Deaflympics, and it doesn't seem proper to have a rather brief, undescriptive article for every time the Deaflympics occurs. I propose that we delete (or merge, if possible) the specific year-by-year articles listed on Template:Deaflympics. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 00:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't feel we need to have a separate page for each of the events at this point. These could be on the main Deaflympics page. Dane2007 (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure a "need" for an article or it being "proper" are really relevant points, the event is notable enough for its on page. See sources such as [31], [32], [33], [34], which could be used to expand the article to look something like we have for each Olympics/Paralympics/Commonwealth/Pan-American etc. Games with sections on the host selection, sports contested, venues, opening & closing ceremonies, medallists and so on - Basement12 (T.C) 16:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There have been enough competitions that including all that information on the main article for each of them would be unwieldy and create an unnecessarily long article. Smartyllama (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep it as @Smartyllama basically has said what I was going to say as it would be way too long to have each medal table on the main page. So I say we keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt294069 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more consensus needed to close — Music1201 ^talk 00:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:33, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HR.com[edit]

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

The only possible claim to actual significance is the assertion that this website's surveys have been covered in notable business journals, but the fact that the surveys were written about does not necessarily make the company itself notable. The article also mentions the recognition that its founder has received, but a company is not always notable just because its founder is. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 00:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:33, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Energy Ministerial[edit]

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

No reliable sources to prove notability. Many of the sources are primary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:32, 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 delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tani Cinco[edit]

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

PROD removed by page's creator. Subject lacks notability and independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This person Tani Cinco was a notable actor during the 1980s in the Philippines. There aren't many online sources I can cite for this since it was a long time ago, but I do have other sources like newspaper clippings, images, and the like. Please let me know how I can better provide information about this person. Thanks CarlosCincoFCB 05:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. Move to user space so that the author can continue work on it and especially sources. If there are further sources it would pass WP:GNG. Karst (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing actually confirming the needed substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 10:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retale[edit]

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

The page was created in July 2014 by a WP:SPA [[35]]. The page has been orphaned since 2014. In the past 2 years, there were only 6 edits to the page -- two of them by me. This subject is not notable and fails WP:N. The original article contained links to a popular infographic the company created ([[36]] and [[37]]) which might have been why previous editors mistaken it for notable. A famous infographic created by a company does not make a company notable. Google news reports a lot of results for "Retale" but the news are, once again, public relation pieces the company produced (ie surveys, infographics, etc). WP:ORG says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." and, given that this is a tech company, a handfull of articles about the app before release is not in any way significant. What's more, the parent company, Bonial, doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page. All these signs show that the entity is not notable and fails WP:N. It also suggests that the Wikipedia page was created as part of a public relations campaign, and therefore an advert, which Wikipedia is not WP:NOT. CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I was able to find articles about the APP at TechCrunch, The Verge, Digiday, Wall Street Journal. Most are about the launch of the APP and I wouldn't consider any to be much more than warmed-over press releases. The WSJ one is about investing in the startup. I think it's too soon for an article about the app, since most software fails, as do most startups. Note that a main competitor, RetailMeNot has a WP page that also looks shaky to me. LaMona (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. All evidence is pointing to a strong Public Relations department in the company and not actual notability.CerealKillerYum (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:30, 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 delete. SOFTDELETE per low overall participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya Mishra[edit]

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

Non notable police officer Uncletomwood (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncletomwood,She was the first female IPS of Odisha and How can you say that, She's non notable? - Sailesh Patnaik ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 06:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't the first female officer of India but merely a First Female officer of a particular State, does not show any notability as per WP:GNG Uncletomwood (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy states that we should have articles only on "first from a country"? Her works and contributions are well-acknowledged and covered. I think it passed WP:GNG. I'll add my own vote after doing a little more study. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable police officer, Fails GNG. 21:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence was shown in this discussion, that heading a police force in a city of X population meets our criteria for notability. Therefore, this article's subject is found to lack the required notability for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navdeep Singh Virk[edit]

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

Non Notable mid level police officer. Merely holding the post of Commissioner of a city in India does not show notability. Uncletomwood (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commands the police in a city of nearly 900,000 people. In my opinion that shows sufficient notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just heading the Police force for a city (with a tenure of hardly 1-2 years) without doing anything notable makes him notable enough? Uncletomwood (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Just like serving in a national legislature for three days does (see WP:POLITICIAN)! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can;t see how that policy cann be applied here. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm. What's so special about a politician? Yet they get inherent notability just for sitting in a legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever that meant. He's anyway transferred out of the post. Uncletomwood (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should be deleted as the person in question is a mid level officer. Gurgaon is not a metro City. Page is promotional and autobiographical with exaggerations. While we do have some biographies of very senior police officers—mainly those with direct responsibility for major metro areas—we've never usually hosted biographies of officials at this level of smaller cities. Plus, the article appears to be heavily padded with things which happened to occur on his watch, rather than things for which he was directly responsible. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable police officer, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as his position is not convincing for actually establishing independence. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Sahay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non Notable retired police officer Uncletomwood (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass WP:GNG, plus his time in office, awards and other work since seem to show he is notable enough for an article. Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's held mainly non notable posts. His awards are also not notable. Mind clarifying? Uncletomwood (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know - his notability is at best marginal and the article has a terrible problem with COI editors coming in to write about how marvellous he is. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:29, 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 Redirect to Adrian Ellis, though I note that some concerns have been raised about that article as well. Obviously, those are best dealt with there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AEA Consulting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company. Little assertion of notability in the article itself (once all the self-promotional fluff was removed) and no independent sources to be found online. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The offered references do not establish notability of the firm itself and my searches are finding nothing better.AllyD (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article on Adrian Ellis, AEA's principal consultant, does appear to establish his personal notability, so perhaps a redirect is in order? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability is not inherited. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 10:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to Adrian Ellis, more or less per WikiDan61. I'm not seeing anything more than brief mentions, the best of which take the form "the company hired AEA Consulting to study it." I'm not seeing more than that, but I wouldn't have any objection to the article's recreation down the road if significant coverage can be found. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with redirect to Adrian Ellis - references and other sources do not indicate noteworthiness for this company, nor does this Wikipedia article even though that is not taken into account. However, Adrian Ellis does appear to be a notable person, garnering signifigant coverage in the New York Times[38], [39], [40]; the Wall Street Journal [41]; and I think there is more. Ellis seems to be a prime example of what is considered a notable person on Wikipedia. I get tired of looking at questionable and unreliable sources while some claim these are sufficient. Mr. Ellis is a refreshing change. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company is just a vehicle for Ellis to sell his services. Checking the company's two "offices" given on its website, 5 Hanna Lane, Unit 4 (from a quick google search) appears to be a 1-bed apartment, and the Somerset House office is shared space. AEA is nothing more than a brand name for Ellis. Not even worthy of a redirect. for (;;) (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as explained by Steve Quinn, and then the article on Ellis may need some attention also. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sourcing does not suggest notability; the Adrian Ellis article appears to be on a non-notable subject itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as I believe this is best to ensure no restarting. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Li Guangyu[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR. Very few roles. No major awards LibStar (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan Bailey[edit]

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

For the recond I created this page, but that was at a time when it seemed that we were heading toward having articles on every state pageant winner of both Miss USA and the Miss America feeders. Also for the record I was at one point personally aquainted with Ms. Bailey, although that was 4 years before she won the pageant. Specifically she lived in one of the wards I served in on my LDS mission and her father was in the stake presidency while her mother was the relief society president of the ward. I visited their home multiple times, and also went on missionary splits with her twin brother. I have since comes to see there is a lack of truly indepth coverage to sustain most articles on state winners via GNG, and the argument that these titles are some sort of office really does not hold weight. This case is an especially bad one of low sources, the picture of her 3 children (which I had no part in posting) not withstanding. Basically the fact of the matter is that Bailey is not a public figure, and we lack information to create a stand alone article. There might be justification for creating a basic info listing in the list of winners of Miss Nevada USA winners, but there is no reason for a stand alone article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG and the relevant special notability guideline for pageant winners. Very poor choice of photographs, verging on deleteably inappropriate. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Grissom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

To begin with the previous nomination was part of a huge unruly bundle, that suffered from all huge bio nominations problems, if any of the people are notable than all will have support for keeping them. I think there is also a factor that over time the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia have gotten tighter. Back in 2006 when this article was created Wikipedia considered many candidates for public office who lost notable, since then we have realized that there are not the sources to create substantial meaningful articles on all such candidates. In the same way I think we have come to realize there is no good reason to have articles on all state-level beauty pageant winners. This is especially true when you consider that of the first 34 winners of Miss USA Tennessee we only have articles on two of them. One because she went on to become a notable singer/songwriter, the other because she was later one of the inagural flight attendants for Southwest Airlines and one of only 5 inaguaral ones (from 1971) still working as a flight attendant for the company in 2014, 43 years later. Even at that I have doubts if the coverage and sources on Sandra Force justify having the article, Considering that through the mid-1970s the industry goal with flight attendants was young attractive females in the model of cocktail waitresses while since the image of the flight attendant has been somewhat reworked, that people in their early 60s are on the job who have been there since their early 20s is not surprising, also it would be a much more interesting article if we were told how many original flight attendants Southwest had, because 5 out of 10 would not be as impressive as one of 5 out of 100. I digress, back to Grissom, she has been involved in minor modeling and acting and had a minor role in a reality TV show, but none of that adds up to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I see even lesser lights that are dubious for PORNBIO survive AfD, I do think we should think about giving some credit if there's more than just the pageant. I know that an OTHERSTUFF argument doesn't really cut it, but it does seem that a reality show trumps an adult film... sigh. This isn't a !vote yet, just a discussion. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Montanabw I agree that we need to discuss about the notability of beauty pageant title holders including this one in more detail. I read on one of these AFD's where an editor stated just winning a US state title does not give notability. "Where is that written in stone?" Usually the state winners go on to the national pageant where there is more chance to show notability. Also many subjects have one or more other things going on that also can denote notability. Since there has been an upswing in these beauty pageant winners, I hope we can come to a consensus on what wins confer notability. Any ideas? Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- One possibility is to look at doing a WP:NPAGEANT criteria, as is done for WP:NSPORTS, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL, etc.. Montanabw ^(talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run of the mill beauty contest winner. Carrite (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete To be honest, my feelings on these articles are well documented. I agree that we need a really strong WP:NPAGEANT criteria, per the suggestion of User:Montanabw. And I am sorry to see that the Fashion deletion category is once again becoming a dumping ground for women who are probably perfectly nice, but who are reduced to presenting themselves as bait for the male gaze. I recall an attempt to establish guidelines for beauty pageant notability a couple of years back, but think it fizzled out. But it IS something that is needed - especially as every year we get a surge of promoters desperate for us to know that about 20 entrants to Miss Arendelle have mastered the art of walking and smiling simultaneously while wearing heels.... (yeah, sometimes we get articles on Mr Narnia, but the VAST majority is female-centred.) Mabalu (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is nowhere near enough to pass GNG. Winning a sub-national beauty pageant is not enough for notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:46, 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 delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janice McDonald[edit]

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

This article is not in some ways as problematic as other articles on beauty pageant winners. However it does not pass GNG at all. The sources are all either to works she created or comapnies she was affiliated with. Other than winning a state beauty pageant, she was involved in broadcasting at the local level, which is not enough to make her notable, and has written some minor books about localities in South Carolina, which are also not enough to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: While each individually might not cut it alone, the total of all her accomplishments puts her over the top, IMHO. The bit about her family taking over the pageants in the southern states is newsworthy as well. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm having trouble sourcing this. A news archive search turns up many Janets McDonald, but I don't see her on the first page of hits. I looked for the pictorial history she published on a pair of Atlanta institutions The Varsity and Fox Theatre (Atlanta), but all I found was an author talk at an Atlanta bookstore listed in the local newspaper events column (This week's literary events; Webb, Gina. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution [Atlanta, Ga] 01 Dec 2013: E.5.) it's just a listing, not a story or a review. Kept searching and finally found a 2006 feature story in The News & Observer that was picked up by the McClatchey wire service and ran in 1 other paper (the Bismark Tribune). However, it is profile of McDonald's older sister, Paula Miles, who was a beauty pageant producer. It contains a single paragraph about McDonald, "Her younger sisters, Janice McDonald and Ann Boyce, were the pageant queens. Both entered their share, and Janice advanced to the Miss USA pageant. Janice is the one who volunteered Miles for the job of state pageant coordinator, during a 1979 visit to the Miss Universe headquarters in New York City. " That's the best I can do, and it's not enough. (feel free to flag me to revisit if anyone finds better sources.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - the Keep rationales are very weak, and the subject appears to fail GNG. Mabalu (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per E.M. Gregory research. Prevan (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable as a model or author. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Weishuhn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources are no where near enough to pass GNG. Winning a US state beauty pageant is not in and of itself enough to make someone notable. In this case that is literally all we know about Weishuhn. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete presuming that winning a state-level pageant of a major national pageant is not inherently notable. I agree that appears to be all we have here. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG with Montanabw's caveat of "presuming that winning a state-level pageant of a major national pageant is not inherently notable.". I think we need the WP:NPAGEANT policy that others have suggested. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 00:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE concur with nom. Winning one state level pageant does not establish notability. MB 03:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the moment this is a BLP1E and there is no other claim of notability other than the state pageant winner. It fails GNG and winning a state pageant is not enough to confer notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:57, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keena Bonella[edit]

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

Bonella won a state beauty pageant which is not enough on its own to establish notability. Her work in discouraging illegal drug use is non-notable. She appears to be a good person but we lack the sources to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best there is, a Miss USA 2007, which is not surprising since this has not been largely touched since then, nothing else at all convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom, winning one state pageant does not establish notability. MB 03:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and winning a subnatinal pageant is not a claim to notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:41, 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 delete. Promotional article, lacking notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SIMPYC[edit]

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

Unreferenced, Promotional & speculative Rathfelder (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an EU project, from what I can tell. There is a Europeana Record for the project, but there is nothing there that dates after 2008. The WP article was created in 2007. The project web page no longer exists. But it also doesn't seem that the project produced much that could be recorded here - two small reports, from what I can tell. The WP article probably should have waited until there was something to report. LaMona (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional spam about a failed project. Prevan (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, personally I have never heard of it and I live within the EU. Nordic Nightfury 10:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noticeably advertorial, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus is weak here either way, but it does lean towards retention. Any questions regarding merges/renames can be handled at the relevant talk pages. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth Springs, Illinois[edit]

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

Hoax. Supposed USGS cite is actually about Flowerfield, Illinois. Fits this user's pattern. Smartyllama (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same pattern as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertha, Florida. Start with real populated place (GNIS 1771854) and build a hoax on top of it. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real page, just removed the unverified crap, which anyone could have done. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the lay of the land still suggests this user is making noticeably questionable articles, best deleted if there's still the factual questionability. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the unverified stuff gone, this doesn't look like an unincorporated community - GNIS doesn't explicitly indicate it is, just that it was a populated place (based on a source from 1901), and the coordinates place it on top of Oakbrook Center. This source claims it was the site of a spring, but not a community or populated place, so this may just be a GNIS misclassification. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Government-recognized populated place, based upon THIS. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: I concur that GNIS lists it as a populated place. However, WP:GEOLAND has two criteria in the first group; populated and legally recognized. From all available sources, this location was never a legally recognized location. The GNIS data does not, by itself, pass GEOLAND. The article, as it stands, fails WP:GNG. That the spring existed is not enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect into Fullersburg, Illinois; otherwise, Weak Keep and maybe rename to "Mammoth Springs (Illinois)" because it's more about a spring than a settlement: Part of the Bnnnperdue mess; this looks like it might have a chance at WP:GNG but I haven't found enough significant coverage to prove it, just a paragraph or so here and there. It appears to be mainly a (former) water spring, apparently owned by a single property owner, more than an actual settlement or community; I've only found one mention of a student in 4-H supposedly living in "Mammonth Springs, Illinois". This is a site in the area that, at that time, was called Brush Hill or Fullersburg, and is what "Spring Road" is named after. It's mentioned in passing in a few sources:
- Chapek, Etta Susan, Oak Brook in Thompson, Richard A. (1985). DuPage Roots. DuPage County Historical Society. Retrieved 2016-07-04.: "It was the Talmadge Family that is said to have been rudely awakened one night by the sudden eruption of a mammoth spring on their farm. The great volume of water was later harnessed and provided many homes in the Oak Brook/ Elmhurst area with running water for almost a generation before its depletion. It also contributed to the success of the Mammoth Spring Ice Company, established on the south bank of Salt Creek at Washington Street by the Ruchty family." The 1874 Atlas & History of DuPage County, Illinois map on the same web page shows the location, but not named: It's on the northwest side of the property marked "G.H. Talmadge" in section 23, about where the DoubleTree Hotel is now. (The adjacent "R. Reed" property is now Oakbrook Center shopping mall, the OfficeMax/shopping center across 16th Street, and some part of Oakbrook Terrace on the other side of the Kingery Highway.)
- Bulletin of the Illinois State Geological Survey (1939), Issue 65, Part 1, p. 34 also known as Geology of the Chicago Region: Part I. General; Part II. The Pleistocene, Issue 65, Parts 1-2, but it's only a snippet view on Google Books. The same paragraph exists in 1 or 2 other issues of the Bulletin. The paragraph is: "The largest spring in the Chicago region is three miles south of Elmhurst and 3 1/2 miles north of Hinsdale, on Spring Road just west of Salt Creek (Hinsdale quadrangle). It is almost in the center of section 23, T. 39 N., R. 11 E. Its unusual size seems due to subdrainage from an abandoned part of the creek valley west of the present route. The old valley contains basin-fill which is saturated to the surface. Elmhurst secured its municipal water supply from this spring until the population of the own exceeded 5,000. On the Chicago Folio map (1902) it is called Mammoth Springs, but the new map, though showing it, gives it no name."
- There's a photograph of the Mammoth Springs Ice Company's operation in Hinsdale by Sandra Bennett Williams (2013), p. 19), but no other mention of it as a location; it's unclear from the photo whether the ice is actually taken at Mammoth Springs or they just used the nearby name for their company further south.
A reminder that a GNIS entry is not an indication of legal status, therefore not WP:GEOLAND on its own, and this is not even a census-designated place, and maybe not even be what someone would call a settlement. --Closeapple (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin: If this ends in merge/redirect, since I rewrote the article as a two-sentence summary stub, I can just copy-paste my own sentences into Fullersburg, Illinois (or whatever other target) under my own username so I show as the author in the page history and we don't have to "preserve attribution" from this article page. --Closeapple (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but I'm ok with deletion too. I concur with Closeapple that a GNIS entry is insufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND. This place isn't a place by any terms of WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Ok, there was a spring. We can verify that, and that it had an impact on the local population. But, there's nothing that supports the idea, in any official way, that this was any sort of town, village, settlement, what have you. Information about the spring can be verified and merged. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hammersoft. Doesn't seem like a real place. Prevan (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename (which is really a talk page issue). Even Accuweather recognizes it [42], so it isn't a hoax, it is a geological feature. As such, it needs to be treated like one and not a town. Generally speaking, we keep articles on geological features that have any official notice at all, that is the goal of an encyclopedia after all. This qualifies. It is broken, not non-notable. Farmer Brown (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accuweather is redundant: that, and millions of spam sites, autogenerate robo-pages for anything that shows up in GNIS, whether its real, a typo, or what. Those are all just a shortcut for geographic coordinates. I don't know why people keep over-emphasizing mere entries in a government list as conferring some kind of legal existence. Some strip malls and most churches and schools, going back 100+ years, back to one-room wooden schoolhouses, are also in GNIS. There is no Wikipedia guideline that says that a feature is inherently notable just because it showed up on an old map — particularly when the subject comes up for discussion, like it has here, and can be shown to meet or not meet WP:GNG based on evidence of significant coverage (not robolistings) in multiple independent sources (not database dumps of the same list), rather than presumption. --Closeapple (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And most schools and churches going back 100 years are notable, btw, so not sure your example is as powerful as you might think. As for guidelines, prior consensus has been that geological features that receive ANY coverage are considered noteworthy. Consensus trumps guidelines, as guidelines are written based on consensus, not the other way around. This isn't a rising pop star or new dot com start-up, it is a geological feature that is found on many maps, and that is precisely what an encyclopedia is expected to cover. Again, rename as described above and keep. Farmer Brown (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please point to this prior consensus that trumps GNG and GEOLAND? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about you simply not WP:BLUDGEON the discussion by replying to every single keep vote? Farmer Brown (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion. Note a vote. I'm attempting to discuss. Sorry you don't like it. Could you please point to the prior consensus you mentioned? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, as cleaned up, meets the standards for populated places specified by WP:GEOLAND. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: Really? How? GEOLAND stipulates "Populated, legally recognized places" (emphasis mine). I grant GNIS categorizes it as a populated place. That doesn't make it a legally recognized place, which must go hand in hand with populated. You can't pass GEOLAND with just one of those two criteria being met. That is, unless the place pass WP:GNG...which it clearly does not. Did the spring exist? Yeah. That doesn't mean it deserves an article. We can prove a tree in my front yard exists. That's why this is a clear candidate for merging. Please reconsider. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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