The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Zidanšek[edit]

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

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

I see no notability here per NSPORTS or Project Tennis. No main draws on the WTA Tour, No wins as a Jr in the jr grand slams, No wins in $35,000+ events in the tennis minor leagues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here today, gone Tamara. Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines and the usual GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As was already pointed out:

• This player is the No. 3 in her country

• The player has competed in the singles and doubles events at the junior 2014 US Open and the junior 2015 French Open, and won one game in the singles at RG in 2015.
• The player has competed in and won matches in $50,000 tournaments in 2016^[1]
• The player has won 9 Singles and 2 Doubles titles on the ITF tour
• The player's inactivity on the main tour can mainly be attributed to her age.

F1lover22 talk 00:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines are pretty darned lenient. The main pro tour is the WTA Tour. All you have to do is compete in the main draw of that tour and you are notable. Just like Baseball. Just compete, not even win. Then you have the minor leagues of $50,000 or above events for the ladies, or the Challenger tour for the men. These are the minor leagues and you have to win in either singles or doubles. These aren't shown on tv. Then you have the minor-minor league tennis events...zillions of them. $35,000 and below. These wins are never notable. Also being on the Olympics team or being in Fed Cup or Davis Cup automatically qualifies a player. Again no wins required... just representing your nation is enough. As a jr. you need to win won of the 4 majors or be ranked #3 jr. This player is none of the above and I've tried to explain this to the editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it so.... F1lover22 talk 00:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what could happen is to put it into your sandbox/userspace in case she does merit it someday. I say there is a good chance she might. Then it doesn't have to be recreated and you could re-insert it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify to the article creator's space. The subject of the article doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion yet. That may change during six months in draft space. If the creator doesn't want to curate the article, then Userfy to my space. I can watch it. Scottyoak2 (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have the article saved at User:F1lover22/sandbox/Tamara Zidanšek for future use
  F1lover22 talk 06:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (or userfy). --Wolbo (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 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 delete. czar 02:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albert's Diamond Jewelers[edit]

Albert's Diamond Jewelers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Jewellery company with several local mentions and doing good charitable things but nothing here indicates any notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Concur with nom. There article itself makes no claims to notability. It is a retail store with two locations, one of many thousands of similar non-notable businesses. MB 04:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as examining this till found nothing at all for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for essentially the same reasons as I discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corinne_Jewelers. Arguably, a company 111 years old might be notable, but I'd like to see better proof of significant coverage in more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Again, as with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corinne_Jewelers, this article comes off without a meaningful claim of notability and as overwhelmingly promotional in tone. I don't see anything in the article or in a Google search that would support notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:42, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RENÓ[edit]

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

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

Auto-CV of a rapper from Ghana with 1 (?) single. Speedy tag reverted by editor. Per WP:NMG/WP:BIO. Gunnex (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence whatsoever of notability. Aust331 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't find anything at all - but admittedly his name is not very distinctive (not even his full name "Reginald Adjei") and I'm searching from the US. In any case, there is nothing here to show notability as per WP:MUSICIAN. LaMona (talk) 21:57, 31 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. As noted by others, this is a timeline, not a directory, and as such does not fall under WP:NOTIINFO. It has also been noted that this doesn't fall under WP:SYNTH, either, since all the info in the article is only confirmed facts and not interpretations. See also this related AfD. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Google Street View[edit]

Coverage of Google Street View (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP is not a directory, not a collection of indiscriminate information. This page is WP:SYNTH. Even Google itself does not have this kind of pages. Wikipedia is not in business to document timelines of each and every move of Google products. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not SYNTH, nor is it a directory. It's just a detailed bit of cartographic history. Andrew D. (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is WP:SYNTH mainly from primary sources. It is not a "cartographic history" it is a dubious self-written history of Google Maps. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it still isn't synth. Synth is when you combine facts to arrive at a novel conclusion. Per WP:NOTSYNTH, "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition". Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it is WP:SYNTH: the facts from primary source are combined to make a false impression about the state of the coverage. There is no secndary sources which directly discuss this particular topic in depth, hence original research it is. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • What false impression? Lem still fails to state what the supposed synthesis is. And there are certainly plenty of secondary sources which discuss the history of Street View in detail such as Inside Google Street View, Going Places: A History of Google Maps with Street View and Google Street View maps Greenland. Andrew D. (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is going to be a long list of every place, town, city, metropolis, village, hamlet and a few more. That will make it an indiscriminate list of everything, falling foul of WP:NOT and coming close to WP:OR when not sourced. By now, most sources already fail WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another indiscriminate and hopelessly useless list. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No offense intended, but the notion of this being a "useless list" is countered by the 40,022 page views the page has received in the last thirty days, a significant number. At any rate, the article is obviously useful for some of Wikipedia's readers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pace also, but all that 'proves' is that if you put something on the internet, someone will read it. No quality need be imputed. _Muffled ^Pocketed

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite map images with missing or unclear data. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_Google_Street_View. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Google Street View, while most of this article is OR, all that needs to be done is to remove the timeline of introductions as the rest is sourced anyway. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you delete "inroductions" there is exactly 4 statements, sourced from Google press-releases about features, which are already in Google Street View#History and features. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - An informative list of updates to an important and popular product. This was discussed four years ago and the result was to keep. Pristino (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is something to say both for keep and delete. It is the timeline of introductions that makes the article an indiscriminate list of every human settlement existing on earth. But the section before that, about Google Street View itself, are indeed worth keeping. The Banner talk 10:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is not WP:SYNTH as it provides only facts, not interpretation, and its not indiscriminate as it has a very clear scope (what Google Street view covers, and from when). There's certainly lots of scope to improve the article and its sourcing, but it covers a viable topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nick-D. Agree that this is not a synthesis, as the article primarily combines confirmed facts without drawing unsupported conclusions from those facts. If there are specific sentences in the article in violation of WP:SYNTH, point them out or delete them through the normal editorial process. Altamel (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is about the countries and territories available on Google Street View. Diretor Adobe (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not a directory,but it's a timeline, and that's not forbidden by Wikipedia. There are timelines everywhere. Also people need to know availables countries and territories in Google Street View, included future. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and per Nick-D, this article is the result of a hard work by the people that are following this great service every day since it started, and it was created just for reducing the size of Google Street View article. - EugεnS¡m¡on 07:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Factual information, well defined scope, cleanly organized, information not available elsewhere, highly used and referenced based on statistics. Svltr (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For same reasons above. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep I check this page almost daily...it's the only source I know with very specific updates on new locations for Google Street View. AnimAlu (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per reasons above. Personally, I second AnimAlu's comment quite ardently too.--T1980 (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This is not the only timeline article on Wikipedia, and is on par with timelines for other technological products and services, such as Timeline of Apple Inc. products. I agree with AnimAlu and T1980 as well, and as an urban planning researcher, I'll admit that I do check this page daily. I would also like to reiterate Pristino's point that four years ago we already had this discussion and the consensus was to keep the page. The one rule which I'd like to propose for the page (and which I imagine will keep it more controlled, less sprawling, and less susceptible to being proposed for deletion) is to list only updates done by Google itself. Street View accepts a lot of user-submitted 360 images, so the map and list would be more representative of Google's output if limited to just those updates. TheAckademie (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a timeline, not a directory, so that policy doesn't count. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It looks like the overall coverage and specific additions have gotten enough coverage for a claim to notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMS Messenger[edit]

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

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

Non-notable software. No sign of any coverage for this software. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not only lacks any evidence of notability but is also way too soon to have garnered any notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this thread sufficient to qualify for a WP:CSD#G7 (author requested) deletion? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Store listing does not suggest notability on its own. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 04:28, 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. czar 02:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MicroAssist[edit]

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

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

apparently minor developer; single state impact only DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not meet WP:AUD. The company has received local coverage, but source searches are only providing mentions in sources with a larger geographic scope, such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I meant to comment earlier, I frankly consider this PROD material and, summarily, there's nothing at all minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff J. Boss[edit]

Jeff J. Boss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional article written by an spa on non notable author. The books are each in only 16libraries ; the refs are local and trivial. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I also concur, searches and examinations found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 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) 03:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Sweeney[edit]

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

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

Biography of a filmmaker who is not yet notable. There are no reliable secondary sources, that is, all the existing sources are either directly affiliated with Sweeney, with the exception of the link to IMDB which does not meet the criteria for reliable sources. Having performed a Google search for better sources, I fail to find any secondary sources at all. bonadea contributions talk 20:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 06:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I declined the request for WP:CSD because it did not technically meet the criteria; an assertion of notability does exist in the article. However, I don't see that the subject actually is notable at this time; the film the assertion is based on is a short film and no other significant claim exists, so I don't see that the subject meets WP:FILMMAKER. No prejudice against later creation of the article, if and when notability is established.  Frank  |  talk  14:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is all sourced to websites he controls except the IMDb listing. And IMDb has to goal of cateloguing everything. Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate listing. Even if the film were notable, that would not make him notable, and just circulating through film shows does not make a film notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 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 delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Rezab[edit]

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

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

This is a simple violation of Wikipedia:AUTO and Wikipedia:NPOV. It was exclusively created by a user with the same name as the subject of the article. It also does not make a good case for Wikipedia:BIO, as none of the references proclaim the notability of the subject. Pianoman320 (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Clearly an autobiography. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I understand that there is a rule - but it's only discouraged. Wiki rules say: If you create an autobiography, you must have no promotional intent - which it did not, and must be willing to accept it being neutralized (I do accept it - it is very similar to the Czech Wikipedia page which I did not create). I do not get the point that the references do not proclaim notability - which of the articles, which of the points specifically? Many other members of Forbes 30 under 30 group with similar accomplishments are on Wikipedia - for example Brian_Wong and countless others. I tried to be objective, not promotional, and source every single line I wrote - as I knew there is a bias. If anyone feels to edit it - please do so indeed! Bio rules also say: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." The Ernst&Young Awards and Forbes 30 under 30 awards should count. And again, I welcome any addition to the page itself. Jan.Rezab ^talk 22:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with full force and vigore. This person is a non-notable business person. People should never create articles on themselves, and we should made it automatic grounds for deletion. If someone else has not felt it worth creating an article on you, than you are not notable enough for an article. If you really are, someone will create one. This rule keeps people like my friend who anonymously ran an online Harry Potter fan fiction forum and thought she was clearly notable because of it from creating an article on herself. Not autobiographies. If you are really notable go get an actual book publisher to publisher your autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• First of all, its not a rule - it's discouraged - not a rule. Non-notable? Click on any link above, awards, achievements, quotations, 250 book mentions? There are so many people on Wiki with nowhere near that. I get that soft rule (not a hard rule) - but why not, if I quoted everything well? I was not aware of the autobioghraphical rules before I obviously did it, but realized each line would have to be perfectly quoted from outside sources.

Quoting the entire policy with commentary: Jan.Rezab ^talk 18:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you create an autobiography, you must have no promotional intent ( Jan.Rezab Doesn't have) and must be willing to accept it being neutralized ( Jan.Rezab No problem) if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that. If you do turn out to be notable, you must expect the article to stay ( Jan.Rezab Please rate this, again, many fellow Forbes 30 under 30 folks are here) —you cannot just get it deleted because you are not happy with it. Our neutral point of view policy is absolute and non-negotiable ( Jan.Rezab This is perfect!), and all encyclopedic topics are fair game for Wikipedia.

Finally, you should also consider the time and effort expended by the Wikipedia community, as well as the impact to your reputation. Even if you do manage to pull off a neutral, verifiable autobiography, the very fact that so many autobiographies have not been that way has trained Wikipedians to expect the opposite ( Jan.Rezab So it seems...) —and hence editors may feel they are wasting their time or effort if they become provoked by the fact it's still an autobiography, regardless of policy compliance. This may also result in a reputation hit not only because you violated the guideline, but also because editors may feel that you have wasted their effort. ( Jan.Rezab I hope I have not...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan.rezab (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 July 2016‎

• Delete. It's obviously an autobiography used to promote the achievements of the individual and increase brand exposure of the currently operating companies. Without having a third-party publisher, it subjects the article to WP:NOTOPINION, and therefore, is not objective and is clearly exemplified in the "Public Speaking & Conferences" section. The "Socialbakers" section borders on WP:NOTADVOCATE as the underlying objective is to showcase the success of the company. Additionally, the mention of the "Socially Devoted" benchmark is WP:PROMOTION as it's attempting to garner attention to a measurement that was created under a privately held enterprise. That being said, if the content of this section were re-written in a more objective manner, then it could be seen fit to stand. Within the "History" section, the statement that Socialbakers has raised "more than 30 million" is not factual; if anything, the exact amount of money raised should be stated. Overall, I'd suggest template:ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejames11 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 29 July 2016‎

• I fixed the funding, the third party publishers are mostly there, right? I already talk about the Socially Devoted award below. Could you guys actually edit the page itself? Jan.Rezab ^talk 18:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We could, but why would we if we think the article should be deleted? Expecting volunteers to help you clean up after yourself when writing advertising is totally unrealistic. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'll get to Rezab's comments in a second, but only in extreme cases should an article be deleted based on intent. In this case, sources do not meet notability guidelines, and are mostly flimsy PR and churnalism used as WP:BOMBARDMENT. Many of the sources don't even mention Rezab at all. The Forbes thing is puff. It's a listicle which is widely abused to suggest notability, but is a very poor indicator. It's divided into 20 subcategories, making for 600 entries a year, and reliable comments about the list itself are thin. The article could be used as a source itself, but it says almost nothing. Just mentioning the listing is not informative, and further supports that this is based more on self-promotion than being neutral and informative.

Rezab's good-faith comments are noted, but this is a volunteer encyclopedia, not a free PR service. The existence of thinly-veiled advertising like this diminished the quality and reputation of the encyclopedia, and therefore diminishes the work we all do. The article definitely has serious advertising and promotional problems. Claiming that you have no promotional intent is unprovable and in this case, so unbelievable it's hard not to find it insulting. There are too many vague but flattering claims and promotional tidbits included here to accept that. This article reads like advertising, and either you cannot see it because you are not impartial, or you do see it but are pretending otherwise, which is even worse. Either way, this is a great example of why autobiographies are so strongly discouraged. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Re. Forbes 30 under 30 notability - I leave that with you guys to review - I was the featured in one of the 20 categories, and the process was quite massive. Re. Socially Devoted - Try searching for Socially Devoted on LinkedIn for example, 2200 people worldwide use it as a "skill" and list it as an achievements, there are quite many news mentions of it and in that part of the industry, it is actually considered an industry standard quite quite high awareness. All of this is easily verifyable. There are third-party publishers everywhere in the article, right? I tried mostly fact-based elements. I understand now why this is discouraged, very clearly. What do you suggest we do with the article, Delete? or is there any way to fix it? Jan.Rezab ^talk 18:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I said delete and that's what I meant. There is no question mark at the end of that. This is just spam dressed in corporate buzzwords. LinkedIn isn't a reliable source at all. Not even close. The "Socially Devoted" thing is not a claim to notability, it's a product you're trying to promoting through Wikipedia, and right now it just looks like a gimmick sourced to press releases. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Re. Socially Devoted - its actually not a product, but was launched as an open standard. Its not a product, you can't "buy it", in fact, it was adopted by many organization and the underlying metric hsa been implemented in the Media Rating Councils guidelines (which I do link). I understand all your points. I do not use LinkedIn for any sourcing in my article - I just used it as an example, and while its not a source, the fact that so many people have used this is a sign of its adoption. People across countries and industries use it to define their skills. Again, not a "product" - an open standard (anyone can use, adopt it, it is not trademarked by the company for that purpose) Jan.rezab (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's something you created that you are trying to 'sell'. The adoption of this standard benefits you, and is closely associated with your company and your reputation. It's a "product" in that sense, and that's the sense that matters. What is the Media Rating Council? Nobody else seems to care about that. Please stop trying to promote your company and your ideas on this deletion discussion! Stop doing that anywhere else on Wikipedia, also. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Whats the Media Rating Council? Only the most important institution when it comes to making decisions regarding standards. They defined viewability on the web, they defined video, mobile, and many other advertising standards incl. Viewable Impression and others. Why these guys do not have a Wikipedia page really escapes me. I don't believe promoting ideas on a wiki deletion thread does a lot of work, I was just trying to justify some of the notes - thats all. On other points, I disagree, but you make a point of view. If only someone looked into it a bit more. Jan.rezab (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is clearly promotional. Should it come back created by a neutral third party I might be inclined to give it more credence. I admit that the unbounded and continued promotion by the creator/autobiographer, in spite of clear statements relating to WP policy, make this very hard to accept. The same person has created an extensive article for the company. It amazes me that someone is unable to understand the deep insult that these articles deliver to those of us who see WP as a source of neutral information, not for personal promotion. I think this should be deleted under WP:PROMO. I also think we ought to watch these articles because anyone so unable to read WP's culture would also be likely to hire out the promotion if it fails under his own name. Honestly, it's offensive. LaMona (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In case the article Jan Rezab is (shortened and) kept, I suggest to merge it with unsourced article Redboss. JanSuchy (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dublin Bus. Consensus was that this does not deserve its own article. Since a summary of the content has already been merged to the Dublin Bus article and delete voters were not opposed to deletion, I'm redirecting it there to preserve the page history. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Ghost Bus Tour[edit]

Dublin Ghost Bus Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article for a dubiously notable tourist attraction. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- ADVERT. It may claim to be a theatrical performance; if so, it is a NN one. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dublin Bus, with a short explanation on the service. I note the article was decently written at one point, but appeared to have been taken over by users inserting original research/advertising. Nordic Nightfury 10:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to Dublin Bus. Some sources exist, but the overall depth of coverage appears to fall short of the requirements for independent notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - per Nordic Nightfury. Class455fan1 (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dublin Bus per Northamerica1000. There are a couple sources out there and this could be a sentence or two in the Dublin Bus article. The subject itself isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable for independent article. Kierzek (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only and entirely as there's still no actual substance overall. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gladiators (2008 UK TV series). MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) Series One[edit]

Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) Series One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Also nominating Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) Series Two, both per WP:CRUFT. Launchballer 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails CRUFT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just not noteworthy for a stand alone article and source issues. Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) (to prevent future attempts) or delete with a stern message left. — Wyliepedia 04:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect as both of these suffice. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 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. Hut 8.5 21:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Actors Theatre (Islington)[edit]

Young Actors Theatre (Islington) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable theatre, The entire article is written in a promotional tone and the only sources I'm finding on Google are mentions (IMHO the article should be blown up and rewritten however I may be the minority on that), Anyway fails ORG & GNG, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and ORG per nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a long-standing article that has undergone some notably poor editing throughout its time, but none that included significant sources. (And I could not find sources beyond brief listings in lists of "Private art schools" in the UK.) Much of the editing has been promotional, adding "notable alumni" and such, but none of it sourced. As a local private school, and without sources, there is nothing to show notability. LaMona (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I discovered that the first sentence is copied word for word from the official website. Unfortunately did not discover sources that supported notability. Gab4gab (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counterparts Lite[edit]

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

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

Non-notable; no reliable coverage whatsoever. — Esquivalience (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up blog entries and incidental mentions, but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable and not even a stub; two sentences; promotion with link to try it out. Kierzek (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google search turns up string editing app by Michel Fortin created around 26 May 2014;[1] Twitter post says Fortin added support for XLIFF 4 Jun 2014.[2] No evidence that this application is widely used for translation/localization (the purpose of XLIFF); but see blogger using CPL. I suspect that translation systems would internally support string editing (that's what translation is all about). Some posts suggest CPL is one of many editors used by non-professionals; see comment "But many need a tool for John Doe the unknown student translator on fiverr. For sure the large 10x as expensive professional translating companies already support it. – Lothar Aug 13 '15".[3] I'm not seeing any secondary sources that tout the app. Current content sounds in advertising and need not be saved in a redirect. I'm not seeing WP:DUE for the XLIFF article, so I deleted the WL there. Glrx (talk) 00:36, 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 Redirect to Mardi Gras in the United States#Arkansas. Obviously if anyone wants to use any of the content in the target article which isn't there already then that is fine. Hut 8.5 21:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Gras[edit]

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

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

Local event with only local references DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect for now to Eureka Springs, Arkansas#Events, where this festival is already described; or alternatively to Mardi Gras in the United States#Arkansas, a section of that article that does not yet exist, but will soon. In addition to many local Eureka Springs sources, there's a substantial recent article in the Springfield News-Leader that describes how Eureka Springs is becoming a "Mardi Gras mecca" with a month-long celebration.[4] Probably not yet enough to warrant a separate article, but certainly enough sources to support its inclusion in other appropriate articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mardi Gras in the United States#Arkansas as everything has already been merged. MB 04:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mardi Gras in the United States § Arkansas, where this is presently covered at. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Busuioc[edit]

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

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

The lack of independent sources kind of does this in. Yeah, we have some links to some awards the subject has won - the only problem is that those point to the sites of the people handing out the awards. Not exactly independent sourcing there. Plus, we have an admission that this is a promotional autobiography. I would suggest to Miss Busuioc that she first wait to be covered by independent sources and perhaps allow others to write her autobiography at that point. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your message, what kind of independent sources do you mean? May be I can ask for confirmation from other persons, or how to make my biography on wikipedia realistic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldstallion (talk • contribs) 08:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Goldstallion (and others, so folks know the question's been addressed), just left you a note over on your talk page to give some explanation of what Wikipedia considers legitimate sources, and point you toward more reading on the topic. Hope that helps! Welcome! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article very much shows why we strongly discourage people from writing Wikipedia articles about themselves. A Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a CV and, at least currently, this article decidedly is one. As it happens, it is an extremely good CV for an operatic soprano who is not yet 30, but it not only does not clearly demonstrate the subjec's notabililty but actually hides the achievements that could make her notable in Wikipedia terms among far more that definitely do not. For instance, competition prizes are undoubtedly a useful way for up-and-coming musicians to demonstrate their quality, but very few of them help at all towards notabiity - in fact, the few that do are so well-known that it would be pointless to describe them as prestigious. What do usually count are leading roles with world-famous opera companies - the subject's recent Mimi in La Boheme with Los Angeles Opera may well count (but I would prefer to defer to editors from WikiProject Opera on that point) and has certainly generated quite a bit of notice. It is quite possible that her Cio Cio San at the Teatro Comunale di Bologna would also count towards notability, and even if it does not, I would be surprised if the subject does not do enough within the next two or three years ro make her notable. But I am not sure that she is yet. PWilkinson (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Had to remove a large chuck of text as it was copyright violation. The references do not indicate any notability yet. It needs concert reviews, possible recordings and less emphasis on any competitions where it is unclear if she has won them or simply participated. Karst (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable operatic soprano.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing substantially enough to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see that this has been hanging around a while already but I'd appreciate seeing one more relist to see if sourcing can establish notability--at the moment I'm genuinely unsure. If it doesn't, to me this seems like a candidate for a soft delete, so the entry is easily retrievable if sources and a motivated editor materialize. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:40, 17 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 13:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One point less on the sky (2016)[edit]

One point less on the sky (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Created by COI editor, a school film project that won an award as such - does not appear to meet WP:NFILM Melcous (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with no objection to recreation once the film gains more coverage. There's just not enough out there to justify inclusion and the award looks to be minor as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This isn't meant to slight the film or the award, just that Wikipedia tends to be very selective with their awards and most film festivals awards don't give even partial notability unless the festival itself is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor film with a minor award. Does not meet NFILM. --Randykitty (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep per this Spanish-language film having the Spanish language coverage to meet WP:NF: El Dia, Canarias7, El Diario, Cabildo de Gran Canaria, La Voz, Creativa Canaria, and some others.[5][6] Even though the coverage is related to it being a student film and it being chosen to screen and about it wining awards, coverage is coverage... and as it is not released in English, English-language coverage is unlikely. Melcous, Tokyogirl79 I believe it has coverage to meet WP:NF. And Randykitty, notability here has nothing to do with whether or not the 2 awards may be minor.... it's the resulting coverage. Thanks. Article needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just worried that all we really have is coverage about the film screening and winning a student award, nothing really beyond that. If we had a review then that'd put me a little more at ease. I'm not opposed to this being kept though, FWIW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best as I'm still not seeing enough substance for convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. student awards only. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 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. czar 02:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Caslione[edit]

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

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

Nothing here that establishments notability. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable run of the mill businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject is not significantly notable. Meatsgains (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No significant coverage in RS found. MB 05:17, 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) 12:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Amelio[edit]

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

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

I looked pretty hard, and can't see how this person could pass GNG or other policies. Open to suggestions if others think otherwise. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: I was a bit surprised by this nomination of a known name, who, as the article External Links show, also has written an Opinion piece for the International Herald Tribune / New York Times. However I can also appreciate that the article is largely a list and references to CEO appointments at Lenovo, IBM, NCR etc. (and most recently Avnet, as I have added). These can perhaps be read as simply routine announcements rather than substantial coverage, but I think their aggregation is just about sufficient. AllyD (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He was CEO of Lenovo, which establishes notability for me. If you google his name and Lenovo, there are dozens of news articles about his tenure there. MB 05:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. CEOs of really major companies can safely be assumed to be notable . Lenovo qualifies. I reorganized the article a little, as it had some characteristics of PR-style writing. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 31 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. Given the limited participation the bar to recreating this is low. Hut 8.5 21:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Ronak[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability and one of the references is IMDb (which is not reliable) and other doesn't discuss the subject. Fuortu (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One film credit doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Maybe his upcoming release will catapult him into notability. Maybe not. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Draft:Sai Ronak appears to be a better version of an article on Sai Ronak; but it still doesn't demonstrate his notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:27, 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. Hut 8.5 21:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onaji Stephen Onche[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC as none of the secondary sources mention Onche by name - the awards cited were given to films, rather than to specific people involved in those films. I've not been able to find any reliable sources that confirm Onche's role in Oshimiri as being significant. McGeddon (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The recipient of Africa Movie Academy Award for Best Visual Effects 2016 was Onaji Stephen Onche.

Onaji Stephen Onche sometimes only refer to himself as Onaji Stephen for short as his other name is Onche. In opening and end credit of movies he has done, trailer, social media and other vital documents, he writes his name in full.^[2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by ToviaNelson (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 July 2016‎

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

• Keep has clearly edited and created visual effects in a number of movies including Oshimiri which while not notable worldwide, is notable here in Nigeria. Most of those Movies can be found Online in Youtube in it's receptive owner's channel and his name Onaji Stephen Onche clearly written as either the editor or Effects or both — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeka Enyiocha (talk • contribs) 09:07, 9 July 2016‎— Emeka Enyiocha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
•  Checkuser note: Emeka Enyiocha is a  Confirmed sock puppet of ToviaNelson. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ToviaNelson.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find anything regarding him. Even the award is unconfirmed (an image of a letter allegedly from the Africa Film Academy, and that only a nomination). No hits for him on the African Film Academy Awards site. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: I will gladly change to Weak keep, if it can be established in reliable source that he was the visual artist that won (or nominated) the AMAA award, and there is at least some coverage on him too. For now, the activities of the author on Wikipedia+COI possibility will make me tend towards delete. Darreg (talk) 00:01, 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 08:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noe Vazquez[edit]

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

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:ENT. As near as I can find the subject won some minor competition but has no real claim to notability. Searches turned up nothing and it does not seem he is a regular or well known presenter. Jbh^Talk 14:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No real indication of notability and lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, also per author request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoa Locale[edit]

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

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

I've always felt bad about this article I created about a small Montreal cake and cupcake bakery: I've nominated it for deletion once before, and it was kept as no-consensus. I created in back in 2009, when I was still a relative newbie, and before we had WP:AUD (as far as I know) as a barometer of greater-than-local coverage. Anyway, it is on that basis -- failing WP:AUD -- that I renominate this. Other editors have worked on it, so I can't speedy it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails notability. A local cafe with no notable distinction; one of many thousands of such businesses. MB 13:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability. for (;;) (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non notable local business. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 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 delete. Per the overall consensus and the analysis of the sources provided and refutation of the policies cited in the argument to keep by multiple users. KaisaL (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Brown (radio personality)[edit]

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

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

A very ordinary DJ with a 30 year career at a NYC station. Fails WP:BASIC; WP:ENTERTAINER; and WP:ANYBIO Steve Quinn (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. See Longtime WCBS-FM Midday Jock, ‘Consummate Pro’ Bill Brown Dies at 69 or numerous issues of Billboard. Andrew D. (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't pass WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". There is no substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. Also, I am not seeing other coverage in multiple independent sources - I see one article in a source that I question as being reliable - the one linked to above. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also Doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER, in order to so this person should: (1) have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions , which he hasn't; (2) A large fan base or a significant "cult" following -- which has not been shown to be true by any coverage in reliable sources; (3) he has NOT made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment -- or else this would be significantly covered in reliable sources. He stayed at one radio station for over 30 years - that is all that happened.

The only bio produced shows nothing remarkable about this person, all it shows is he had a long career - it verifies he existed. Additionally, it is a local publication. Also, those sources from Billboard magazine need to be produced - I don't see anything such thing during Google searches or Google News or Newspaper searches. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The source provided by Andrew D above links to a localized publication called FishbowlNY — and the article itself cites just two sources of which one is another article in a local newspaper, and the other is his death notice on the web page of the funeral home that held his death services (i.e. a primary source, and a routine one at that since every single person who dies will always have one of those regardless of their encyclopedic notability or lack thereof.) So the evidence does not support that he's the subject of enough substantive coverage to satisfy WP:GNG — the only reliable sources that have been shown here at all are purely local coverage of him in a local context. A local radio personality does not get over WP:CREATIVE just because a couple of pieces of local coverage exist, because local coverage of local radio personalities always exists and we would thus have to keep an article about every single person who ever worked for any radio station at all. For anything short of national network prominence a radio personality must be extralocally sourceable as more notable than the thousands upon thousands of other people in the world who have been longtime local radio personalities in local media markets. But nothing here demonstrates or sources that he's more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as he was apparently only from 2 local stations, nothing establishing independence. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarati News Service[edit]

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

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

Non-notable. I can't find secondary sources in either English or Hindi(?). Adam9007 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since this is a Gujarati institution, should not searches be done in that language before assuming there are no secondary sources?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not a reliable source, but in this answer on Quora an Indian journalism student considers the GNS a major, reliable news agency. Based on their about us page they would be notable if it could be verified from an independent source. Given this, I'll agree with John Pack Lambert that without someone familiar with Gujarati doing a WP:BEFORE sweep, it would be premature to delete. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coderzombie, Nizil Shah, Jethwarp, Rsrikanth05, and Yash!: You are all active, experienced editors who have the native Gujarati speaker infobox on your userpages. Could any of you please provide some guidance on whether this article should be kept or not? Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a news agency providing news to small and medium sized newspapers published in Gujarati language. But it is less likely to be mentioned in secondary sources. Searches in Gujarati do not give references which can be used in article. Its claims like "largest" can not be independently verified and less likely to be. It is a news agency so not sure about if it can be considered notable or not.--Nizil (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Gujarat News Service or Gujarat News Agency - there are no independent or third party sources available in Gujarati language search also. I think it is too early for article to be created in lack of secondary and third party sources for Wiki page to be created or kept. Jethwarp (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, given the above comments by Nizil Shah and Jethwarp. Without any information to the contrary and two Gujarati speakers believing that there are no Gujarati sources that would demonstrate notability, there's no other way to !vote here. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- the native speakers confirm that there's no notability in the related language. Even less notable for En wiki. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and thus should have frankly been speedied as A7. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prerna Panwar[edit]

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

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

Delete or Redirect to Kuch Rang Pyar Ke Aise Bhi: It's WP:TOOSOON for individual article. Found nothing to support WP:NACTOR. Thank You – GSS (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator WP:TOOSOON. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR ,is upcoming maybe notable in the future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and person not-notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:48, 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 Delete. There is some dispute here as to whether the title is a suitable redirect, so I'm not going to close this as Redirect, but this discussion does not prevent anyone from creating a redirect or discussing the redirection elsewhere. Hut 8.5 21:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Residents' Committee[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced and devoid of meaningful content. Only link is dead. Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to People's Association (Singapore)#Residents' Committees. The target article People's Association (Singapore) actually has more content about RCs than the one line article. A redirect is appropriate here. That said, there are references for "Residents' Committee" (see [7],[8],[9]) and I will insert them in the target article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Very happy with this course of action.Rathfelder (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination. I don't support a Redirect as the article title itself is without context/precision and does not relate to Singapore. A search within WP of the term finds many "residents committees" worldwide. The term could be a DAB, these committees were notable and had articles but none of them are, so not even a DAB is warranted. MB 14:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - somebody might be looking for the concept, and find this. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GetWellNetwork[edit]

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

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

Most sources are 404s, Ghits shows facebook, twitter and the like. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP at this point. Farmer Brown (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources that still exist are semi-local, and they sound split between paid PR and organic human interest news. Not sure how that stacks up, notability wise. The article itself reads like a bad infomercial once you reach the "Products" section, and the refs about it make the system sound laughably ill-conceived (GetWell systems come with a built-in AOL homepage!). Main editor "TCook" was originally named "GetWellNetwork". Probably deserves a COI smackdown. Jergling (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. promotional article with no real evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by all means and I comment because I speedied as G11. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 31 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 08:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. Humphreys[edit]

T.J. Humphreys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. There is nothing in-depth that I can find to establish notability. The references mainly talk about the company and everything else (including the link to a magazine cover in eBay) is not reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was Delete. However as participation in the discussion is limited the barrier to allowing any recreations to stand is low, and I will be happy to restore it if any serious objection to the deletion is made. (Contrary to what is said below articles can be recreated after A7 deletions, as long as the recreation does not meet A7.) Hut 8.5 21:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nemessis[edit]

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

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

Proposing deletion as the band does not seem to meet the notability guidelines in WP:NMUSIC. Additionally, CSD:A7 was previously used to delete this exact same page which was recreated several hours after deletion with no significant changes. Dane2007 (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non-notable band, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The only reliable reference is the Shock one (Shock is Colombia's leading alternative music magazine) – Unradio is a university college radio station, and most of the other references are from blogs. Iridescent deleted the article originally, and presumably an article should not be recreated after an A7 deletion – does this article need salting if a second deletion takes place? Richard3120 (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:09, 7 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 22:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H. Rajesh Prasad[edit]

H. Rajesh Prasad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Officer is just mid level management. Delete. Being the administrator of a Union Territory does not make someone notable by just holding the post. For non Indian editors there is a difference between Administrator and Lt Governor &Governor. The former being a bureaucratic post appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the latter being a political post appointed by the President on advice by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep heads of the union territories of India are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify as to how? Under what parameter? In the same way then, a District Collector, Superintendent of Police and a Commissioner of Income Tax of a district should also be notable. Uncletomwood (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For the reasons of the nomination. Engleham (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers#Rito Revolto. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rito Revolto[edit]

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

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

This character article lacks sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers#Rito Revolto if independent notability cannot be established. Has this already been tried and I missed it? Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge probably appropriate, though I do note that it's completely unsourced. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, but the Google News link above shows some mentions, certainly enough for V, hence being appropriate for inclusion in a characters list for a notable fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree, I'm just noting that we might want to challenge the value of merging unreferenced content. It's one thing to say that content about the character belongs in a particular list, but it's another thing to say that this content belongs in a particular list. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you challenging the content outright? It's certainly a fallacy that every last scrap of info on Wikipedia has to be referenced. Is there some reason you feel this particular content is inaccurate? Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1) What I have said is perfectly clear. 2) That's not what fallacy means. 3) The burden of proof lies with those defending inclusion to provide references. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Character in a major artistic franchise Brainplanner (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is 12 years old. I don't like saying "other stuff exists" in these discussions, but there is Template:Power Rangers characters that should be used as a guideline to make this sourceable. All it takes is episode sources to satisfy that. — Wyliepedia 04:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect as suggested above. From looking at the Google News hits I think it is possible to write a sentence or two about the subject sourced to reliable sources, but the subject doesn't seem to have much more independent notability than that. Minor characters in significant franchises are often dealt with in character lists. The Keep arguments above aren't based on our policies and guidelines: the fact that the subject is a character in a major franchise does not make them notable, and while the article could be entirely sourced to episodes that would basically turn it into a plot summary, and the age of the article is irrelevant. Hut 8.5 22:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect entirely as it's only a character clearly best known from the series. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Shipley (stage director)[edit]

Don Shipley (stage director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not asserted, lacks significant coverage per WP:GNG. Several of the refs are dead, the first two Canada Theatre refs are namedrops only in the context of the history of the theatre, and I can't seem to get a reliable hit on any of the awards he has won except for this article. WP:NOTINHERITED as far as directing at a notable theatre is concerned, as the articles on them are place-oriented. The linked bio at Stratford is also dead. MSJapan (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:GNG met by [10] and [11]. Looks like some of the dead links have been fixed by Sillyrabbit12. Notability is not temporary so dead links are not necessarily a problem and a thorough WP:BEFORE should include a look for archived versions of cited sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 8 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarks UK[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about in independent reliable sources. Dead press releases and PR for their package designers are not good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not the notable footwear chain. Minor import company with limited coverage is not notable even if the maple syrup market is growing. MLA (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets notability guideline, more sources exist (Telegraph,Wales Online). Peter James (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete instead as I examined the listed sources including above and they are either simply interviews, trivial coverage or anything similar to this that is not equalizing to actual substance. There's simply not enough to suggest a both non-advertorial and then factual article. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The firm may possibly be notable, but the article is an advertisement. As for quality of the references, there is a remarkable similarity in the text between this article and most of the,showing their nature as press releases . DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 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.  Sandstein  17:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DWHL[edit]

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

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

The article is about a non-notable radio station and has no references since it was created. I have PRODed it but that PROD was contested for no reason. Sixth of March 07:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In principle, the two notability criteria that a radio station has to meet to be eligible for a Wikipedia article are that (a) it is duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) it originates at least a portion of its own programming schedule in its own studios rather than operating purely as a repeater of another station. But those details have to be reliably sourced — we have seen hoax articles created about radio stations that don't actually exist at all, so it is not enough to just claim that a radio station exists. But this is entirely unsourced, and that means it has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable radio station and lacks reliable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Špiro Kulišić[edit]

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

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

Kulišić was a head of the Belgrade Etnographic Museum. Wrote much but all his works were un-academic with false citations, forgeries, and fabrications. It cannot be said that he was a notable author in a positive way. The article, as written, is without valid sources, based only on a single reference which does not even mention Kulišić nor his work.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of sources and not being notable. --Vujkovica brdo (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Vujkovica brdo (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Stroke above !vote, editor is nominator. –– Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep per new edit, and lack of any evidence of not being notable, and especially false accusations.--Crovata (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment New edit is one-sided and includes just a small number (3) of references. It does not include numerous negative views about Kulisic's writing. Wikipedia demands proofs of notability not proofs of not being notable. Please, provide proofs of notability in a positive academic way and per Wikipedia rules and guidances.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new article revision is positive, it is not one-sided, it has enough number of references which cover his biography and most important information, and there is hard to find the general criticism of his work. Previous revision had no reference for the accusations on "un-academic" work, by which the nominator "one-sided" premise is invalid. Also, those accusations were supported by the outdated political and cultural ideology of the time. Moreover, as can be seen there existed sources for the article improvement by which, under rule "C.", it was not a candidate for AfD. The proof for notability is provided, obviously the nominator is not familiar with WP:SCHOLAR, by which Š. Kulišić is notable under several conditions.--Crovata (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crovata Did you read WP:SCHOLAR? Which of the nine criteria is applicable to poor Š. Kulišić? Please, substantiate and elaborate just one of the several claimed.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since a personal opinion of an author's work is not basis for the deletion of an biographic article. The article could use improvement, but the deletion proposal is evidently guided by a single user's personal opinion, which makes it unacceptable. Sideshow Bob 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.@Sideshow Bob No place for talking about my personal opinion here. See the article talk page. In addition, this man Š. Kulišić is not notable for not a single criterion of the WP:SCHOLAR is applicable to his work.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply The talk page does not contain valid arguments for deletion, and by the way njegos.org is not a reliable source as it is a heavily biased Serb nationalist website. I am not familiar enough with this author's work to comment on its academic quality, but take notice that even complete lunatics such as the pseudo-historian Jovan I. Deretić have their articles here too. Hence, my suggestion is an improvement of the article from a neutral perspective, rather than its deletion. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 09:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sideshow Bob Nonsensic reply. The talk page nowhere addressed Jovan I. Deretić - rather
    Ethnogenesis and Socialist Nation: Polemics on O etnogenezi Crnogoraca in 1980s Yugoslavia by Takuya Nakazawa Paper presented at ICCEES IX World Congress 7th August 2015, Makuhari, Japan
    Dordje Vid Tomasevic Retired professor of Anthropology at the Buffalo University in New York and member of Crown Council Montenegrins and other Serbs
    
    " I am not familiar enough with this author's work to comment on its academic quality" very good! Then what makes you to request keeping this article if you are not able to elaborate and substantiate WP:SCHOLAR criteria of notability?--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vujkovica brdo due you understand that the article is invalid candidate for Afd if you're listing (are those reliable?) sources by which the article could be improved? If a scholar is notable for any one of the conditions, and can be substantiated through reliable sources, is notable. He is especially notable by condition 1 (his work made a significant impact in the disciplines), 4 (significant impact on the ethnography and museology institutions), 5 or 6 (he was official in charge of the scientific institutions and associations like National Museum in Bosnia and Herzegovina). Personal editor opinion is invalid criteria for deletion.--Crovata (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Crovata This user associated his or her empty statements to the WP:SCHOLAR criteria. "his work made a significant impact in the disciplines"? Does this user know English good enough to lead a serious discussion? "he was official in charge of the scientific institutions and associations"!! - really laughable. Personal opinions, incomplete and wrong understanding of the WP:SCHOLAR.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no lack of sources, Kulisic is often quoted in the past 60+ years, and I have added some citations to verify this as a fact. To freely quote two of them, he is well-known and influential. Subject meets WP:NACADEMICS. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fin (disbanded)[edit]

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

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