The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Sage[edit]

Adriana Sage (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)

Doesn't seem to pass the GNG or PORNBIO. The Spanish news articles found on Google News mirrors the Wikipedia article. Her sports prediction prowess falls under WP:BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 20:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concur with nominators analysis. Finnegas (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not come anywhere close to meeting the notability guidelines for pornographic actors. For the record I am also convinced we need to tighten those guidelines. We have far too many articles on pornographic actors who are not by any realistic measure notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Morbidthoughts reasoning. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 02:45, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kendriya Vidyalayas[edit]

List of Kendriya Vidyalayas (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 list without independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There was consensus at the previous Afd that Kendriya Vidyalaya are high schools and that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for secondary schools would therefore apply. I don't see anything in the deletion rationale that changes or even acknowledges that. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see the point of this article. It isn't encyclopedic and doesn't impart any information that anyone is likely to look for in an encyclopedia (ie a list). It also seems to be a rehash of this website's contents: http://www.kvsangathan.nic.in/ and http://www.kvsangathan.nic.in/SearchForKVs.aspx - albeit in a more accessible form. Wouldn't it be better for the article creator to get http://www.kvsangathan.nic.in/ to include such a directory page on its own website, rather than Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs) 16:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it is a list. How is this not a list, if I understand you correctly? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article gives us the list of all kv, I don't see any problem here....we have a list, perhaps it will better help another wikipedian to write a article about the schools.only few kendriya vidyalya have articles of there own. Abhisheks 91 (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 00:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am not aware of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines that disallow lists of this kind.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Uncletomwood (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but not so much per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as per WP:LISTOUTCOMES pursuant to the guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates with emphasis on WP:NOTDUP. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep helpful content should be kept. Why keeping a list is a subject of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachin15 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casino hotel[edit]

Casino hotel (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:ENN issue. A particular "casino hotel" may be notable, but as a general concept, it isn't. There's some flowery nonsense, but the essence is WP:DICDEF "A casino hotel is a casino with a hotel." Single-page references to management textbooks on either one side or the other aren't sufficient, nor is a primary source annual report from an industry organization. Source discovery is heavily complicated by the nature of the business, but there's nothing substantial. Can't redirect because there's no WP:PRIMARY. MSJapan (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of casino hotels. There's just not a whole lot to say really about the pairing, any more than there is for hotels with restaurants or hotels with conference centers. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of casino hotels. The brief description there is enough. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination completely misunderstands the essential nature of WP:DICDEF, for which the size of the article is quite irrelevant as the policy explains. As this is a major type of business, the topic is actually quite notable and it is easy to find substantial sources including:

1. Career Opportunities in Casinos and Casino Hotels
2. The Determinants of Price Tolerance in the Casino Hotel Industry
3. The Contribution of the Casino Hotel Industry to New Jersey's Economy
4. The modern Las Vegas casino-hotel: the paradigmatic new means of consumption
5. Service climate and customer satisfaction in a casino hotel
6. Analysis of Las Vegas Strip casino hotel capacity
7. Job stress among casino hotel chefs in a top-tier tourism city
8. How to optimize casino-hotel revenue
9. Managing the slot operations of a hotel casino in the Las Vegas locals' market
10. The casino hotel and the internet

Andrew D. (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except the article isn't called "the casino hotel industry." We're not talking about the industry, we're talking about the structure. Your supposed sources (because you haven't provided a single link) have nothing to do with the article focus. MSJapan (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that MSJapan does not understand how to find sources for this topic. Let's take an example like #4 above. When one uses a search engine such as Google, this returns a number of hits. These include the original paper and citations such as the The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Consumption and Consumer Studies which confirm that this is a suitable source for an encyclopedia. This source specifically considers the casino-hotel as a structure - a "cathedral of consumption". Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Way to not answer the question, and I appreciate the patronizing personal attack - it must mean that I'm right. I did not say the sources were inappropriate. I said the sources were inappropriate for the article, because, again, you have given sources that talk about the industry for an article that, according to its lede, is entirely about the structure. Citations of a source are also entirely meaningless to source evaluation. If you don't understand what's going on, don't participate in the discussion, and certainly don't participate by impugning other editors. Lastly, this isn't math, so I'm not sure why you used QED. Using phrases incorrectly is probably having the opposite effect of what you intended. MSJapan (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This appears to be a term of art within the industry, at least, there is quite a lot of stuff like : "The Contribution of the Casino Hotel Industry to New Jersey’s Economy [1]; Casinos and Casino Hotels [2]; Marvin Davis Pursues Plans For Casino-Hotel in Las Vegas - WSJ [www.wsj.com/articles/SB859422022439455000]; Look inside: Showboat in Atlantic City reopens as non-casino hotel [www.nj.com/.../look_inside_showboat_in_atlantic_city_reopens_as_n.html].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If the problem is just the name, that can be fixed by renaming as Casino hotel industry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I rescinded my vote to redirect, in light of the recent sources which I couldn't find in my own searches. I also don't think renaming the article is the proper course to take here. I suggest a section for the industry information the article desperately needs. I suggest one of you two fill out the main gist of the industry if it is so particular as you say it is. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Google Scholar sources alone are providing enough coverage to demonstrate that WP:GNG is comfortably passed. Other sources are also available. See examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Fry Bread House[edit]

The Fry Bread House (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 notability. a local Phoenix restaurant with one location. no coverage except trivial local restaurant coverage. it's one "claim to fame" is a mention in 2012 as one of five "American Classic" restaurants, which I don't find compelling. MB 22:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG as having significant coverage that extends beyond its Phoenix, Arizona locale. I've added a Boston Globe article and a book reference, as well as adding references from other reliable sources. A significant indicator of notability is that the restaurant won the 2012 James Beard American Classic Award and, out of the five restaurants chosen that year, it was the only (and the first) Native American restaurant to win that recognition. The owner is a member of the Tohono O'odham Nation of Native Americans. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the award and significance of winning for this restaurant is not fame claim. As a stubbed article with coverage outside location, this meets WP:GNG. Note that buzz words in the introduction border on spamming this. Burroughs'10 (talk) 23:33, 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. Hut 8.5 21:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thomas (sculptor)[edit]

Jim Thomas (sculptor) (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)

BLP unsourced since 2006. Expanded by the subject of the article in 2011-2012, but still no sources provided. A cursory Google search turns up nothing in the way of independent sources. Bradv 21:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Worth noting the previous comments regarding notability by @Alansohn: on the article Talk page. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is a page featuring several of the subject's public sculptures at one site here. I found nothing on Highbeam but a Google Books search brought several mentions, as would be expected of a subject working in public spaces. The best may be the Southwestern Art (1973) item, but it is only a snippet view. Overall, although criterion 4(b) may perhaps be arguable, these brief mentions do not seem sufficient for the WP:ARTIST criteria, but happy to revise if someone can identify some verifiable critical coverage. AllyD (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure I suspect he is notable, if only because some of his stuff is so large, but a quick google shows nothing much on preview. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What is the issue? Whether or not he exists or is a sculptor? There seems to be evidence of both. If the discussion is about being notable then we are in very subjective area. The information in the article certainly makes him seem notable to me. One may, for example, come across a work of his, of which there seem to be multiple public examples, and seek more information. This article seems to have value in that example. Flipping the conversation, what harm is there in keeping this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.26.18 (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The editor above would do well to read arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. Existence is not the issue. Notability is: WP:NOTE explains Wikipedia notability requirements. freshacconci talk to me 01:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We need something more than the subjects own website to source an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had created this article because the material was added to an article about a different Jim Thomas. There are some credible claims of notability, but I don't see the sources in the article to support the claim, nor have I found anything meaningful in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of automotive customizers[edit]

List of automotive customizers (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 list is simply a directory and per WP:DIRECTORY that is not what Wikipedia is. More than half the entries are red-linked and many of these have no supporting references. Those that are referenced are either supported by their own web-site or a simple quote from Hot Rod magazine or similar. I guess this might be tenable as a list of notable automotive customizers, but not in its current form.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - must be one of the worst list pages I have stumbled across. I've removed a load of non-notables (no Wikipedia page and no reference), it's a bit better. This could be better achieved with a category. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Original research and unknown criteria; please a sea of red links. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 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 21:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Halil Kayıkçı[edit]

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

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

I don't know if this chap would be counted as a commercial astronaut or a space tourist, but basically he won a competition to do "be an astronaut". While technically he's the first Turk to go into space, I don't think those 15 minutes (both "of fame" and "in space") are significant enough for him to surpass BLP1E or meet GNG. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was tempted to take this page to AFD after the subject's DOB was brought to BLPN, where it was first brought to my attention. Seems to be a case of WP:1EVENT. Meatsgains (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. He hasn't even flown yet. Since the European Space Agency classifies sub-orbital flights as part of space tourism ("Space Tourism: ESA's View on Private Suborbital Spaceflights", I suppose he could be added to Space tourism#List of flown space tourists when he does. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Copied Comment an IP's post on this discussion's talk page: "He has not won the space flight he has passed the qualifying tests that is what it means and It will take about 15 minuets with a spaceplane to go to space and he will remain there for 50 minuets and He will fly in a couple of months time". Primefac (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I first took the article at face value and even helped with some minor improvements. Looking closer, I see that it is a big stretch to call him an astronaut when he only is a space tourist. Moreover, the development of the spaceplane has been postponed several times and now seems to have been cancelled completely. So the flight may never be, and he will not even get his 15 minutes of fame/space. But he has had his two months in Wikipedia! --T*U (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like a pretty clear WP:1EVENT. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being on a 15-minute flight into space at this point is not enough to make one notable, and that is for a very loose definition of space.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The AfD tag was removed by an IP. I have restored. More eyes would be appreciated. Meatsgains (talk) 15:42, 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 speedy delete. clear copyright violation Vanjagenije (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Ramsingh Vallie[edit]

Sandra Ramsingh Vallie (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)

Autobiography with zero coverage from secondary sources. Blackguard 21:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Article is a Copyvio and I've CSD'd it as such. Report: [3] ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 21:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 22:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Nitrox Divers International[edit]

American Nitrox Divers International (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)

• Queried prod delete: User request in my talk page: "Hi Anthony, American Nitrox Divers International was deleted without adequate discussion as not notable by User:Rjd0060 who has not edited since April and has not responded to a routine request to undelete. Could you take a look? Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)". Web search for "ANDI" is swamped by other meanings of the acronym/word/name. This article has stood since 21:45, 16 November 2007‎ (UTC). (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
• Weak keep: Thanks to Cowdy001, there are now several more citations. The recognition section now contains independent sources that recognise ANDI as a training agency (EUF Certification and UK Health & Safety Executive). I'd like to see one or two more independent sources that gave more extensive coverage to ANDI and a section on its history. In the early 1990s it was one of the two main agencies (along with IANTD) certifying divers to use nitrox, and that was to some extent controversial, so I expect there must be magazines from that era carrying stories. I'll see if I can find some. --RexxS (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Well known certification organisation in recreational and technical diving circles. Internationally recognised, and has been around longer than most. EUF certification is fair evidence of notability in this field. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: organisation which has been a key player in the introduction of nitrox to recreational diving and in the development of technical diving including the use of rebreathers. Cowdy001 (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Note that being "well known" or "a key player" isn't a good reason to keep an article. However, a quick google search suggests that there are sufficient independent reliable sources available on ANDI and SafeAir to pass WP:GNG. e.g. [4], [5], [6]. Pburka (talk) 16:00, 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. Hut 8.5 21:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Tink[edit]

David Tink (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NRU. Nick Number (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable. Amateur player in a local league. noq (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Not even a close call. CUA 27 (talk) 00:34, 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 redirect to List of Wikipedias - Never usually close on 2 !votes however redirecting is always preferred over deletion and it makes the mose sense to just redirect anyway. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luri Wikipedia[edit]

Luri Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia version. GZWDer (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Wikipedias then.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Wikipedias. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boa Sr.[edit]

Boa Sr. (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)

Having experience with the world's oldest people articles, I'm not certain that just being the last surviving person with memory of a particular language is sufficient to pass the WP:ANYBIO standard (it's not a "well-known and significant award or honor" and I don't think we can say that the *person* has made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" unless we have evidence that the person did something to help spread the language or further) and otherwise the reliable sources here (I'm excluding this page) are all basically obituaries that are kind of WP:BIO1E about the death. All the sources are basically in the context of her having a memory of a language and I don't think that should WP:INHERIT to the person who spoke about the language. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep impeccable references and passes WP:GNG which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." WP:GNG trumps all other guidelines. Obituary from the BBC website amongst others. WP:ANYBIO is about lowering the bar for people that do not meet the GNG. WP:BIO1E is about tangential people mentioned in passing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic being her, the coverage is not independent of the actual subject which is the language that is now lost. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware the BBC and the Guardian are self-published by a dead woman. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I miswrote that terribly. Obviously the sources are independent of her. But is this coverage about her as the topic or the loss of the language? There's basically two paragraphs about her rather than about the linguist and the language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10 facts from 10 sources are mathematically identical to 10 facts from a single source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete her only claim to "fame" was that she was the last rememberer (she hadn't actually spoken the language for a long time). She did nothing to promote the language or preserve it. She simply outlived everyone else who remembered some of the language. Longevity isn't a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you look at the obituaries, they exist only because she was the last speaker, not because of anything else she did. There are no references to her in scholarly literature or in the media other than her death, which mourn the loss of the language more than they mourn the loss of her as an individual. It is appropriate to mention her at the language page, of course, but she doesn't deserve a standalone article which includes only trivial details of her life other than the accident of her birth and longevity which made her the last person to remember a given language. Compare this with Ishi, who was the last speaker of Yahi. He spent the last years of his life living in San Francisco working with the greatest anthropologists of his time to document his language and culture. He was regularly mentioned in the newspapers of his day and his death was a national news item. A best-selling book was written about him and his life. He was more than someone who simply outlived his peers. --Taivo (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rule reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." It doesn't mention any rule about "remembering" or "speaking", just "significant coverage in reliable sources" for whatever reason the sources choose to cover the subject. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination is "not certain" and "don't think" – enough said. Let's now listen to Last of the Bo Tribe Sings. Andrew D. (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I couldn't find a prior example? There's 50 articles in Category:Last known speakers of a language alone and this is just a terminal rememberer not the last speaker. Would articles on every last speaker (last native speaker? rememberer? other categories?) for each language listed at List_of_languages_by_time_of_extinction#21st_century make sense as well? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep independent coverage as noted by Richard Arthur Norton is enough here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per article's sources. Aust331 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, definitely seems to meet the GNG. The current sources are good, but it would be even better if some academic sources could be found (which seems likely given the article mentions that she was interviewed by a linguistics professor). I might have a look later. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"She was interviewed by a linguistics professor". That's a baloney reason to list her. When I was doing my fieldwork in linguistics, I extensively interviewed two speakers of the language I studied. Do they deserve a Wikipedia article because they are mentioned in the reliable source (peer-reviewed scholarly work published by a reliable press) that I wrote? That is a lousy reason to be included in a Wikipedia article: "They were interviewed by a scholar". Think about it. How many tens of thousands of people around the world hold that same distinction? It's a ridiculous reason. --Taivo (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that in future you read sentences more than once before furiously typing out what ever snarky reply comes to mind. To save you the trouble of re-reading it, I'll paraphrase what I wrote above: (1) it would be good if academic sources could be found for this article, and (2) I think it is likely that academic sources are available, because the article's subject has apparently worked with an academic. It is common in AfD discussions for contributors to suggest ways to improve the article. Thanks, IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to understand the point I was making. Finding any old academic source that mentions her name is not an appropriate reference. That's my point. I mentioned my informants in my scholarly work and even gave brief biographical information about them. That does not make them suitable topics for a Wikipedia article. Just because Boa Sr (there is no period after Sr) is mentioned in a linguistic work (and she probably was) and just because some biographical information might be included about her there still doesn't make her a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. All field linguists who write grammars of the languages they study have biographical information about the people they learned the language from. That doesn't make them suitable subjects for a Wikipedia article. --Taivo (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources are obituaries (and are all reprints of the same info). Nothing prior, so she is notable because she died? Of course not. She as a individual is overshadowed in these sources by the "loss" of a speaker/former speaker of a language. I find that the demise of the language is the primary topic of these sources. I agree with User:Taivo that she is not notable. MB

WP:GNG makes no distinction between pre-mortem and post-mortem sourcing. The !wikilaw only requires that they be "reliable" and "independent of the subject". If your rule was true we would have to get rid of all fictional characters, and most early historical figures. As to "all reprints of the same info" I noticed that about every Abraham Lincoln biography, they all seem to use the same material, the same birth date, same person he married, same manner of death. You would think that in at least one biography he would kill vampires. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage though is WP:ROUTINE coverage that you would expect when the last person of a language passes which is why they are all obituaries or something around that time. It's not coverage about her and doesn't show her notability. This is not like Ishi who, prior to his death, was written about extensively and was actually notable during his life and who, beyond just after the obituary was written, still had some evidence of notability. Here, all the notability is tied to the death and these are all obituaries. It's again no different than the person who happens to the oldest living person for like a day and gets a flood of obituaries and news pieces and then never again. There must be more than "a flood of people reported on her obituary" or else you could pretty much copy the obituary section of any newspaper and write on everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is not derived from "wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, [or] other [related] items" as described in WP:ROUTINE. If you are going to invoke a !wikirule, quote it directly like I do, instead of waving it like a magic wand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obituaries are absolutely routine announcements since they are virtually universal within literate societies with newspapers. The only reason her obituary was picked up was because of the language she spoke, not because of any notability of her own actions. --Taivo (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When your grandma dies, her obituary is routine in the local paper. The BBC and the Guardian do not print obituaries for your nanna. If you want to develop a !wikilaw that excludes obituaries from notability, by all means work on it. Right now they are de facto markers for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been developed. It's considered WP:ROUTINE coverage that someone who would be the last speaker of a language dying would be covered as the last speaker of a language. It's no different than the fact that it's ROUTINE that there would be obituaries about the oldest person from America who died but that doesn't mean that a separate article on that person is automatically warranted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The wealth of reliable and verifiable sources about the subject of the article is what makes the person notable. That some people are unfamiliar with or ignorant of the nature of the claim of notability as "last rememberer" is hardly a justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Roscinda Nolasquez be kept as well just because she's the "last rememberer" as well? Being last speaker is not a notability standard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ricky81682, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't an argument for deletion. If the Nolasquez article has the same level of sourcing available for Boa Sr., it would be a resounding yes. Reliable sources are the standard here, and the standard is met. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). This individual seems to be much better known than most subjects interviewed by linguists. Readers would expect to find an article about her, and there is no reason to frustrate them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Among linguists she is not "better known". Indeed, there are many living consultants who are far better known among linguists than this woman, but who get no press. And you don't seem to get the point. She's not the reason the Guardian and the BBC published her obituary. Her language was the reason they published her obituary. Indeed, the amount of time she spent with the linguist was minimal compared with most other linguistic consultants, the consultants whose knowledge and patience actually lead to grammars and dictionaries. That's the point we're trying to make here. She was not Wiki-worthy. Her language, yes, indeed (and there's an article for it where she is mentioned). But not her. Indeed, if you look at Aka-Bo language you will see that it replicates (appropriately) almost the entire information here, actually making this article a needless WP:CONTENTFORK. There is nothing noteworthy to say about this woman separate from the knowledge she had of a language that she had not used for decades. --Taivo (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Aka-Bo language in fact repeated a number of details about Boa Sr's life that were quite irrelevant for a linguistics article, and which I removed, on the grounds that they did nothing whatever to help readers understand the language. So the article is not a needless fork. There is clearly material that would be appropriate to an article about Boa Sr that is not appropriate to an article on the Aka-Boa language. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that every factoid in existence must have a place here, even those based on a reliable source. There is no article for the second to last speaker or the third to last or the last male speaker or fluent speaker or whatever other random distinguishing criteria people make up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep By my evaluation the subject meets GNG and I think there is no benefit in over-riding the presumption of notability for worthwhile articles such as this one. Thincat (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clearly notable individual and of significant note in the study of this language; meets GNG with multiple RS from independent sources. Montanabw^(talk) 20:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets GNG. Uncletomwood (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her place in history is significant as is the Bo language and a marker of the end of the language. I will insert more sources and clean up superfluous information. There's plenty of books she's included in plus articles from the BBC and the Telegraph. Miffedmess (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historically significant.--Ipigott (talk) 09:02, 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 21:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Burns (actor)[edit]

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

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

Does not pass WP:NACTOR, no significant third-party sources about the person himself. Contested PROD. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Question One which was created at close to the same time, there may be WP:COI issues here. shoy (reactions) 18:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, sources do not indicate notability. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- sources do not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I frankly would've PROD, nothing minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question One[edit]

Question 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)

Fails WP:NCORP, no independent reliable sources about the company. Contested PROD. shoy (reactions) 18:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This page is about a known brand which weekly entertains people in both the UK and Australia with numerous secondary sources, satisfying the Notability criteria. This entry does need cleaning up, but there's no reason to delete it, please read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion: “Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape." Uberholding (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The entry may need tidying, but the article represents an organizing hosting traditional pub entertainment for thousands of people, with hosts noted for their roles as actors in famous TV series and films, comedians and musicians. It's very much embedded in the social lives of many, many Londoners to say the least. Steste91 (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)— Steste91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• This page is somewhat UK specific, but this a well known brand if you live in or around London and like going to the pub. (If you stay inside all day and poke around on facebook, you may not have heard of them:-) Tedward Barnes (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)— Tedward Barnes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Merge to Andrew Burns (actor) if that article is kept at its own AfD, otherwise delete for failing to meet our notability guidelines. The only reliable source in the article, [7], doesn't mention the company, and only mentions the quizmaster in passing. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- non notable topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: disclaimer I work for Q1, but we have 100s of news articles in the press which we're busy compiling, keep in mind this page is new. But we're an established well known entertainment company in the UK since 2003 and we employ at least a dozen actors who have their own wikipedia entires, and we have developed a new quiz format which entertains 1,000s of people on a weekly basis around the world. Is this really something you want to squash as "not notable"? Two of our former QuizMasters are named characters in Game of Thrones! Are none of you geeks? ;) " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.52.119 (talk) 16:36, 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 Keep. While numerically this is split, the Delete comments were all left prior to Innisfree987's improvements, and there's been no attempt to refute them as evidence of notability. Hut 8.5 22:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Vix[edit]

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

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

Article produced by now-blocked editor (socking, possibly paid editing, meating). Subject is non-notable: no record deal, no hits, no coverage in reliable and notable sources. The article is a compilation of all the factoids, including editorial commentary, one could find on the internet, but it does not add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: CMJ, Rolling Stone magazine and Allmusic would be considered reliable and notable sources. Also, the list of collaborators (members of The Cure, Psychedelic Furs, David Bowie's band and others) is notable. Editing/tidying would be preferable to deleting. KevW 09:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is notable as she's been covered by various reliable sources, like BBC Music, AllMusic, Rolling Stone Magazine, INTRAVENOUS MAGAZINE, and MTV, making her pass GNG. 43.241.117.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This IP has contributed only on the AfD's of articles created by puppets of Caroline A. Murphy. for (;;) (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puppetry reported. for (;;) (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete blatant sock activity. for (;;) (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see no evidence of notability. The BBC Music and Rolling Stone sources cited say nothing about her. Maproom (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Drmies. The sock-puppetry and undisclosed paid editing are fully adequate reasons for deletion, without prejudice to re-creation by a non-conflicted editor if notability is established (which seems highly unlikely). But there also seems to be dishonest/deceptive/hoax editing: the article reads "She got a positive response when her album was reviewed in Rolling Stone Magazine", citing this page on rollingstone.com (not Rolling Stone); however, the content of that page consisted of one photograph, this small image from 7 December 2000. How is that a "review" or a "positive response"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. The references used seem to me to be masking her very limited notability claims. Aggregations like BBC Music and Last.fm mean nothing, and a lot of the sources are unreliable, small sources. Even somewhat medium-sized music websites like Gigslutz on their own aren't a great indicator of notability in multiple sources. That said, any musician that makes it into Rolling Stone - even if only once and briefly - has something about them and she probably, or the balance of probabilities, had more offline coverage at that time. Without any actual evidence of this, however, I'm leaning toward a delete. As an aside, the above point about how "sock-puppetry and undisclosed paid editing are fully adequate reasons for deletion" is false, and if she met the criteria for inclusion these shouldn't make a difference so long as any undesirable content (lack of WP:NPOV, etc) is removed. KaisaL (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why were the Orangemoody articles deleted, KaisaL? It was my impression that sock-puppetry and undisclosed paid editing were precisely the reasons given. As I recall, those pages were deleted without regard to notability, and without prejudice to re-creation by an uninvolved editor. That's what should happen here too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the Orangemoody situation but WP:YOURSELF implies at several points that even an autobio (certainly a conflict of interest) will still be evaluated for notability, not automatically deleted. In fact it warns: "If you do turn out to be notable, you must expect the article to stay—you cannot just get it deleted because you are not happy with it." And other guidelines actually make explicit the principle that COI does not preclude notability, for instance WP:BKTS, under the header "Books by Wikipedians" says: "If the Wikipedia article on a book has been created by an author of that book, or by any other interested party such as an editor or member of the editorial staff of that book, this has no effect, one way or the other, on whether that book is notable." I see no reason other kinds of entries would be different on this front. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers You mentioned in edits that there's no evidence she was in The Cure or Tin Machine - it doesn't state anywhere that she was, she's collaborated with members of those bands which is the reason for the association. It's a link used on many other musician pages. KevW 11:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm still questioning her own actual convincing notability, there's sources and information listed but I'm not seeing anything else particularly outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Through Google Books and EBSCOHost, I've found some of the printed sources:

• A June 2, 1994 article in Rolling Stone called "Rollin' & tumblin'" by Paul Evans (Issue 683, p. 72) gives her album Umbrella Dimension 3.5 stars. To excerpt: "On her self-produced debut, Jenn Vix sounds perpetually enraptured. And the Rhode Island multi-instrumentalist has reason to be. Her music--clear, simple melodies awash in echo--is all dreaminess and shuddering, and from inside its swirl, her voice wafts up lightly. Catchy but otherwordly."
• The February 1995 CMJ New Music Monthly included Vix's song "Devils Chasing Angels". Likewise, excerpt: "Vix played virtually all the instruments on her self-titled debut album (Umbrella). 'Devils Chasing Angels' is an airy, dreamy pop song, with wisps of synthesizers coiled around tendrils of Vix's trademark watery bass sound."

I'm satisfied by these reliable sources, and as for the article's origins, to me an AfD discussion is solely a matter of notability, which "is property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article" per WP:ARTN. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources are relible enongh to meet GNG. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 14:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Update to say I've begun to work on improving the article--I've integrated some of the sources I've found, deleted some dead links and removed some redundant and/or unsourced material. I'll be candid: there's a lot more work to do to bring the entry's content up to standard in terms of re-writing in Wiki-compatible style, sourcing. The first draft seems really not to understand what kind of material is acceptable for or relevant to Wikipedia. But I hope this start on a revision makes the notability case somewhat clearer, with more reliable/notable sources documented. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of the sources added to the article by Innisfree987. Excellent work. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen328, 'preciate your saying so! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable sourced artist has collaborated with many other notable people.Masterknighted (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 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. No evidence of the subject passing WP:GNG or WP:PROF has been shown. Therefore, notability has not been established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K. Venugopal[edit]

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

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

Article about a doctor who has won Best Doctor award in Kerala. Can't determine if the award(s) are notable. Possibly fails to assert WP:BIO. scope_creep 16:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep- a doctor recipent of several awrds including best doctor award. Of course need to be expanded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerala engineer (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Kerala engineer (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. –– Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An award instituted by the stste government makes the doctor most notable in the state. Kerala engineer (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merged multiple !vote by same editor. DMacks (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is in poor condition but the subject is covered extensively in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF. Also appears to fail GNG--the three sources listed are all formulaic mere notices of minor awards. None of them discuss him in depth. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WEAK Delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF. But passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncletomwood (talk • contribs) 17:46, 29 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as still nothing at all suggestively better of his notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep less details but notable subject. Good citations .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachin15 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 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 22:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jokpeme Viral World News And Politics[edit]

Jokpeme Viral World News And Politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD - my rationale was, "Non-notable website which fails WP:NWEB; promotional in tone, and the only references are to the site itself." GAB^gab 16:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Not notable Exemplo347 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clickbaiting spam. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NWEB. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:54, 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Hernández[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here is one reliable source I have added to the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is a professional football player of Atlético Madrid. Why must delete this page??? Atm7 (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. One blog posting about a possible loan move does not equal GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. "Into the Calderón" (some tabloid related to Atlético) is far from being a 100% reliable source. Seems to be WP:TOOSOON, as he will probably make his pro debut this month or in September. MYS77 ^✉ 16:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. adequate consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skyway Recreation[edit]

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

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

This article does not meet notability standards and seems to be written in a biased point of view, possibly by someone associated with the company. NikolaiHo 00:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to find reliable sources supporting the article's subject. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by all means as there's nothing close at all to the needed substance, and I frankly would've considered PROD. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Romano Pyramid House[edit]

Cape Romano Pyramid House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Outside the one local news source that sources the entire article, a google search indicates no other claim of notability or reliable sources needed to sustain an article on this "individual" house. Meinnaples (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. From what's in the article, it sounds architecturally interesting and for "doing whatever you want" like a Burning Man thing. I am assuming it's legit, this is real house that existed for 10 years and was a cool place. I expect that there are multiple mentions and multiple sources with substantial coverage on this.

I am not getting past paywalls but running a broader search in Scholar on ("Pyramid House" Florida architecture) is getting hits. Not sure if this url shows a result. One review article about "Egyptology" in architecture. One law journal about unusual residential architecture as individual expression. "Cape Romano Pyramid House" is overly precisely focusing on one possible variation in the name. Searching on combinations of "the Pyramid" and "Judy Innes" and "Caxambas" and "Monte Innes" would likely work, too. The house was built in 1979 and there would be articles for 10 years, say, but not much on the internet because it was no longer a house when internet grew, so good sources will tend to be off-line. --doncram 06:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is Cape Romano Dome House on apparently better-known neighbor. This Facebook page includes aerial photos showing both of them, and a photo of "the Pyramid". (Search within the page for "pyramid") I found that by searching on "the Pyramid" and "Judy Innes".

There are pics also within this Youtube video "Building the Now Abandoned Dome Home of Cape Romano", e.g. at time 1:46. At time 0:14 there is a newspaper article saying "Like the pyramid house shown on page 1B, these dome houses are being constructed on Cape Romano...". So newspaper coverage exists.

It will be related to Beach house, Tropical architecture (a needed article), Lanai (architecture), etc. We have not had proper categories for Albert Spencer Wilcox Beach House and other beach houses... I will start Category:Beach houses now and begin to populate it. There is Commons category [8] with more than 100 photos already. (By the way, NRHP-listed tropical property Navy Building 38 has a pyramidal roof and shows up in some searches I was trying, but is unrelated.) --doncram 06:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, (warning some(?) humor will be following:)), this is quite interesting, an inappropriately designed, inappropriately placed house that gained some local interest back in the 1970s/80s, have been unable to find any useable sources (maybe there are some architecture/alternative living publications that discuss this?), suggest this and the other Cape Romano house articles ie. Cape Romano Stilt Houses, Cape Romano Dome House (the sources of which are also extremely weak) all be merged to Cape Romano which definitely needs some fleshing out. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Butterworth[edit]

Joe Butterworth (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 reliable third-party sources given - seems to fail WP:GNG Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable drummer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:MUSBIO plain and simple. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The three marginally acceptable sources provided confirm that this subject exists, but none indicate that he is notable. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A very clear case for deletion. What worries me is that this took three relists to form a consensus, and could easily have been kept due to a lack of participation. KaisaL (talk) 03:49, 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  15:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extracomunitarian[edit]

Extracomunitarian (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)

Obscure and obsolete administrative term. Deserves no more than a dicdef. Source book cited is an isolated case about the Italian designation of foreign non-EU workers. Besides, the spelling would be "Extracommunitarian". — JFG ^talk 15:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per single primary source only. - DVdm (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Nothing notable. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:46, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LG A225GO[edit]

LG A225GO (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 model of cell phone. Totally unsourced, although most of the article is nothing but a list of built-in apps. Appears to contradict WP:NOTFAQ and WP:NOTCATALOG. Amccann421 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unable to find reviews or any other evidence of notability for this product. ~Kvng (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, completely unsourced article, fails all aspects of WP:GNG. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable model. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Kvng's research. Yvarta (talk) 04:37, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain Cycles[edit]

Sustain Cycles (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)

Company seems to have folded. No references except for a couple of old product reviews. No significant media coverage in the last five years. Nick Number (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another run-of-the-mill online retailer who have never been notable, not even from the time I WP:PROD this article 7 years ago thus why the hell was this allowed an article. Donnie Park (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Sustainproducts. The brief product review from BikeRadar in 2007 is not sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH, nor do I see anything better. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Durpang[edit]

Durpang (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 significance or notability. Also completely unreferenced. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 18:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Durpang, with that spelling is not found in the 2011 Indian Census report for Lakhimpur District, Assam (see this link) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand, there appears to be a PINCODE (postal code) for Durpang, Lakhimpur, Assam: 787033 from multiple sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is made much more confusing by the existence of two different Durpangs, Durpang Nyishi [9][10] and "Durpang Forest Camp"[11][12]. They have different village codes which are only one off, following each other: 262316 and 262315. However, they're located in the Papum Pare district. Our Durpang is supposed to be located in the Lakhimpur district. I had a hard time finding anything but the pin code registry sites about the Durpang in Lakhimpur. Some of them mentioned a "small village". Looking at the maps of the two districts, I noticed that they're neighbors even though they're in different states. Many sources verify a Durpang river in Lakhimpur. All three villages are probably named after the same river. In this book [13] I discovered that Dropang is an alternative spelling of Durpang. Using that I were able to find a village named Dropang in the Lakhimpur district [14]. Who knows whether it's our Durpang. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Utilizing the earlier village listing website I were able to find two "Drupangs" in Lakhimpur, also a possible alternative spelling: Drupang Gaon and Drupanggrazing. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tharakiya[edit]

Tharakiya (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 significance or notability and completely unsourced. Not many hits when searched in Google either. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 18:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tharakiya, with that spelling, wasn't found in the 2011 census report (here), but there does seem to be a primary school in such a place in the district per the article. See this link. Whether it refers to a village, or some unrecognized area, or something else cannot be determined. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I were able to find this website which verifies the village convincingly enough, although the website doesn't look very pretty: [15]. It offers the alternative spelling of Tharakaiya. Tharakiya Panchayath is mentioned. Wiktionary says [16] panchayath is the smallest administrative area in India. The site also offers fairly reliable instructions to the village. The block is specified to be Nagar Untari, which also happens to be the name of nearby village mentioned in our article. I also found another website using the alternative spelling: [17]. It verifies the same information. I'm not voting because I'm unsure about the notability rules in such a case. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:06, 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 speedy delete. Advertising DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turquoise Holidays[edit]

Turquoise Holidays (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)

Certainly time for another AfD since Philafrenzy first nominated in January 2012 and I still confirm my PROD, "None of the listed sources are the needed substantial significant coverage and my own searches have found nothing better at all, the information also contains nothing else to suggest there's any minimal notability, "first companies to offer a wedding gift list service" is not a notability as it simply states it was one of several, not the only one.". The one link listed at the 1st AfD is still not enough and the user himself stated it was an "advertising....primary". SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is an advert for a holiday company that does what holiday companies do. Fails GNG and Corpdepth. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:30, 6 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. Article is found to be in violation of WP:PROMO, and is deemed unfit for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Articles created for soley promotional purposes are directly in conflict with, and against the spirit of, our mission. (Note: This close was done in consideration of, and accordance with, the following policies: WP:DEL4, WP:DEL8, WP:DEL14, WP:PROMO, WP:N, WP:IAR.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life in a Jar[edit]

Life in a Jar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article seems like an advert for an organization or a play that I feel is so messy it needs to be WP:TNTed. I am not sure if either subject (LitJ project or play) is notable, through I think the play just might be (due to sources like [18]). However, the article is not about the play, which is barely mentioned; it instead seems to be about the project/organization, and that received much less coverage. The article seems somewhat promotional (a while ago I have removed big chunks about this project from the Irena Sendler article due to WP:UNDUE and related problems, and now that I've discovered this article (which seems to have been undeleted/moved from userspace, perhaps? User:Anthony Appleyard may be able to comment on this more), I feel, as stated in the op of this nom, that this is a mess that is just not salvageable due to problems of bad writing, promotional tone, and notability issues. Again, I don't see what makes the "project" notable, and while they play may be, there is next to nothing in this article to salvage. I'll also ping User:Poeticbent, who has offered useful insight on a number of related articles in the past. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Piotrus: I routinely obeyed a request to histmerge User:Tikkunolam1910/Life in a Jar to Life in a Jar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Piotrus: The play is notable; in my view, ought to become the main subject of this entry. Meanwhile, the project (which actually is a website) can be mentioned in the post scriptum or in the reference section, because the "students" who created the "project" in the fall of 1999 are now 17 years older, and most emphatically no longer studying anything. The (quote-unquote) "student-developed website" at http://www.irenasendler.org/ certainly doesn't look like a school project. Poeticbent talk 15:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The subject of this article is essentially a high school student play and an associated campaign. It might be possible to merge a few sentences to Irena Sendler#Remembrance. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a non-notable campaign about a notable person. WP:INFO may apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. sentimental promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 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. Enough reliable sourcing is apparent to pass WP:GNG. Therefore, this article's subject is deemed fit for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breed (song)[edit]

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

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

This song has a single reliable source, with content that could easily be merged to the album article. It is a stub that is unlikely to expand. The Writing section is completely unsourced, the cover version by Otep is not notable, and the Bruce Pavitt interview is probably the only reliable publication you could find for this song. I propose merging the Pavitt interview into Nevermind and deleting the rest as it's all supported by songfacts.com, an unreliable source. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll just say that it does receive detailed analysis here, for one. So that's one bona fide bookref. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Two reliable references which discuss it, one with detail. I'm not convinced, unless we're able to write decent articles on these subjects with solely these two references. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and neither am I. I'm a big fan of Nirvana but I don't think that a non-single like "Breed" deserves its own article, at least not based on what I've found. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this matters, but it was a song in a 2007 baseball video game. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did it gain anything from this? No. Thus, irrelevant. It could be added, but wouldn't save it from AfD. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I just wanted to point that out in case it mattered. I don't care about this article 1 way or the other. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, per my comment above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to Nevermind, which only has passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Nirvana's Nevermind is one of the most successful and high-profile albums ever made, so you would think enough coverage would be available for even the non-singles. Nevermind is probably one of the few albums where every song from it could potentially have it's own article. If enough coverage can be found, I'll gladly vote "keep" here. I'll look for some soon. Kokoro20 (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After some searching, I've found these, ([19] [20] [21] [22] [23]) and those are just from a brief search, so I'm going with keep. I'm sure there's more. @DannyMusicEditor:, @Shawn in Montreal:, @Northamerica1000:, what do you all think? Kokoro20 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that I had found several of these, but even in your brief search you've added a couple I hadn't found. I can't see why this doesn't meet WP:NSONG. It would be great if you could also add these to the article but of course that isn't a requirement of Afd -- only that they exist. Change to keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are these six enough to build a decent article, tho? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:41, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shashi Ruia[edit]

Shashi Ruia (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)

Brother of billionare Ravi Ruia. WP:INHERITED Uncletomwood (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep No clear reason for deletion given. The nominator is probably trying to suggest that his brother Ravi Ruia is notable, whereas Shashi Ruia is not notable, and one cannot claim notability simply due to association. However, they are co-founders of Essar Group. Shashi is the older brother and chairman; Ravi the vice-chairman. As of today have a joint net worth of $7.5 billion. Edwardx (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick Google search showed plenty of sources to satisfy the GNG. WP:BEFORE applies here I think. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sincere apologies for putting this one up for AfD. Is there anyway I can withdraw this? Uncletomwood (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a non-admin close of your own nominations in these circumstances. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:51, 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. Euryalus (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Vandrevala[edit]

Cyrus Vandrevala (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)

NonNotable Indian Businessman. Uncletomwood (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as certainly PR. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article is found to be in violation of WP:PROMO and WP:GNG, and is deemed unfit for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Articles created for soley promotional purposes are directly in conflict with, and against the spirit of, our mission. (Note: This close was done in consideration of, and accordance with, the following policies: WP:DEL4, WP:DEL8, WP:DEL14, WP:PROMO, WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:IAR.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Lohani[edit]

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

Amit Lohani (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)

NonNotable Indian Businessman. Reads like a Linkedin profile. WP:Promotional Uncletomwood (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject fails GNG. The coverage I found contains of trivial mentions or quotes. More coverage is available about the organisation than the subject, which makes me doubt that the subject is independently notable. The article is also very much coatracked with details about the organisation and reads like a CV. If we trim all that out, I doubt much will remain. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a CEO of non-notable company and a leader of a red-linked forum, writing a future book. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing at all actually suggestive of his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obviously not notable and reads like, as OP said, a LinkedIn profile. Acalycine (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP this obviously is not a LinkedIn profile and has clearly not been been made with that intention either. His profile should be seen and scrutinized keeping Indian content in mind and that India should not be compared to United States of Singapore here in a developing country like this there are several teething issues and the notable work like that of Amit Lohani has clearly benefited FnB trade in many aspects. To an extent that he has been selected by several country governments to represent Food Scenario of India. An organization is obviously dependent on its leadership to attain growth and that is what has been happening in this case too. International food trade in India is at 5.2 million USD and FIFI under leadership of Amit Lohani has been instrumental in attaining this growth by several interactions with Government on India on technical and non- technical trade barriers. The change in the Government's protectionist view on international FnB trade has been credited to his hard work at several occasions. It is strongly advocated that due gravity is given to this strong trade voice instead of considering it negligible and of no importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.26.66 (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Strong keep As an active player in the retail bussiness I have personally witnessed the changes which happened under leadership of Amit Lohani. And the WP page shows his notable work. Why do we have a Wikipedia page on John Mackey and others and why not just leave it as a page on whole foods. Amit Lohani is national Convenor for Forum of Indian Food Importers a non profit, non government chamber which has unparallel reach in food industry. FIFI and Amit Lohani are known names in the industry and as written in his WP page not only Government of India but several other country governments have hand picked him to represent India on world map. His notable work is covered by number of print and electronic media group time to time and that can easily be seen as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.26.117 (talk • contribs)

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

CommentThere has been a series of such messages from different IP numbers and usernames which have been commenting on this topic on different user's talk pages. Clear case of sockpuppetry. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncletomeood Yes, I did comment on the talk page seperately and then posted the same views here for others to read. Apologies for repeated infornation as I took these as seperate conversation heads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishra S Shukla (talk • contribs) 10:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a very dynamic person and should be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.34.254 (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep with few edits in personal life heading as that is of less interest this is worth a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.222.63.11 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If the new editors coming to this page wish tho keep this article, they might bring, either to the page or here, "quotations" from mainstream media describing Lohani in significant detail as an influential individual. Profiles of him in major media would be especially persuasive, but multiple articles that discuss him at some length within a larger topic are acceptable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - I'd love to see you apply that same reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Susman and not come to the same conclusion you do here. "Pot, kettle, black" comes to mind...can't for the life of me think why that might be. MSJapan (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:GNG, clear puff piece. MSJapan (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP* - I find this amazing that people from all across the world are commenting on an Indian Business personality without the understanding of the Indian culture and bandwitch . Lohani who works very closely with Celiac society in India and also lauched Europe's Number one Gluten Free Brand DR. SCHAR and is covered by European premier Magazine Progressive Grocers . [24]PG coverage on his company] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.27.230 (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to E.M.Gregory

As advised, some media coverage is given below, which covers Amit Lohani and his quotations:

1. India wine academy Keynote speaker Amit Lohani 2015

2. Meeting coverage on Amit Lohani's views on TBT issues 2016

3. meghalaya magazine on Amit Lohani's company Max Foods 2016

4. NDTV coverage on Amit Lohani's views on Non Tariff barriers in India

5. Amit Lohani on Food safety & Regulations in India

6. Amit Lohani on international food trade with India

7. Economic Times coverage on Food Safety Laws and Amit Lohani's view

8. Amit Lohani at Gout de France by French Government

9. Amit Lohani as panel moderator on Gourmet and Imported foods in India

10. Amit Lohani and his company in Business Standard

11. [25] SUN News 2016

12. Amit Lohani in discussion with country representative from USA, Canada etc on food scene

13. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AF0EZIboT4 Amit Lohani's interview by HORECA TV official media partner for India Trade Promotion Authority

14.Amit Lohani at coca-cola golden spoon awards 2016 Beachin15 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• respond You would help you cause more by copy pasting the best breakout quotes form these articles onto this page, not a long list of links, just a small number of sentences quoted directly from major media sources that demonstrate this man's notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to E.M.Gregory

As required citations on Amit Lohani and his quotes from few media articles. Please see if this is fine or if any added information is required.

1.Amit Lohani, Director of Forum for Food Industry (FIFI) made a lucid Presentation interspersed with humour to reduce any pain inflicted on any of the delegates present. Through slides he showed the ambiguity resulting in the rejection of various shipments of such basic products as olives and Click For Large Viewmayonnaise (which incidentally, is not allowed to be imported in this category but comes to India as a sauce). Such as the example of Lindt chocolate being rejected for vague reasons when it is much sought after in dozens of countries and ostensibly has high standards of quality and has moved out of India rather than succumb to the flimsy grounds of rejection.

It is truly ironical that India is the biggest beef exporter of 1.5 million metric tons of beef – ahead of Australia, USA and Argentina and yet there are quibbles from various groups protesting about its consumption in India, he exclaimed. Curiously, corned beef is allowed as a product category and he showed the documents listing it as such.

Ridiculous High Sampling Costs

One of the main reasons for the recent hike in import costs has been thanks to the sampling costs which may appear innocuous at Rs. 3371 per sample submitted for testing (including the service tax) for each sample in the shipment but in reality they can be totally out of proportion-even more than 50%, as he explained in the hypothetical example of the import of cookies from the same manufacturer from a country, but in different shapes and sizes and flavours.

For the sake of explanation, his slide included cookies from 2 batches in 10 different shapes (round, square, triangular etc) in 4 different pack sizes, by weight in 2 different flavours, that would be treated as 160 samples by FSSAI (2*10*4*2). At Rs. 3371 each as sampling cost, that would mean a mean Rs. 539,328 ($8990). If the cost of one container-load is Rs.10,00,000 (one million), the sampling cost alone is around 54% of the cost of cookies!! It would seemingly provide several jobs for FSSAI and possibly cookies for many testers!!

Arbitrary

The World Health Organisation and the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN formed Codex International Food Standards over 50 years ago; these are the most widely used globally as benchmark standards. It seems strange that FSSAI has only 377 categories whereas Codex has 4000 standards, said Lohani. But what appeared more shocking was that not a single standard seems to have been added since FSSAI came into existence in 2008. Lohani wondered how many labs were added during the six years since the FSSAI came into being. Scientific labs of international standards are very important to validate the authenticity of the products tested. He also rued the fact that the Product Approval was being given based on company names or brands, thus giving benefits to a few giants. Surprisingly, the Food Safety Standards do not have any provision for Product Approvals.

Labelling Requirements

One of the biggest issues raised has been the labelling requirements, starting with its own logo of FSSAI that needs to be in 4-colour printing, making it an expensive exercise from the overseas producers’ point of view. FSSAI requires scientific names of the products to be mentioned on the labels. For instance, rice packaging needs to display ‘Oriza Sativa’- the mostly unknown scientific name even though many people are aware of the name Asafoetida for ‘hing’- a common ingredient for Indian dishes. Canola oil which is being increasingly added as a cooking medium must now have the name ‘Rapeseed oil with low Erucic acid’.

FIFI seems to have done a study for actual sampling costs incurred for 2012-2014 and it was presented to the audience. It varied from a little over 5% in 2012-2013 to 7% in 2013-2014. Most wine importers agree that the sampling cost for wines is also within these limits though it has made import of fine wines very difficult as the cost of the bottle taken for sampling is very high- making this cost go up to 20-25 % if 6 bottles were to be imported.

Click For Large View The presentation was part of the First F & B Conclave organised by the BW Hotelier group at Hotel La Meridien and attended by various F & B personnel including chefs, managers and kitchen equipment suppliers who are the end users of many of the products mentioned by Lohani end of the sticks with escalated costs and delay in receiving the products. They were surprised to know that 80% of the imported food ingredients they are buying from the vendors are not Product Approved. But the shocking fact is that according to the Notification issued a couple of weeks ago by FSSAI, the end user is legally liable to ensure that the product they are using is FSSAI compliant ingredients to ensure their customers get safe food products only.

Like the wine importers, Lohani concluded that FIFI also recognises that the safety standards are for the benefit of the consumers but wondered why the members of the Authority look at all importers with distrust, causing a resentment among most importers who are honest. They would like to have the advisories be given a 6-12 month window before implementing. He concluded his Presentation with the remark that there was no representation by the food industry with FSSAI, a representation that wine importers have also made.

For 60 years since independence, there have been no well-defined laws to regulate the industry and suddenly the whole industry is sought to be changed overnight – a laudable goal but most delegates were left wondering whether this was plausible, with the limitations and constraints highlighted by FIFI. The food and wine industry have suffered at the hands of the arbitrary handling of the issue by FSSAI. One hopes that this is a transitional period and the government and the Authority realise that a pragmatic and scientific approach would go a long way in making the food healthy for us all. We as consumers appreciate the efforts and objectives of providing us safe food and wine but let it not become the case of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.

Source: Wine Academy

2. A recently held meeting of Forum of Indian Food Importers (FIFI), an apex body representing Indian food importers, and Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), at New Delhi, discussed challenges faced by food importers in India.

Amit Lohani, co-founder-director, FIFI, presented an extensive presentation on the issues of PADR, new products, labelling, and new draft imports. He said, “There should be clear guidelines, the same must be intimated to the state level authorities well in advance so that no hassle comes in the way of trade.”

He added, “The new Pre Arrival Document Review (PADR) system which is being developed by the government should approve the consignments before it is shipped to India. It will be beneficial for the importers as it will reduce the time consumed at the point of entry.”

He pointed out, “There are also other challenges like storage which should be taken care of. The importer has to ensure that the consignment of which the samples are under tests should get proper storage. For example, for perishable commodities, we need cold storage. Earlier, many food importers in the industry have suffered huge losses at this stage.”

Source: Meeting coverage on Amit Lohani's views on TBT issues 2016

3. Speaking on the occasion Mr. Amit Lohani, MD – Max Foods India Pvt Ltd, said “The Indian celiacs is expected to grow in multiples though there are many local companies producing uncertified gluten free product locally in India. The shift in the consumer behavior towards certified high quality gluten free products has envisaged on us to bring the same to the aspiration consumer. We foresee immense possibilities for growth here, and if we are able to give our consumers value for their money, we are sure of higher growth in future. The product would be EXCLUSIVELY available at Godrej Nature’s basket for the first 45 days. The strategy is to work closely with a major gourmet retailer and try to create a win win situation for both the brand and the retailer. We have been working with Mr. Mohit Khattar and Mr. Tripati from Natures Basket for the last 5 years and this was a great opportunity for both companies.”

The product is launched in four flavors – Italian parmesan cheese, Roasted tomato basil, Crushed black pepper, Honey mustard and onion. The product is available at all Traditional stores and Travel Retail like RELAY and WH Smith at Rs. 295.00 (Incl of all Taxes).

Source: meghalaya magazine on Amit Lohani's company Max Foods 2016

4. Over 200 tonnes of chocolates, olives, alcoholic beverages, cured meat, cheese and other food products are catching dust in warehouses across the country as The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has banned imported goods from coming through due to incorrect labeling. Products with a short shelf life are being pulled back and others are just sticking it out.

There's plenty of ambiguity, lack of dialogue and absence of a well-articulated framework when it comes to rules and regulations regarding the food industry. FSSAI is responsible for laying down science-based standards for manufacturing, processing, distribution, sale and import of all food products. This regulatory body is the one point contact for all food manufacturers. We also tried to get in touch with the FSSAI over a number of days but did not receive a response.

At first glance, everything appears to be in line. What could go wrong with a regulatory body trying to ensure that food imports meet Indian safety standards? For starters, the guidelines or regulations that the FSSAI follow are not up to date. Mr. Amit Lohani, National Convenor for Forum of Indian Food Importers (FIFI) says, "The problem isn't that there are rules, but that these rules are old and irrelevant. The document that's being referred to is as old as 1954 and 1956. It's simply been rehashed to look new."

Source: NDTV coverage on Amit Lohani's views on lack of infrastructure in India

5. The food regulator and the industry have often been at odds with each other and importers who have been chaffing at issues such as excessive taxation, ambiguity in food safety laws and labelling regulations are likely to oppose the additional rules. While FSSAI shot into prominence because of its stringent actions against Maggi noodles, it had earlier blocked consignments of Starbucks and some chocolate brands such as Mars, Godiva, Guylian and Lindt, on the ground that they did not contain India-specific labelling.

"At present, clearance of just one shipment containing food items could take 8-20 days, which is a very long time," said Amit Lohani, convener of the Forum of Indian Food Importers (FIFI). "Indian laws are not up-to-date, which leads to huge losses," he added.

Source: Amit Lohani on Food safety & Regulations in India

6. Though India is one of the largest food producing nations in the world, its international food exports are almost negligible, thanks to mammoth size domestic consumption. However, every now and then, India imports food (under one of the rigid and sturdiest food import norms) to tide over temporary deficiency and domestic market price issues. Amit Lohani, convener, Forum of Indian Food Importers (FIFI), an association which aims to encourage and support Indian food importers, and CEO, Max Foods, in an email interview with Hasan Mulani, talks about food import and related issues. Excerpts:

In India, where policy-makers aim to bring self sufficiency; talking about food imports doesn’t look gauche?

We, the food importers, believe that international foods, specifically confectionery, food stuff, processed foods from various developed and highly praised countries can never be looked at with a perspective to bring self sufficiency.

The intention of these food & beverage products is to create new benchmarks for domestic players in trade with knowledge of new trends in the world of food & beverage.

Our members at Forum of Indian Food Importers cater to the palate and not to the stomach of the Indian consumers.

Do you think importing food items in systematic way will help us to ease mounting food inflation?

The international food & beverage imported products are not listed in the food inflation index so any application to ease mounting food inflation is not relevant.

Additionally, the customs duties and other charges on imported food & beverage products are one of the highest in our F&B sector which also led to tremendous rise in price of imported food items.

The benefits for food importers’ are that Indian food industry’s acceptance to categories like pasta, sauces and yoghurts assist us to venture in these realms and adapt it to the Indian taste.

How are the food import regulations in India?

The food import norms in India are quite stringent and ambiguous. We would like a level plain field for all food & beverage products whether produced in India or abroad. The introduction of Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (FSSAI) has some clarity on issues and is a reform appreciated by trade.

What changes / modification the food importers seek to bring with FIFI. How you convene your voice to the government / policy-makers?

We, at FIFI, seek opening of the F&B sector with lowering of customs tariff, reducing non-tariff barriers, and updating of animal & plant quarantine laws.

We also look for upgrading of airports infrastructure, especially for international dairy and meat products. We have recently given our suggestions on the draft of the FSS Act and also talking to various ministries on related matters.

What are the current trends in the Indian food importing patterns? How would be the future of food imports?

The new mantra is gluten-free products, health foods and speciality foods items. The upscale markets have great appetite for these categories, which entail our importers to expand their portfolios.

Furthermore, food & beverages’ in the international segment is growing at a rapid pace of 20%-25% which is an eye-opener for domestic producers. We expect a lot of international flavours and savours in snacks category like Wasabi, Tom – Yum, BBQ to be big hit in the Indian snack & confectionery market in future.

The future also looks as bright as the sun as long as the consumers are looking for more international cuisines and willing to demand high quality products.

Could you tell us what are the aims & objectives of FIFI?

At present we have over 67-member companies and individuals and 11 associate members. Since commencement, FIFI has been working on various fronts like bringing parity on import laws and aligning with international scenario, pushing forward Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with various countries, working with different food authorities and agriculture ministries’ for removal of non-tariff barriers and also working with port authorities to improve infrastructure, especially for perishable goods.

We also seek to create platform to interact with other members, institutions, state & Central governments, foray to meet global business and trade organisations and participate in seminars, training programmes, conferences and meeting.

Source:Amit Lohani on international food trade with India

7. "At present, clearance of just one shipment containing food items could take 8-20 days, which is a very long time," said Amit Lohani, convener of the Forum of Indian Food Importers (FIFI). "Indian laws are not up-to-date, which leads to huge losses," he added.

Source: Economic Times coverage on Food Safety Laws and Amit Lohani's view

8. On 10 March 2015, H.E. Mr François Richier, Ambassador of France to India, co-hosted the 5th annual reception of the Forum of Indian Food Importers (FIFI) at the Residence of France, with Mr Amit Lohani, Founder-Director of FIFI. Mr Xavier Thuret, “Meilleur ouvrier de France”, well known for his excellent work in fine cheese-making and an internationally renowned figure for the promotion of French cheeses, graced this annual cocktail reception. Regarded as the “flying cheesemaker”, he has travelled the world from Korea to Kazakhstan, Japan, the United States, and Brazil, where he has conducted training and tasting sessions.

Source: Amit Lohani with France Ambassador at Gout-de-France.

9. The millennial population and rising disposable incomes across India have created a upsurge in the international food category not only in the metros but also in small towns and cities. The appetite for the new and different grows day-by -day and at times seems insatiable. Yet while the scope is ample and the opportunities for growth loom large, the hurdles of labeling, safety norms, governing laws and other regulations hinder this growth. This panel delves into the opportunities ,challenges and proposes the way forward for this important food category.

Speakers:

Moderator : Amit Lohani,Founder Director, FIFI, and MD, Max Foods Adam Branson, Senior Agriculture Attache’ US Embassy Amedeo Scarpa, Trade Commissioner, Embassy of Italy Puneet Gupta , L-Comps Impex Rakesh Banga, Partner, Farmland Premium Foods LLP, Director, FIFI Sudanshu Mathur,BMS Sanjey Bajoria,Bajoria Foods

Source: Moderator and key note speaker at India Retailing with representatives from trade, US Government, and Italian government.

10. Importers such as Amit Lohani, managing director of Delhi-based Max Foods, says Asian brands are also making their way into this country due to agreements such as on the South Asian Free Trade Area or the Asean-India Free Trade Area that allow easy entry of these products due to lower tariffs and duties. "Taste profiles of Indians are also changing and in many respects, the evolution of modern trade is aiding growth of this category," he says.

Source: Business Standards

11.On the Occasion Mr. Amit Lohani (Convenor) of FIFI said "FIFI as an APEX body representing Food Importers in India thanks its members for the entrepreneurial skills which contribute to 2.1 Billion US$ worth of buying power. Our members have been instrumental in creating new categories and quality benchmarks in food & Beverage industry."

The French Ambassador Mr. Francois Congratulated FIFI on its endeavor to bring together the constituents of the International F&B trade and invited FIFI to host a similar event at his residence next year .He also stated that India needs to have a more open F&B sector allowing French products like Dairy , wines and artisanal products.

The Minister of Agriculture gave his thanks to FIFI and Mr. Lohani for inviting him for this august gathering. He stressed on the need of collaboration of FIFI with Polish Embassy to promote various F&B products from his country. The Ambassador of Poland Mr. Lukaszuk informed the trade of opening new avenue of trade between Indian importers and Polish exporters.

The Canadian High commissioner Mr. Nadir Patel emphasized the need of such a body which gives a platform to all trade embassies for a legitimate trade representative and a database of genuine importers. He was also overwhelmed by such a large presence of dignitaries to support FIFI.

Source: Sun TV on AAHAR Opening

12. Moderator of the session, Amit Lohani, Max Foods & Convenor FIFI, talked about the journey of FIFI in the last five years and the synergy it is creating among the three pillars of food business, viz. Mom-and-Pop stores, Modern Trade and Importers. Ajay Parashar of Arjit Foods, which deals in imported meat products, commented that most of the growth is happening in smaller cities. “Growth of Indian consumers is phenomenal. They are very educated now and want right products. However, importers face several challenges that include cold supply chain infrastructure. It is a challenge to ensure that the product reaches the end consumer in right shape and right quality,” he said.

Source: Food and Grocery Forum

13. The jury for Coca Cola Golden Spoon Awards 2016 included Amit Lohani (Convenor, Forum of Indian Food Importers).

Source: Amit Lohani as Jury of Coca- cola spoon awards

14. In a goodwill message, Mr. Amit Lohani, Founder Director, FIFI welcomed visitors to the FIFI pavilion and said that they have extended invitations to more than 15000 organized and unorganized retailer in North India and are expecting interest from retailers, hotels, restaurants, service providers, and consumers.

Source: Amit Lohani on AAHAR.

15. Mr. Ahmad Sultan Alfalahi, UAE Commercial Attaché to India, Mr. Mohammad Ali Al Kamali, Deputy CEO, Dubai Exports, Mr. Ibrahim Ahli, Dubai FDI, Mr. Amitabh Taneja, CMD - Images Group, Mr. Abdelrahman Al Hosani from Dubai Exports, Mr. Rakesh Gambhir, Head - Dubai Exports India Office and Mr. Amit Lohani, Founder Director FIFI were present at the event. The guests comprised of the key decision makers from various industries interested to collaborate with the UAE companies.

Source: UAE Embassy Coverage.

16. Amit Lohani, founding director of the Forum of Indian Food Importers, said a pilot project for the new system will kick off this month. The pilot is being run by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).

The complexity of India's import regulations are also a logistical headache. Importers of perishables like vegetables, fruits and meat have complained about the time it takes for Indian customs to clear their products, which they say adversely affects quality.

Source: Amit Lohani on red tappisim in India.

17. Founder and director of FIFI Amit Lohani said: "The idea is to promote Singaporean food to India, give better choices to India. We have a free trade agreement with Singapore that would help us bring products at a much lower cost to consumers."

18. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AF0EZIboT4 Amit Lohani's interview by HORECA TV official media partner for India Trade Promotion Authority

Source: Amit Lohani signed MOU with Mister of Trade Singapore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishra S Shukla (talk • contribs) 05:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Deshpande[edit]

Ravi Deshpande (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)

NonNotable Indian advertising executive. Uncletomwood (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete -- promo article on a non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as entirely PR. SwisterTwister talk 01:40, 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. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bina Modi[edit]

Bina Modi (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)

NonNotable Indian Businesslady. Her claim to fame is being the wife of KK Modi and mother of absconding criminal Lalit Modi. WP:INHERITED. Uncletomwood (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this hints everything of PR and there also being no convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 01:41, 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. Euryalus (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahavir Pratap Sharma[edit]

Mahavir Pratap Sharma (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)

NonNotable Indian Businessman. Reads like a Linkedin profile. WP:Promotional Uncletomwood (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply PR. SwisterTwister talk 01:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1941 Junker Ju 88 crash in Nadur[edit]

1941 Junker Ju 88 crash in Nadur (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)

1941 Messerschmitt 110 plane crash in Nadur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1942 Fiat Br.20 crash in Nadur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1942 MC 202 crash in Zebbug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable unsourced aircraft incidents during war. Thousands of aircraft were sot down, crashed, destroyed in accidents etc and while the occasional one might be notable, these aren't. Nthep (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article says no one knows where the plane was when it was shot. Then it crash landed and one of the 3 man crew was killed. (Perhaps someone should have asked the two survivors where it was shot, or if it was even shot). In any event, there were 15,000 Ju88's built, and most were shot down or crashed. This plane and incident does not stand out or have any inherent notability. Fails notability. Redirect or selectively merge to the Malta Aviation Museum article since they have a piece of it on exhibit. Edison (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:GNG - non-notable military aircraft operational crash. Well outside the bounds of notability without other factors, such as notable victim etc. etc..--Petebutt (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Breaking news: Lots of aircraft were shot down in World War II. With extremely rare exceptions (e.g. Operation Vengeance), they don't rate individual articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of articles for every downed aircraft during wartime. While WP:OUTCOMES does list certain cases where every occurrence of something is inherently notable, this ain't one of them. Delete and/or selectively merge to Malta Aviation Museum, as suggested above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence this is particularly notable, agree with everything stated above. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as nothing at all close to minimally convincing for substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No proof of notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Merely one of numerous aircraft shot down in WWII. Possibly a brief merge to a list of exhibits in the museum might be appropriate, but we cannot have an article on every museum object. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, no useable sources found, only wiki mirrors. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 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. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]