The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Channel 4. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fourscore[edit]

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

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

The signature music of the UK television station Channel 4, used on its channel ident for many years. That's basically it. I really don't think this needs its own article; The music was commercially released, but not to any charting position, and it's incredibly niche as a topic and little can really be said about it. It's iconic music, for sure, but only in the same way as the BBC One balloon or other television idents. The best solution is probably to take the bits of encyclopedic interest and merge them into Channel 4, which is a much better place for them, and redirect afterwards. KaisaL (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect: to Channel 4. The info merged should be about two sentences' worth. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Washburne[edit]

Ray Washburne (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)

Potential permastub; also a BLP  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obvious case of non-notability. Part of the Donald Trump presidential campaign walled garden AusLondonder (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC) AusLondonder (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I would've frankly PROded instead as there's nothing at all minimally convincing, certainly not herited notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and improve. Advise Nom to run a more through WP:BEFORE on rich guys; even on rich guys with poor political judgment. A quick archive search turned up lots of RS. Stuff like "Entrepreneur Ray Washburne leaves his mark on Dallas" McClatchy [1], and "Ray Washburne's Office Wall" Texas Monthly "Dallas entrepreneur Ray Washburne has two passions: restaurants and real estate. The 49-year-old married father of three is a co-founder of MCrowd Restaurant Group, which is the creator of the bustling Dallas-area eateries Mi Cocina and Taco Diner, and the CEO of Charter Holdings, a real estate investment company. Garnering him the most attention was last year's acquisition of the country's oldest outdoor shopping complex, Highland Park Village, the tony town center for one of the wealthiest enclaves in Texas. Though it may be his crown jewel, Washburne says he's "not done yet." To stay motivated he keeps..." [2]. Those were just the first 2 hits on a ProQuest search. I did not read the remaining 387 articles. (An aside, entrepreneurs are an undercovered category on Wikipedia, editors tend to be more interested in political figures.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article makes no assertion of notability beyond noting the subject's vice-chairmanship which clearly doesn't justify notability on its own. Graham (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You misunderstand; The question at AFD is not what the article asserts, but , rather, whether the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Improve: Per this Bloomberg article and E.M.Gregory's analysis. I've added further references to the article that may also help. Aust331 (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve - Here is in depth coverage from the Dallas Observer which could be used to fill in details, since it's a BLP - Ray is the fifth of six children born to Mary and Elihu (Hugh) Washburne...Washburne graduated from Highland Park High School in 1979, and went on to Southern Methodist University...He majored in history and graduated in 1984...He sold carpeting and rented small refrigerators to dorm residents, rented Coke machines to apartment buildings...Washburne earned his commercial real-estate license by age 19...etc.

Another one with in depth coverage from D Magazine - Washburne was 9 when he started his first business, a lawn mowing operation in the Park Cities...Washburne’s great-great-granddad Elihu was secretary of state under Ulysses S. Grant...Washburne went to work for Austin Industries...By 1989, he was out on his own, buying land and properties, developing them, selling some for a profit...etc.

Political coverage in The Atlantic - In 2000 and 2004, Ray Washburne worked with George W. Bush's presidential campaign...In 2004, Washburne, along with George Seay III, co-founded Legacy...Washburne chose to back Mitt Romney for the 2012 presidential elections...Washburne was appointed national finance chairman for the Republican National Committee.

In depth coverage from Southwest Art about his Texas Art collection...The Washburnes are members of the Texas Art Collectors Organization...more than 40 early Texas works are scattered throughout the residence...a 1929 work by Jose Arpa...Dawson-Watson's colorful 1928 work CACTUS IN BLOOM...a 1914 work by Hale Bolton...a 1952 piece by Benton...etc.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eve's Weekly Miss India[edit]

Eve's Weekly Miss India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The magazine this is associated with doesn't even appear to meet WP:GNG notability requirements. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Eeesh. Exactly how many words do you need to see to convey the sentiment of "This subject doesn't meet the GNG?" I mean, I could write a sentence saying that there is not a single reliable source in the article, or I could write a sentence saying that this is a likely redirect to Miss India, or I could write a sentence saying that at this remove reliable sources discussing this subpageant in "significant detail" aren't likely to appear. Since when do you need an essay to close an AfD with unanimous sentiment to Delete? Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Firestone[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability per relevant guideline (WP:BIO). The subject does not appear to have received significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. It's worth noting that she has indeed written for The Huffington Post; however, being published is not a critierion for getting a Wikipedia page. -- Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent sources to support [[WP:GNG)). GS cites not yet adequate for WP:Prof. Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. I think she passes WP:PROF#C7. Even filtering out any mentions of her Huffington Post column, GNews still gives[3] 410 hits. Some are false positives, but most appear to be mainstream media sources quoting her opinions as an academic experts on psychology and psychotherapy. A number of independent from her sources have profile pages for her, including one at Dr Phil, [4], as well as more detailed ones, like here [5]. I think this is the kind of a situation that WP:PROF#C7 was meant for. Also, she co-wrote several reasonably successful books, whose mention the nominator somewhat overzealously removed from the article (There is no problem with including a selected bibliography - this practice is completely standard for WP articles about authors and academics). I haven't checked what's what there, but GBooks search for her name does give 1180 hits. Nsk92 (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of concerns about this line of reasoning:

• The standard you're talking about, WP:PROF, only applies to academics, which means people engaged in scholarly research or higher education. I see no evidence Firestone falls into this category. The article says she was a former adjunct faculty member at UC Santa Barbara, but this in fact was not the case; rather, she was merely a designated "Outside Supervisor."
• The "academic" issue aside, for the quotations prong of WP:PROF#C7 to apply, the subject has to be quoted in popular media more than a handful of times. I don't think Firestone rises to this level. 410 hits in Google News, or 1180 hits in Google Books is meaningless. You have to actually look at those hits. Most of them are the articles she's written in the Huffington Post. A huge number of the remainder of them all come from the same outlet, Bustle. The remaining hits are a smattering of unreliable sources (ex), non-independent sources (ex), references to other people with the same name (ex, and yes, a handful of reliable, popular sources (ex.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About being an academic: one does not have to hold an academic appointment at a college or university to be considered an academic. One just needs to be substantially engaged in recognized scholarly research. She has a substantial number of articles published in scholarly journals, as evidenced by GScholar record, as well as several published books. She has an award from an academic society. She regularly speaks at academic conferences and seminars, often as a plenary speaker, e.g. [6],[7],[8], [9],[10], [11], etc. That's enough to consider her an academic. Regarding your second point, even filtering out all the GNews hits related to Huffington Post and Bustle, there are certainly more than a handful that come from other independent reliable sources. Here is a sample: [12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18][19][20][21][22][23][24],[25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She certainly qualifies as an academic, but a GS h-index of 9 is not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. As I said, WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I am not arguing for WP:Prof#C1 (I agree that she probably does not pass that criterion -- although one would have to check the situation with the reviews for her books, to make sure), but I am arguing for WP:Prof#C7 instead. Nsk92 (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the info from her own website (which I assume is correct - should be easy to check)[32]:"Dr. Firestone has been interviewed for O Magazine, Cosmopolitan, Men’s Health, PsychologyToday, and The Los Angeles Times among other national and local publications. She has produced educational films and participated in many TV andradio interviews, including NPR and Dr. Phil. Dr. Firestone is the senior editor at PsychAlive.org and a blogger on The Huffington Post and Psychology Today." Let's not underestimate the latter two items. Altogether, this does describe somebody with a fairly visible national media presence. Nsk92 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as examining this still found nothing noticeably convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable psychologist. Having a column with HuffPo does not make someone notable, nor do passing mentions in publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Although she does get quoted by the press, hits produce merely stuff she has published by HuffPost and similar places. She appears to me to be a non-notable writer and clinician. Main claim is editing PsychAlive, but it is not at all clear that this online, pop psychology website is at all notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teleios[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability per WP:ORG, mostly an opinion essay per WP:OR with highly promotional tone: speedy-deleted twice recently, A7 and G11. Referenced by their web page, plus a lot of apparently unrelated journal citations in support of the organisation's beliefs and goals per WP:SYNTHESIS. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  I'm not entirely sure what this is, but it doesn't seem to be a topic suitable for coverage on Wikipedia.  Nor is the primary research of much use at Wikipedia.  Examples of things not in the article are the date of incorporation, number of staff, and gross annual revenue.  Google scholar had a few hits, [33].  Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither the article nor the website even mentions where they are. I'm guessing from the "Inc." that they're based in the U.S., but the contact page only offers an Outlook.com email address, and I can find no incorporation details for an organisation of that name.

  There is a street address on one of the Media subpages of their website that shows them to be in South Carolina, US.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. OnionRing (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT THE EARTH: Obvious OR is obvious. I'm also unimpressed with the titanic list of sources that very carefully do not mention the subject at all. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:GNG, WP:PROMO - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems to be a promotional or opinion piece. -- Taketa (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I can't find any coverage in secondary sources. Single purpose account created this article five minutes after creating their account. There's no reason to believe this group is in anyway notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt This is using Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. Also, any conclusions from scientific studies is mostly likely biased to support this organization's views; here is page discussing their research: [34] which consists of "a series of prospectively planned studies and medical literature reviews". In any case, no significant coverage in reliable sources is available. Also, since this page keeps getting recreated after deletions I recommend salting this page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crowell Advertising[edit]

Crowell Advertising (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 company. They have a few mentions in Google News, including one in the NYT (in the article) and a minor, minor mention here. There's nothing that seems to have attracted serious, in-depth discussion or broad coverage. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:CORP, with no substantial coverage that I can find. It has a few mentions here and there, and appears to have received a non-notable award, but there's nothing justifying an article. GAB^gab 01:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Multiple hits from HighBeam, all Utah based sources though, in depth article from The Enterprise, Utah-Grown Crowell Advertising, other sources include Utah Business, Deseret News, The Salt Lake Tribune, and in conjunction with the Utah Department of Health, Crowell developed a series of public service announcements "designed to instill anti-tobacco awareness among Utah's youth", the PSA's featured the one and only Lab Rat 204, here he is in an anti-tobacco PSA commercial. Not sure if Lab Rat can give them the notability they require for a WP article though.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:43, 4 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW with a clear consensus to keep, and also due to the high likelihood of this being a bad faith nomination. KaisaL (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Sakai[edit]

Cynthia Sakai (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)

Largely unsourced, over the top entry, too promotional to save. Cannot find enough sources to assert she is absolutely notable to begin with either. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is written like an advertisement and I am not sure the individual is notable enough for an article. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article is very poor quality and is, indeed, written worse than a bad press release, but the most cursory of google searches brings up multiple independent, third-party sources in addition to what's in the article: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. The WP:NEWSBLOG feature by Neiman-Marcus alone establishes notability. Montanabw^(talk) 18:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Poorly written is not a reason for deletion. A minimal amount of work to do WP:BEFORE would have, as Montanabw pointed out brought up many independent RS, showing that she is indeed a reputable designer and was nominated as a member of the Council of Fashion Designers of America. In addition to those Montanabw found are: [41], [42], [43] SusunW (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Montanabw and SusunW have found several RS that show the subject passes GNG. Again, as they mentioned, we don't delete articles based on the quality of writing. I personally think Wiki is better served fixing problems you find as you find them, but that's my way of editing and not everyone has to do things on Wiki the same way. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are lots and lots of mentions in web and news sources. They are not the greatest mentions, in that they are quite thin, but this is what fashion reporting is like. The mentions are numerous enough that I have zero problems with keeping an article on her here.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but it's really chatty Kathy. I'm going to hack at it a bit. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article subject passes WP:GNG. I do vote for Bearian to hack it up a bit. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Caste[edit]

Gabriel Caste (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:ACTOR. He has not had any significant roles in notable films. There are also no reliable sources to support biographical details per WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, has not had enough notable roles and lacks coverage from reliable independent sources. Sro23 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It appears that many of his roles were of the Redshirt (character) sort. If any new information comes up, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots#Miscellaneous. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Punch-Counterpunch[edit]

Punch-Counterpunch (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)

Minor Transformers character. No decent sources cited, no evidence of real-world notability. Contested prod. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Autobots#Miscellaneous or delete. This one sounds like it would get more attention, but there doesn't really seem to be much out there. this book from F+W says the toy was popular, but that's about it. The rest of the Google hits seem to be simple price guides and unreliable fan sites. There's a review from cliffbee.com listed in the article, but that looks pretty obviously self-published. This belongs on Wikia, not Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - Without sources to properly establish notability, there is no need for an article. TTN (talk) 21:14, 10 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. Mackensen (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Hobday[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - per WP:G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - certainly not notable, WP:TOOSOON at best. Being a non-admin, I have no way of knowing whether the content is similar to the previously deleted page. I have tagged for WP:G4 in case it is largely identical. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC) NeilN already contested G4 nom with "will explain" as edit summary. Eagerly awaiting explanation. 22:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Jkudlick, I explained on the tagger's page: [44]. So, not eligible for a G4. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @NeilN: Thank you. As I said, being a non-admin, I could not see the previous version of the article. I also consider that a substantial-enough difference to disqualify G4. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTY because subject hasn't played in a fully pro league, and even if he appears for Peterhead, which he hasn't, yet, they play in Scottish League One which isn't fully pro. The only media coverage appears to be the previous WP page thing, which probably doesn't count, although I wish I'd seen it :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denbury Grange[edit]

Denbury Grange (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 am unable to find any sources for this monastery — Rod ^talk 16:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google Books suggests that it might be Denby Grange, but even that's not in Devonshire. G maps reveals things in Devonshire called Denbury, but nothing with a Grange. No doubt our English colleagues can shed some light, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- It is not even accurate: a grange was a farm belonging to a monastery, not itself a monastery. No objection to re-creation is something can be provided showing that it is notable. I found one local news source that indicated that there is a place called Denbury near Newton Abbot. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There certainly wasn't a monastery in Denbury, but there do seem to be two possibilities here. A monastic grange is a manor that's owned by a monastery: the Manor of Denbury was owned by Tavistock Abbey, so the article might be intended to refer to that manor. Alternatively this might be about Denbury Priory, which is a redlink in the List of monastic houses in Devon with a reference to Pastscape, which calls it a Benedictine cell dependent on Tavistock and provides a couple of references for it. If either of these possibilities turn out to be notable, they wouldn't benefit from being built on the foundation of this inaccurate one-liner, so I'll go for delete, with the possibility of writing one or two accurately-titled articles if enough sources can be found.  —SMALLJIM  11:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lest citogenesis occur. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per ChrisTroutman, Peterkingiron and Nom. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A number of sources were suggested, but they don't appear to have been accepted as WP:RS by other editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QueryHome[edit]

QueryHome (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)

Lacks sufficient coverage by third-party reliable sources to establish notability; thus may not meet WP:GNG. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements and coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion - The subject does have sources, see the below references and and suggest me whether references can be included in the subject article or not.

• ^[1]Overview of the QueryHome
• ^[2] Interview and knowledge about QueryHome
• ^[3]QueryHome Company information
• ^[4]News on launching of GK in QueryHome

please review the references and give me valuable suggestion to improve the subject article.

--@indra 07:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• These sources may not be reliable. Interviews are often treated as primary sources, which may not be independent of the subject. Three of the four aforementioned examples may be primary sources or interviews, and the rezul.com source is a blog, which may not have proper editorial controls or a reputation for reliability. -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviewing, I wasn't knowing about the references that these links can be treated as primary sources also the Rezul.com is blogging website. I will find other news and journal if has published about the subject eventually will add to the article. -- @indra ^[talk] 12:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You will need to either include them into article soon™ or provide them here as evidence the subject meets notability requirements. WP:RS and WP:V offer guidance in this regard. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No acceptable evidence of notability. Wikipedia requires citations of reliable independent published sources, with significant discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Technically, we only require that coverage by reliable sources exists; it need not necessarily be cited within article to meet WP:GNG (an article could have only one citation, but millions of external articles written about the subject in numerous reputable publications). Such coverage has thus far not been demonstrated... -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks, @KaisaL: for relisting this Article before coming in any conclusion. I have collected some set of references through Googling it and other various websites. Mostly of them are external links. I couldn't find any newspapers, articles, journals or scholars yet. If any other user who finds some references that will be great help for this article.

Some website links and references are as follows

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]}

Some Extra Sources

startuptalky.com prlog.org crunchbase.com corporatedir.com informix.in f6s.com kontora.in companiesmate.com allcompanydata.com companywiki.in filingmantra.com clickindia.com mycorporation.in mycompanydir.com datafox.com motivateme.in owler.com allcompanieslist.com owler.com

Please review these references and source and give me some healthy suggestion, that these links and references can be included in the article or can be act as thirds party references.Atindrakn ^[talk] 18:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• None of these appear to be reliable sources or actually discuss the topic; they're instead metadata, spam, job listings or self published information (forums etc.). We require at least media organizations similar to The Times of India, Dainik Bhaskar, The Hindu, Dainik Jagran and so forth, to cover the company or product in some detail.
• By the way: Not end of the world is article doesn't remain; are plenty of WP:Alternative outlets where such content could reside. One might consider those... or lobbying the Press to cover the company. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete as I still found nothing actually convincing of its own notability, nothing listed is actually convincing of any actual improvements too. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Comment As all reviewed the references and I also found that there is no Newspaper article been published yet. But is there any page where this article can be publish in any wiki space. Suggestion me? Atindrakn ^[talk] 15:38, 12 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. Not only for WP:SNOW, but also this would have qualified for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#A7, because the article made no credible claim of significance, as well as presented no evidence that the subject met any WP:MUSICBIO criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaze Tempain[edit]

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

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

The article failed to pass WP:MUSICBIO same as his album cited zero reliable source and found nothing on Google to support notability. Please see AfD for the album here Sakkarawattam (First Sinhala Rap Album). Thank You – GSS (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability established at all, links are almost entirely to social networks and YouTube. Incidentally I don't think the album needs a separate discussion, because if this is deleted the album would go by default, but as it's on AFD I'll go and say the same there too. KaisaL (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, does not pass WP:MUSICBIO, no reliable sourcing. Article has been previously CSD'ed (not sure if it the same subject).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. The strongest credits in favor are numerous Youtube views, but they alone don't satisfy our notability guidelines. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non-notable person. Does not pass WP:GNG.Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 14:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see only a list of youtube and Souncloud refs. Does not meet GNG.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:06, 4 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. Since the artist article has been deleted, this qualifies under WP:CSD#A9 also. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sakkarawattam (First Sinhala Rap Album)[edit]

Sakkarawattam (First Sinhala Rap Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article failed to pass WP:NALBUM. I failed to find any source on google to support notability and the article cited zero reliable source. Thank You – GSS (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As with the artist's AFD, there's nothing to suggest relevance at all. KaisaL (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non-notable album. Does not pass WP:GNG.Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 14:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant: When you knew it fail WP:GNG why you declined the Speedy requested by Blackguard SF and wasted everyone's time on this AfD. GSS (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article made a credible claim of significance. After I removed some unreliable references some others were added . I determined later that the article did not meet GNG. Show some AGF. I have wasted no one's time. You really should redact that comment. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 16:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the Speedy after filling in 6 bare reference(s) and the aticle was a clear case of WP:A9 as all the sources are non-rs to pass WP:NMUSIC (see here). GSS (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not agree. Good day! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 16:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "we"? GSS (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete insufficient independent sources to establish notability.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Bergman[edit]

Wade Bergman (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Another one of several hundred NN creations from an editor who eventually was community banned from new article creation. This one is far more threadbare than even his threadbare standard: at the time of the article's creation, the subject's claim to notability rested on four undistinguished years of college hockey. Since then, he's played three seasons in the European minor leagues, likewise without distinction. Complete failure of NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability. Ravenswing 05:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails NHOCKEY, not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article already deleted under CSD. KaisaL (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shan Gangi[edit]

Shan Gangi (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 is about non notable person certainly about a criminal. It is only stated that he used 300 porn photos for pleasure but no source are given as proof. NepaliKeto62^{Talk to me} 13:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G10, I've already flagged (and courtesy blanked) the article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long Hot Water Bottle[edit]

Long Hot Water Bottle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable, no claim of notability JMHamo (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete promotion of nonnotable product. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--yeah, this is promotional, and the product itself not notable by any of our standards. And for this saving of marriages--maybe, in Alabama, if it also works with frozen water. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to hot water bottle. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not redirect spam to our articles. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:29, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Pourmiri[edit]

Mohammad Ali Pourmiri (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 yet notable per WP:NFOOTBALL: community college player who has not yet played in a professional match. OnionRing (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:28, 5 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. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Miller[edit]

Suzy Miller (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)

Page has not garnered any significant new coverage like past votes boasted would happen. Article still has not identified the difference between this Suzy Miller and another actress of the same name. Basically, she is only known for being a wife to famous men, and notability isn't inherited. ALongStay (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article says she "gained notoriety" for marrying two famous men, but notability is not inherited. She is not a notable actress since she appeared in only one notable film, an uncredited role as "girl at casino". Yes, she was portrayed as a secondary character in a film about one of her husbands, but a Hollywood biopic is not a reliable source. We know nothing of her life before or after those two brief marriages of roughly 40 years ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Cullen. Notability is not inherited. I see nothing else here to show notability. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Kim Kardashian of her day. Hard to find copies of the National Enquirer from 40 years ago, but clearly was something of a minor celebrity in her time. Maybe being married to one famous person meets NOTINHERITED, but here we have quite a few separate exploits, taken as a group, they reach GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I truly do not understand your reasoning in this case, Montanabw, and I usually agree with you. Though I am not fond of Kim Kardashian, there exists an abundance of reliable sources devoting significant coverage to her. Can you point to even two reliable sources (not gossip rags) that give significant biographical coverage to Miller as a person, as opposed to her flamboyant husbands? Imagined coverage in an unreliable source like the National Enquirer is not worthy of discussion, is it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm using a certain amount of humor here... Kardashian is really only "famous for being famous" and really one cannot point to any actual accomplishments for her, either. Seriously, the only real difference I see is that Kardashian is famous in the age of Google, Miller was not. I can't say that Kardashian has much serious coverage devoted to her, but she has pictures that "break the internet" so of course she's notable. Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think I'm digging in here because we need to remember that people in the pre-Google age are harder to find RS material on and the press in that time was more dismissive of women in general. I think that widespread coverage in reliable, third-party publications is met, and though she is best-known today for who she married, this source does also describe her as a "supermodel" -- which in today's world would easily meet GNG on its own. Even what we have is still widespread coverage that steps beyond NOTINHERITED, even if it is primarily due to her marriages. (On that note, one could say the same of Marie Antoinette, really) Examples include: here, here, here. We now also have the movie and of her minor roles, one was credited Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply The credited role was in a completely non-notable half hour film. The "supermodel" term was used a couple of years ago in an article promoting the Hunt-Lauda Hollywood film. I have seen no good evidence that she was a top-tier model back in the 60s and 70s. The three Richard Burton references are almost completely about him and Liz Taylor. Miller is discussed fleetingly. She deserves credit for trying to control Burton's alcoholism, but in that venture, of course, she was not successful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While she would not have become famous without her associations with Hunt and Burton, the fact is that she became a gossip-column regular in the 70s and 80s because of that. I also found a few news articles that focus on her. Looking at Newspapers.com brings plenty of news articles. I regret that the meatiest of them are "premium subscription" only, however. She passes GNG, not just for the sources I've now added to the article, but also for the many sources I can't access, but are there. If anyone has premium access, please check it out. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, She has a great amount of coverage in the usual papers and news sources. I'm also wondering if she is the same Suzy Miller who recorded the Million Copy Hit Songs Made Famous By Diana Ross Sung By Suzy Miller LP cover version 1, LP cover version 2 on the Boulevard budget Exploito record label. This is obviously a cash-in on the fame of Motown singer Diana Ross. Does anyone know if it's Suzy? Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As I said last time voting for this, she has little significance on her own. Without her more notable husbands Miller would not be mentionable for any worthy stand-alone achievements.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's quite a load of news sources but, at best, this is still questionable for its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Agree with montanabw and meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her celebrity status at the time appears to be obvious. It can be very difficult to find lots and lots of reliable sources for pre-2000s celebrity culture, but sometimes we have to act on the balance of reasonable probabilities. We have to protect our historic record as an encyclopedia and avoid recency bias; If people that can remember are saying that she was a "gossip column regular" and "the Kim Kardashian of her day" then that is plenty enough for me. KaisaL (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Montanabw. There are plenty of sources that substantiate her notability, many of which are cited in this discussion and in the article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep she is described in RS as a "popular model" of her day, and her relationships show that she moved in the "A list" circles of contemporary circles. A notable figure. MurielMary (talk) 10:00, 5 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. Rough consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enterproid[edit]

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

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

My searches have found nothing else better than expected links which include PR at News, browsers and Highbeam, and the current sourcing is certainly not convincing either since the only best source is Fortune but it's only brief sentences, certainly not enough. As for the awards, I know that DGG and I both have found "Starting Companies to Watch" often basically simply means there's simply not enough solidity to it and "not yet notable". SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. non-notable. New internet companies are very easy to form, requiring relatively little capital, and in an environment which excites the interest of investors who can well afford to lose the small amounts of money in the hope of making a great deal upon the rare occasions when they are successful. In this case there might be potential for an article on its product, Divide, now owned by Google. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. These are bylined news articles written by established writers and published by reliable sources; not public relations material. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per excellent research work by Northamerica. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Cavarrone 11:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NorthAmerica1000. Good job. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Take another look at NA's sources—they're primarily about the company's "Divide" app. If anything, they support an article about that (with a potential redirect from the company to such a page). But I don't see the argument for significant coverage about the company itself... czar 07:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below are sources that provide significant coverage about the company. Note that the company's previous name was "Divide" (see the Financial Times and Bloomberg articles below). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there was a majority that did not support the deletion of this article before it was manually relisted here for a 3rd time. No consensus exists for deletion. The discussion should be closed. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It's clear there is no agreement here, despite being relisted twice. Central to the "no consensus" is disagreement as to whether the coverage of appointments to this position are merely "routine coverage". This is a subjective question with significant disagreement expressed here and no indication that a further relist will add any more light to the situation. This close should not preclude a merge as suggested by some participants if a consensus can be reached on the relevant talk pages. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela[edit]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG. article is based on primary sources rather than third party coverage. Most of the sources are actually about another ambassador role. It's also now a non resident ambassador role and for those periods where there was an ambassador it is lacking coverage. Let's see if the usual suspect turns up, WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:ADHOM will be considered inadequate keep arguments. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Addendum: and Merge into List of Australian Ambassadors to Chile into [[List of Australian Ambassadors to Chile]]) ambassadors are not automatically notable, plus the fact that the very fact that Australia has not felt the need to even have a resident ambassador in Venezuela speaks volumes about the non-notable/routine nature of the post.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the scope of this role is international and it has received significant independent coverage, in the form of announcement of appointments in The Canberra Times. Further, notability is not temporary and the more recent sources are about the ambassador to Venezuela (who is also resident ambassador to Chile, etc.). Clare. (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

announcements in Canberra Times is just merely routine coverage the rest of the sources are primary sources. The most recent source makes 2 very small mentions of Venezuela . It hardly establishes notability. Notability is not temporary is irrelevant here, I'd argue this list was never notable. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems to me that ambassadors are important enough to a country's diplomatic efforts to appear in lists. In fact, three of the ambassadors have articles. The problem here is that the list is too narrow. Perhaps "List of Australian Ambassadors to South America"? "List of Australian Ambassadors"? "List of Australian Ambassadors Who Don't Appear in Other Lists"?  The Steve  14:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Clare's rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

refer WP:PERNOM. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. LibStar (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sets out my personal view as to why it should be kept. There is a reason arguing with each and every single keep voter who disagrees with you is discouraged. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the closing admin will take into account the strength of your excellent reasoning . LibStar (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, your lack of WP:CIVIL does you no credit.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

neither does Drover's ongoing personal attacks at me. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, WP:APR could be instructive here. Drover's Wife needs to stop the incivility and you need to stop feeding it.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge info. I agree with the nominator. As per the AFD discussion on the Australian Ambassadors to Kazakhstan page, this info could easily be placed on the List of Australian Ambassadors to Chile page, which will strengthen that page and not lose anything worth saying about this subject, of which there appears to be little. I must admit to have had some trepidation when these pages for former embassy postings were created.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with this Delete and Merge proposal. (revised my Delete iVote above.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In general, where content can be attributed to reliable (even if primary) sources, I think it benefits the reader for us to have either an article or a list about a public office. Deryck C. 14:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. Secondly this topic lacks significant third party coverage and hence fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but keep and rationalise content. There has been / is a whole series of these and (@Clare.:) the content is useful and encyclopedic, but I do not believe each post needs its own article. There should be some master lists, with some contextual text for each post, for example by continent ?, with redirects from the relevant titles to the master articles. @LibStar: If I may suggest this would create less dispute, and add value to wikipedia, rather than AFDing them ? Aoziwe (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. OK, after two relists I think I do have to look in more depth at the actual arguments expressed... The "delete" side argues the non-notability of the topic (characters from this franchise) because of lack of sourcing, which is a strong argument for deletion that would need to be refuted with references to reliable sources establishing such notability. However, we do not have such strong arguments on the "keep" side: their opinions consist of references to a previous AfD, which is not a useful argument in and of itself; the view that there is "good information" here (not a valid argument, as has been pointed out); the view that this is a standard type of list (a valid, but solitary argument); and a link to a Google search (which is at least on point but unconvincing because this says nothing about the quality and depth of sources). Overall, the arguments for deletion are much stronger in light of our inclusion policies and guidelines, which is why I consider that we have a consensus for deletion after weighing the strength of arguments.  Sandstein  06:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Skylanders characters[edit]

List of Skylanders characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A long trivial list of video game characters fails WP:VGSCOPE No. 6. Looking up a couple of the characters' names on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up plenty of mentions, but only in passing. "Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information." soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my arguments in the prior AfD. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jclemens:, thanks for replying. WP:VGSCOPE No. 6 is a fairly recent addition to the WP:VG/MOS. As consensus can change and the previous discussion was three years ago, I have to ask you to explain your keep !vote. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also interested in what @Masem: thinks about this. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no MOS is ever reason to delete any article, just a guide on how content is to best be presented. In this case, criteria 6 you cite in a was incompatible with WP:CSC #2. My opinion is unchanged. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY is WP:NOTINHERITED. Skylanders is notable, but how does a list of characters from the series meet WP:LISTN? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:CSC? A list of NN elements from a notable fictional franchise is perfectly fine, and doesn't need notability for 1) individual elements, or 2) the concept of a list of NN elements. It's really about WP:SIZE and WP:SS, because these should not have individual articles (per N and other reasons), but would be legitimate to include in the larger article but would balloon the size unreasonably so by doing so. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LSC also says: "Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." A good example of a decent list of characters article is List of The Last of Us characters. It is properly sourced, gives plenty of information on creation, development and reception of the characters. This list is just a list. It's WP:OR to look at a particular game franchise and to jot down every character that happens to appear in that particular franchise. By your logic, we could start lists about every elements in franchises: List of weapons in Doom, List of Super Mario World levels, List of Street Fighter combos, you name it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reviewing what I said three years ago, that there was a chance to clean up to be more encyclopedic, this article appears to have gone completely the other way. There's no attempt to put the characters into the light of secondary sources, and many of the descriptions are fan-guide level of cruft. The few characters that are notable from other series like Spyro can be summarized on the main Skylanders series page, but a full list of this, with no clear evidence from a google search that any of the other characters can achieve notability, means this should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Forgive me if this is a silly question - this isn't my kind of game - but aren't there little toys for every character in these games? If so, aren't there endless articles discussing the announcement and release of said toys? The toys are of the characters, so I'd count that towards the characters themselves... Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skylanders, unlike Disney Infinity and Lego Dimensions, does not get that much coverage from the gaming press. The figures are released in waves, so we don't have a lot of articles talking about individual character releases. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't support the use of Forbes Contributors, but that's the sort of sourcing I'm talking about though. If WP:RS's wrote articles like that, I'd certainly call it significant coverage. It might be helpful to think of this more like amiibo. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73:, does this mean you also are in favor of deleting the list? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point was going to be that if there were other sources like this, it'd be work keeping. I forgot about this and hadn't done source hunting yet though, so I'm neutral on it for now. I just feel like it's out there - I feel like I've seen them in passing... Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Let this page stay. It has good information about the characters from this franchise where this page was kept separated from the List of Spyro characters page to keep this reboot separate. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtkat3: "Good information" is WP:ITSUSEFUL. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If notability is not established, it does not need to be an article. Character lists should not be exempt from that rule. TTN (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is only a list, nothing actually convincing of keeping at all for independent notability. Anything here can easily be mentioned at the main article. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a standard character list covered by WP:CSC #2. First AfD was closed correctly. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @VMS Mosaic:, thanks for replying. I must say that I find the phrasing of WP:CSC No. 2 somewhat ambigious: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. (...) Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article". That last bit to me doesn't like standard character lists are automatically covered. Also, consensus can change, that's why I'm pointing to the fairly new WP:VGSCOPE No. 6, about characters lists. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because RS coverage clearly exists for these characters. Sergecross is correct in that there's sometimes even articles on individual figures when they are released. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per arguments made by Jclemens, Sergecross and Satellizer. Some such sources including these ([45] [46] [47] [48]). In its current state, the article is lacking in sources, but the potential is there. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to character section of the series article. The toys/characters here are synonymous with the series. They should be covered within the Characters section of the main article and spun out summary style. As it stands, the list article is a coat rack for reams of primary source material on toy minutiae instead of what the secondary sources say about the subject. Looking at the links above, the Google search is mostly about how players can make their own characters and the rest are not discussing the characters outside the context of the game (same for Kokoro's links). Again, I would be fine with a summary style split if it came to that, but right now there isn't enough obvious, cited coverage to warrant a separate article. If we needed a list of every name of every Skylanders character (and I don't believe we do, as that would be trivia), the list should have descriptions in prose proportional to their coverage in the sources. czar 19:40, 10 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho Summer[edit]

Jericho Summer (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)

Un-notable band with a spam-like unstructured wiki page. RF23 (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The members of this apparent super group are fairly minor in their own right (WP:NOTINHERITED also) and the references being written into the article actually helpfully demonstrates that they're minor as well (WhisNews21, Talk Of The North, Radio One Mallorca, Sunshine Radio Pollensa). At best this is WP:TOOSOON. KaisaL (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedias own definition of a supergroup is as follows_ A supergroup is a music group whose members are already successful as solo artists or as part of other groups or well known in other musical professions. Usually used in the context of rock and pop music, the term has been applied to other musical genres such as The Three Tenors in opera.[1] in this case I can not see how anyone can state the members are fairly minor, as three of the most predominant members are world famous. Ok its early days for this group, but it is a good line up and they have been published several times. I say give them a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrysib (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Or Not. it is clear the majority of the members are already notable in their own rights, there are less notable people without these deletion notices on wikipedia. there is independent material there, the article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glideman2015 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Layfield & Barrett[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)).

Layfield & Barrett (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)

All the references listed are promotional, not reliable sources. Not a notable corporation. PinkBull 15:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator. Also, after a quick search, most other sources turn up only press releases. Meatsgains (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete by all means, a rather newly started local law firm, by far nothing even close to minimal basic notability. I would've frankly PRODed instead. Notifying recent user OnionRing. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all that new: please note that they were started in 2010, but recently rebranded. OnionRing (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - they are currently involved in an interesting legal dispute over anonymity of online commenters on Glassdoor, which is getting some coverage online, mostly from law blogs but also from a few WP:RS: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. I also notice that this was already mentioned at Anonymous post#Effects on users. I'm leaning toward keep and improve at this point, but would be interested to hear other editors' opinions first. OnionRing (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The page warrants relisting due to the number of notable links. These redirect to useful, informative sites such as Super Lawyers [56] & LATLC [57] which help elicit legal information. This coupled with the fact that the firm has been hired to represent the case against San Bernardino sheriff department that was involved in a police helicopter shooting episode, which is getting a lot of local and national media attention [58]. Page is getting modified and additions are getting done, so i suggest Keep and improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawedit (talk • contribs) 12:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve - new, referenced content has been added supporting its notability. OnionRing (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the updated article and my position has not changed. If there is coverage in reliable sources it about one event, at most two events, both somewhat minor events. I would not ascribe that the subject - i.e. the law firm - has received substantial coverage in reliable sources. I have commented on the article talk page that the awards and recognition section is meaningless and not reliably sourced. --PinkBull 23:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. The firm started in 2010. Yet not a single mainstream source talks about it in detail. Also humanresourcesonline.net is a local magazine which actually relies on press releases for its inputs (and some of its content is user submitted as well). I would consider this a self-published source. In addition, [59] actually references [60]. The articles in the law journals / PRWeb do not convince me. Should more sources be found, I would be glad to have a look. But the ones I managed to search online clearly do not fulfil WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried to search for more today and I am sticking to my decision that it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. There is not one good reliable secondary source. A law firm generally becomes notable if it is played an important role in a notable case or event. Such an event would usually generate mainstream coverage. However, nothing of the sort has happened here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It doesn’t meet WP-TOOSOON’s criteria due to the fact that the firm’s partners have received a host of notable awards in these few years. Litigator Awards represents the highest honor in trial law in the U.S. Read more about the Super Lawyers selection process here. [61]. Here’s more about the award and honor bestowed by the LATLC, another prestigious organization. [62]. Pe.com as well as the ABA journal, in my objective, unbiased opinion come under mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawedit (talk • contribs) 11:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 1 keep vote please. I have struck out the latest keep vote. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Better references added for Awards & recognition.--Lawedit (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep -Working in legal industry, I understand the awards & recognition they have received so far all of them are completely based on verdicts, settlements & quality of lawyers within the firm plus other news getting covered by national media, this warrants for a spot on Wikipedia . --Truetrialattorney (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

— Truetrialattorney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Striking - user is clearly socking, no one participates in an AfD as their first and only edit. — Music1201 ^talk 18:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Rapidly growing company, recently filed another high profile million dollar case against County of orange.[63] Deserves a place on wikipedia. --Submitmaster (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC):— Submitmaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Further noting their last edit was from 2012 and further nothing the link they provide is dead. — --PinkBull 19:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Submitmaster (talk • contribs) Corrected link added.--Lawedit (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the link. However - and I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself here - the article is not about the law firm. The law firm is just mentioned in the article. The article is about a story that happened, and the law firm is mentioned incidental to the story. There is no article on the actual protagonist of the story. This does not persuade me at all. --PinkBull 05:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is expected in the Wikipedia references? I might be wrong here but isn't law firm always about the clients they represent which makes them big and Notable! I have gone through other articles of law firms on Wikipedia and no one adds the reference of an article which just praises and talks about a firm. Articles like Lyon & Lyon. Paul Hastings,Trevor Law Group or O'Melveny & Myers either have no credible reference or same kind of client related references. Help me understand, what exactly is wrong here and how can we improve this!--Lawedit (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use one of your examples to illustrate. The O'Melveny & Myers page lists this source which is a Washington Post article and the subject of the article is the law firm. It is not just mentioned off offhandedly as part of another story. There are no reliable independent sources that dedicate such attention to the subject of this afd. PinkBull 03:53, 14 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RtxHack[edit]

RtxHack (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)

Vanity page for utterly non-notable youngster who claims to be some sort of Master Hacker. This cunning supervillain managed to run himself over by creating his autobio with a db-user tag [64], then pleaded on the talk page for it not to be deleted: [65]. Speedy deletion contested by another editor who inexplicably thinks that the article credibly asserts notability asserts enough significance to survive A7. OnionRing (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Speedy deletion contested by another editor who inexplicably thinks that the article credibly asserts notability". I said no such thing; read what I said again, carefully. Significance is not the same thing as notability. Adam9007 (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable hacker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It looks like there was an unfortunate clash of timing between a Prod and an AfD [66]? Anyway, an unreferences WP:SPA probable autobiography celebrating teenage behaviour of no particular importance. Fails all biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probably could have been A7'ed. I would have accepted it, and I am stricter than most. The claims of significance have to be credible, and they are not for this youngster. --MelanieN (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Stauber[edit]

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

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

Subject does not pass notability with either WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC. There is only trivial mention of her works on websites, though one book was nominated for a small award. Delta13C (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject not covered in any news articles and most reliable sources only mention her in passing. Meatsgains (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tried, but cannot find sources to support notability. Note that page was created by an SPA shortly after first novel was published, that novel Revolution World should also be deleted. I just prodded it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not finding anything good RS-wise either. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Neal[edit]

Michael Neal (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Another one of several hundred NN creations from an editor who eventually was community banned from new article creation. This one was far more threadbare than most; at the time Dolovis created the article, the subject had completed a single mediocre season in the mid-minor leagues, finishing 16th on his team in scoring. He hasn't improved upon his credentials since, and I can only speculate that by that time Dolovis was just creating articles on utterly NN subjects to be disruptive, hoping that we'd never notice. Utter failure of NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability. Ravenswing 05:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails NHOCKEY and I find no significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian mafia[edit]

Macedonian mafia (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)

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties. The entire article is based on the premise that non-notable criminals of Macedonian descent all have gangs and that these somehow form a "mafia". I haven't really seen a reliable source that makes this connection. Fails WP:ORG Niteshift36 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article quite clearly satisfies WP:ORG as per the extensive coverage shown in the references. I cannot determine whether the sources are reliable, but perhaps an admin from the Macedonian Wikipedia could. The premise that criminals of Macedonian descent are linked by ethnic ties cannot simply be dismissed and, at least within Germany (I am from Frankfurt and the problems with Macedonian criminal groups are notorious), is substantiated by quite a bit of evidence. Moreover, if the premise is quite clearly accepted for Serbian mafia, I don't see why it would be dismissed for Macedonian mafia. However, the article should be rewritten and include information on the mafia's history, structure (list of groups/gangs), activities in other countries, etc. --Arbraxan (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That "extensive coverage" lists some events that people from Macedonia were arrested for. Where does the coverage about the organization come in? This implies that all Macedonian criminals are connected in an organization, but we don't see the coverage of that alleged fact.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Rename Maybe 'List of people with involvement in organised crime with Macedonian connections'? would describe the content more accurately? Niteshift's point is right - the 'forming a mafia' point seems unsourced. But the data on all these Macedonian criminals is notable and needs to be retained. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. J. Fenton[edit]

P. J. Fenton (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 NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:18, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 11:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of NWA Central States alumni[edit]

List of NWA Central States alumni (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)

Indiscriminate. At the very least, it should be notable alumni. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 12:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and suspend AfD priveleges for nominator. Seriously, an IP puts together a 177K article with 201 references. It sits at AfC for a month, is approved, and then another AfC editor nominates it for deletion...not because it doesn't meet GNG (since it obviously does), but because it has too much information. This isn't what WP:NOT is about. Way to chase away an obviously hard-working IP. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC is only intended to screen out those articles that are not likely to pass AfD. Technically, 51% probability is enough, but most reviewers includign myself want on about 70 or 80%. This means that at least 20% of those passing AfC will probably end up being deleted. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, agree with nom DGG that if this article is kept it should only include notable alumni, in line with other alumni lists. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's hard not to appreciate the amount of work that went into the list but really if kept it should be trimmed down to notable (i.e.. those with articles).Peter Rehse (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not having an article isn't an indication of lack of notability. It's an indication that, in many cases, the articles just haven't been written yet. I picked a couple of wrestlers at random without articles. Both Frenchy Lamonte and Roger Kirby have enough reliable sources to establish notability and create articles. Kirby alone won:
• NWA US Tag Team (Gulf Coast and Mid-America) - 2 times
• NWA Gulf Coast Tag Team - 3 times
• NWA Central States Heavyweight - 8 times
• Pacific Northwest Heavyweight - 2 times
• NWA World Junior Heavyweight - 1 time
• NWA North American Tag Team (Central States) - 3 times
• NWA Central States Heavyweight - 1 time
• NWA World Tag Team (Central States) - 2 times
• NWA Central States tag team - 5 times
• NWA Central States Television - 3 times
• NWA Georgia Tag Team - 1 time
• NWA Florida Tag Team - 3 times
• NWA Mid America Heavyweight - 2 times
• WWA World Tag Team - 3 times
• WWC North American Heavyweight - 1 time
• WWC North American Tag Team - 1 time
• AWA Southern Tag Team - 1 time
• NWA Western States Heavyweight - 2 times

Removing them from the list because people haven't written the articles yet doesn't make any sense. Rather than pounce on a newly created article, we should use it as a guide to show the need for more articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nominator and myself have not said to delete those that do not have articles, only non-notable ones, i always check on the possible notability of unarticled(?) people who are added to articles that i watch., and would do the same with this one. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would add that if not an article then at least a reference. There is no source for the entire list - so this becomes original research.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lots of good sources, though plenty remain unsourced. Article does need some work and criteria, such as listing just notable alumni as nominator suggests, can be hammered out on the talk page.LM2000 (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and copy edit. For example, users can research various subjects to discern whether or not they meet notability requirements for an article, and then add red links. Conversely, entries found to be non-notable can be removed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wilson (ice hockey)[edit]

Michael Wilson (ice hockey) (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Another one of several hundred NN creations from an editor who eventually was community banned from new article creation. This subject has had a long career in the mid-minors (with a couple of brief stints in European minor leagues) without distinction, and I'm at a loss to see the basis upon which he could ever have been declared notable. Complete failure of NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability. Ravenswing 05:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Simple, at no time ever played in the top tier of hockey, and not even in the second tier; 29 years old and most likely never will make the NHL. Easy delete. Rockypedia (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 10 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 wrong venue. This is a redirect and RfD needs to handle it. Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Anthony Bailey[edit]

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

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

The article's subject has a knighthood conferred by Antigua, but a notice in the London Gazette, (and authorized by the Foreign Office and the College of Arms), sparked by the subject's use of this nomenclature, specifically prohibits the use of the title 'Sir' in the United Kingdom for those with such knighthoods. (See here). This has led to the change of name of the main article from 'Sir Anthony Bailey' to Anthony Bailey (campaigner). More about this situation can be read in the article. The present Sir Anthony Bailey remains as a redirect - but in these circumstances, given the London Gazette notice and per WP:NCNOB / WP:OBE,("Honorary knights ... are not called Sir") we should not retain article titles which contain invalid honours and risk misleading by naming the person concerned as 'Sir'.

I am also adding for deletion the following related page (also a redirect page) for the same reasons

Sir Anthony Bailey (campaigner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Smerus (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is he entitled to use the title "Sir" in Antigua? Opera hat (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His knighthood is 'under review' in Antigua (see here); I can't find any other information relating to your question.Smerus (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if the nominator is proposing that the redirects Sir Anthony Bailey (campaigner) and Sir Anthony Bailey should be deleted (and I would agree), then WP:RFD is the place to go. If, in addition, it is proposed that Anthony Bailey (campaigner) should be deleted then a case is needed for this and the article should be tagged for deletion. At present the article looks OK to me. Thincat (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thincat: Thanks for this advice. I've looked at WP:RFD, but it doesn't seem to provide for this situation - WP:RFD#DELETE lists conditions for delete, but none of them seem to me to apply here - I would be grateful for views on this. I don't presently have a view on the article Anthony Bailey (campaigner), save that it could be improved.--Smerus (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think normally these redirects would not qualify for deletion. Although "Sir" is not included in article titles (WP:CREDENTIAL), a redirect including it seems generally regarded as harmless (Sir David Attenborough). In this very unusual case WP:RFD#d2 or WP:RFD#d4 (or even WP:CSD#G11} might well be well argued to apply although (ironically) Sir Anthony Bailey might be kept as a likely search term because of the fuss about the matter. Thincat (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. He is not entitled to call himself Sir in the UK, but he may be so entitled in Antigua and Barbuda. Even if he isn't entitled there either, there are numerous other redirects for honorary knights who are not legally Sirs, such as Sir Bob Geldof and Sir Basil Zaharoff. Opera hat (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Arms[edit]

Alexander Arms (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)

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. A few entries in gun digests that simply show a list what's on the market and a product review on a site of questionable reliability don't seem to pass WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...Alexander Arms is well known within the firearms industry itself. However, I can understand how casual users would have never heard of them, as they generally do not advertise in mainstream gun magazines. I therefore can see augments for both sides. Perhaps, we should add a citation needed header to the article, give it a couple of months and if nobody has added notable references we can delete it then. If nothing else, you would think that one of their employees would add the appropriate references.--RAF910 (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no dispute that they are known in the industry and the nominator is more than a "casual user". Lack of advertising isn't really relevant since advertising isn't the significant coverage that is required. This has been tagged for notability or references during the past 7 years. They just never materialized. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I have no problem deleting the article. I'm sure someone will restore the article in the future, when better reference are available.--RAF910 (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Beyond press releases, there doesn't seem to be any sources covering the company. I did find a few reviews about 1 or 2 specific guns made by this company. But there was hardly any information about the company itself. And a simple review of a product doesn't really add up to notability either. Delete as it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Severyn[edit]

C. J. Severyn (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Another one of several hundred NN creations from an editor who eventually was community banned from new article creation. This one points up one of the reasons why he was; the subject had a fleeting career in the mid-minor leagues, but played for two teams competing in amateur youth championships, something Dolovis insisted conferred notability under NHOCKEY despite the unanimous consensus of every other editor from the hockey WikiProject that it most certainly didn't, a consensus Dolovis routinely defied. Complete failure of NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability. Ravenswing 05:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Thomas (ice hockey)[edit]

Andy Thomas (ice hockey) (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 NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seems to pass WP:NHOCKEY having played for HDD Olimpija Ljubljana and Orli Znojmo. Pburka (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: Look at WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the Austrian Hockey League is "considered to be either a "lower minor league," a "major junior league" or a "major collegiate league" -- or at the skill level of the same -- for the purpose of satisfying Criterion #4." Criterion #4 of WP:NHOCKEY is "Achieved preeminent honors." He has achieved no honors. He fails NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasons stated above by Joeykai. --Parkfly20 (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Joeykai fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Does not meet Criterion #4 that is Achieved preeminent honors in a lower minor or major junior league Does not think he has achieved any preeminent honors. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:16, 10 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.