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

The result was Keep -- (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Share Our Strength[edit]

Share Our Strength (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)

NPO with no assertion of notability. Article creator blocked for what I would imagine was a promotional username. MSJapan (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep It probably was created as WP:PROMO, however, article makes a claim that this charity (U.S. based, aka: Share Our Strength No Kid Hungry) raises $12 million annually. Article has been up since 2012 without secondary sourcing. But even a quick news search turns up an awful lot of article like thisse : [1], [2]. To me, it looks like a notable charity, with a lousy, self-sourced Wikipedia article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "namedrop articles" I agree with you that that's the extent of the coverage, but that's not a reason to keep. I really would like to know why you think a trivial mention is always a reason to keep, when policy explicitly says otherwise. Are you perhaps WP:WIKIHOUNDING my AfDs, as you like to accuse others of doing to your edits? MSJapan (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• MSJapan, I admire your energy and your willingness to look at articles like this one, articles that have sat, inadequately sourced, for years. However, Wikipedia has lots of inadequately sourced articles and a lot of WP:Promo. Many need deletion, but others are inadequate articles on topics that support notability. The other day, going down a topic list (authors) of articles at AFD as I often do, I came upon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Susman, a minor playwright. I did a quick search for sources and enough came up that I argued for keep. I only noticed that you were Nom after you re-entered the discussion. My first edit was accurate: [[3]]. I am not arguing here that he is Eugene O'Neill, only that Susman looked to me like a writer with enough notability to pass. Your responding edit was not, I think, an accurate description [4] of the argicle form the Chicago Tribune, because Susman's was indeed discussed in the article I cited. This and your subsequent responses on the John Susman page prompted me to source the Susman article. And to look at the new AFD nominations in your list of recent edits. The two I clecked on and read, this one and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casino hotel, both appear to have been brought to AFD when a more thorough WP:BEFORE would have led an editor simply to tag them for sourcing, improvement, editing out the hype and so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I tried to find sources for this organization. See the article talk page. They have minor press coverage, and proper IRS filings. It appears to be a legit organization that doesn't have much WP:RS coverage, but does have some. Searching for news under "No Kid Hungry" (their main program) turns up more hits than searching for "Share Our Strength". I'd suggest trimming the article down to a bare-bones organization article, removing the info that's sourced only to the organization's web site, and building up again from reliable sources. John Nagle (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where in policy does it say "IRS filings = presumption of notability?" This is an area I am familiar with, and IRS filings are wholly irrelevant - anyone who pays the fee and fills out the forms can be a 501(c)<whatever> organization, even if they have little to no revenue. Almost every local chapter of any fraternal organization in the US has an IRS filing. There's no "lower bar" for NPO status, and it doesn't make them notable. If you want to get picky, IRS filings are inadmissible as meeting GNG because they're primary sources created by the organization. The fact that you're finding only "minor coverage" seems to be more of an issue, don't you think? MSJapan (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The AfD submission note says that the "Article creator [was] blocked" as "a promotional username". Just to clarify: the recent block of User_talk:Sharestrength was a relatively recent editor, not the original article creator. The organization has a history of using employees to edit the article, i.e., see User_talk:ShareOurStrength. I was an employee of the company in the 2008-2009 time period, and was instructed to edit wikipedia during that time as well. (I was a new editor at the time; I've since learned about the COI rules, and have thus not edited the article since 2009.) I'm giving this information as background, though I'm not sure if their tendency to try to edit their own article has anything to do with whether the article itself should be kept or deleted. (I'm not voting on this AfD due to possible COI, though it's been 7 years since I had anything to do with them, and so don't really feel like I have a COI with them anymore.) — Eric Herboso 03:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Just did a minor rewrite/source of 2 sections. Sources do exist and it sounds like a real charity, at least, notable chefs famous big hotels volunteer to do the fund raisers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources, searched WaPo since this NPO is D.C.-based, Share Our Strength attracts corporate dollars, [5]; New effort to get more students in Maryland eating breakfast, [6], With one change, this school doubled the number of kids eating school breakfast, [7]. There are more, some as you scroll down the page of hits: [8] are stronger than these first few.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per EMGregory. And $245 million is huge. My username is doncram, thank you. --doncram 04:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• may be keep looks like a legitimate charity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachin15 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable charity, many hits in reliable 3rd party sources as stated by E. M. Gregory. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laborate Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, sources fail WP:RS, and a likely undisclosed paid editor as well. Changed PROD to AfD to discourage any recreation that does not provide actual usable content. MSJapan (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original PRODding editor, where I wrote: Failed WP:CORP coverage-in-depth criterion. - Brianhe (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- promo content on a non notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I frankly still consider this speedy delete material. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A lot of trivial mentions in news articles, some as part of a litigation, but not a single articles describes the company in detail. Accordingly, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and should be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhri Ahmadov[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTPROMO, no assertion of notability. MSJapan (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NAUTHOR as blogger for WEF. Forbes article used as citation for "frequent contributor" merely mentions his company, a "boutique wealth advisory company" in passing. Other citations are equally weak. Overall this looks like a clumsy bit of undisclosed promotional editing. - Brianhe (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promo article on a non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as PR and nothing at all convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I actually don't see any credible claim of significance here. There are a few quotes by he subject, but nothing else. Fails GNG by a wide margin. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no evidence of notability here.Tazerdadog (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Magnetic bearing. Consensus is that the subject does not warrant an article of its own, rather a paragraph or two on Magnetic bearing would do (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electrodynamic bearing[edit]

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

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

Article created by a single-purpose account, User:JobanWiki, seemingly for the purpose of self-promotion. See for example the link back here from [9] -- which coincidentally shows the exact same illustration as seen in in the article.

A checkuser for User:JobanWiki, User:Joajoaq, User:MagnetalWiki, and User:85.225.72.28 may show something, although we're talking about a lengthy time period. Krushia (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and de-peacock and prune promotional links. Otherwise well referenced (those conference proceedings are fine) and a widely adopted/discussed technology.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure. I cannot access the refs right now, and neither can I really say I understand what the article is about. In particular, how does this differ from magnetic bearings?

If the refs allow for some writing, then it is probably best to merge into magnetic bearing, but at that point it could be just anything. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, already noted in a less promotional way by (passive) Magnetic bearing. Doesn't need its own article and lacks context the way it is. Still need to discuss editors' connection with the subject as they contributed to the magnetic bearing article as well. Jergling (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Magnetic bearing. The information is notable, but it is not notable enough to warrant an independent article for the subject and it is too peacocky. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 18:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested. seems a reasonable solution. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Procedural close - No valid reason has been presented for deletion and the nom has been reminded more than once about BEFORE. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Incognita (Juliette Lewis album)[edit]

Terra Incognita (Juliette Lewis 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)

Unreferenced tracklist Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - Unless I'm missing something, notable artist, album reviewed by the Independent, BBC and others. Five seconds on Discogs got me to a tracklist. Blythwood (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep due to complete WP:BEFORE failure and obvious notability. The first few pages of Google results also threw up coverage from Allmusic, A.V. Club, SPIN, The Guardian, Rock Sound, and Uncut. --Michig (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE, etc Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, to be fair to the nom, although WP:BEFORE is suggested, it is not obligatory, however, the article creator has WP:BURDEN to provide WP:RS (article had no references when nominated), that said, Keep, meets WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG, there being plenty of independent sources available. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of former Cedar Point attractions#Frontier Lift. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Lift[edit]

Frontier Lift (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)

Author does not establish notability. Ride is pretty standard, not deserving of its own page. Astros4477 (Talk) 15:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I recommend this article be merged (or renamed) with a new article for the Sky Ride, which is the existing version of the ride. I looked through the book Cedar Point Queen of American Water Places and could not find a mention of the Frontier Lift; however, the Sky Ride does play an important role in the expansion of Cedar Point during that period. Since the Frontier Lift was practically an extension of Sky Ride, it would be an appropriate subset. FirstDrop87 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge/Redirect – We have articles that cover model overviews, such as chairlift, and unless a particular installation has something very unique about it (and a significant number of reliable sources have written about this unique quality), then the installation shouldn't have its own article. This is a situation in which a standalone article isn't warranted. If some mention is really needed, it can be added to the chairlift article (or similar one) that covers the amusement park version of this aerial lift. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated my stance per discussion below.

• Delete – Not a really unique ride that had a significant impact to establish notability for its own article. If needed, information could be merged into the Cedar Point article. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, clearly, once you see it is covered appropriately already at List of former Cedar Point attractions#Frontier Lift, leaving redirect to that table row. I say merge not redirect because target lacks references included here. The table row description is about as long as this article and can be longer. The list article seems encyclopedic while this article seems just trivial/crufty on its own.--doncram 05:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

doncram, the references are fan websites and not exactly reliable sources. To date, there has been nothing significant published in reliable sources about this ride. It is already briefly mentioned at the target and supported by reliable sources that exist there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there should be a redirect at least, right? To the continuing Wikipedia coverage, in a table row in the list-article of former attractions. I see no sources given within the description there. And surely you are not arguing the list-article's coverage cannot include sources. With this article existing, the list entry was sourced implicitly by the sources here; they need to be transferred. I cannot see first source but second is very convincing with photographic evidence (yes provided by fans but valid). It existed. It went through forest. One of its stations is gone, other survives ( at least to 2014 date of photo). There are no controversial assertions. What other sources are there? If better sources are put in and no info from here transfers over, then sure, the outcome could be redirect rather than merge. (But your vote is still showing as delete so am I missing something?). -doncram 03:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its existence within an article is not being contested; its notability as a standalone article is. Yes, photographs can be legitimately considered regardless of the source's quality, but the prose in this article needs an adequate source. You're absolutely right that the prose written at List of former Cedar Point attractions#Frontier Lift does not contain inline citations nor does it appear to be adequately sourced, but this deletion discussion doesn't cover the state of that list article. The prose content at both locations is cause for concern. As for resorting to a redirect, I'm not entirely opposed to that, but consider this. Should all items in this list have redirects? I don't think that's necessary, and therefore, if the entire page was deleted without leaving a redirect in its place, then I'm not sure doing so would create a disadvantage for the "Frontier Lift" topic as opposed to the other attractions in that list that don't have redirects either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some other items in the List of former Cedar Point attractions have full articles about them. But for those that don't have a separate article, yes there probably should be a redirect for each of them. Why not have them? And, there may be redirects for some of them already. Checking...

• Broadway Trip did not have one but I just created it.
• The Cyclone did not have one, but I just added it to the Cyclone (disambiguation) page, which is the equivalent of having a redirect.
• Dip the Dips Scenic Railway was already a redirect, since 2012
• Disaster Transport is a separate article
• High Frolics has been a redirect since 2012
• "Leap the Dips" did not have a redirect. Searching on it gives suggestion Leap-The-Dips, a different ride in Altoona, Pennsylvania. I just added a "For" link at the top of that, to help readers find their way to the Cedar Point one.
• "Racer" did not have a redirect. I just added it to the Racer disambiguation page, to serve readers looking for it instead of two other "Racer" roller-coasters listed there.
• I continued down the list, adding to "for" links, disambiguation pages, etc., through the end of the section on roller coasters. I conclude that my review suggests there should be redirects or disambiguation page entries or separate articles or "for" links for at least every roller coaster ride in the list-article.

For this AFD, the proper decision is to conclude with merge/redirect, i.e. for there to be a redirect left behind, and for the article not to be outright deleted, 1) to help readers find their way to it, 2) to prevent an editor from creating an article at the topic name without awareness of the former Cedar Point ride, 3) as an wp:ATD(?) to avoid the unnecessary insult of outright deleting others' contributions, which is a real turn-off driving editors away from wikipedia, and 4) in order to comply with our commitment to editors that their work be credited. If/when there are additional sources and someone takes time to develop a better Frontier Lift article, that should be done in place at the redirect, with the edit history intact, crediting original editors with their contributions. There is no reason not to have a redirect, and there are positive reasons to have one. --doncram 18:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good points above. I do not participate in a lot of these deletion discussions, and as I said earlier, I was not all that opposed to the idea of a redirect. I've updated my position above. We can merge the sources/info for now into the list article. Eventually, that article will need to be revamped, and the shoddy sourcing can be later removed if deemed necessary. Thanks for taking the time to respond. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of former Cedar Point attractions#Frontier Lift where this is appropriately covered. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Allura[edit]

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

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

Fails notability guidelines WP:GNG. Common problem with several open source projects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I searched for a bit and couldn't find any significant coverage of this project at all. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 02:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Two new sources were added to the article:

"SourceForge open sources its own source - The H Open: News and Features". The H. No. 11 March 2011. Heise. Retrieved 21 July 2016.

Proffitt, Brian (18 June 2012). "SourceForge back-end code to be donated to Apache". ITWorld. IDG. Retrieved 21 July 2016.Pavlor (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sourceforge#History This has a claim of significance solely because of its association with Sourceforge. Sourceforge uses this as a backend code. They later decided to donate it to Apache as a means to keep the forge software open source. The sources available for this are significantly lower if I compare it to relevant software standards. I would say a redirect suffices here as much of the encyclopaedic information (Including the 2 sources above) are already there at the target article. A redirect is also a good option because (like with all software), there is a chance it may become notable on it's own in the future. In that case, we still have the article history. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Unveiled[edit]

Batman Unveiled (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 Batman fan movie. No reliable third-party references, Google didn't return anything useful (the majority of hits are "[Something related to Batman] unveiled"). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NF, WP:COI and WP:SELFPROMOTION are all in play here. Both refs are WP:USERGENERATED websites. I wonder how they are getting away with that poster as it looks like a copy of {at least} the 1989 film poster. MarnetteD|Talk 23:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a free promotional platform where every YouTube video or fan film or student film project gets to have an article just because it exists — but there's no reliable source coverage here to confer notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I really wish the creators well, but this film just doesn't pass notability guidelines. I'll leave a more in-depth explanation on their talk page, but I'd like to make sure that the film creators (who are most likely the people who created this article) know that this isn't personal - most films don't pass NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• On a side note, I think I might block them for their username (SeinfeldSaltyDischarge), which seems to run afoul of the username guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like I'm one of the few people who haven't heard of that Seinfeld reference, apparently. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- non notable fan movie. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drissa Diarrassouba[edit]

Drissa Diarrassouba (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)

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined. However, the underlying notability concerns remain. Diarrassouba still has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:39, 31 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. Would advise against salting as the player is now at a club in a fully professional league, so may become notable soon. Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but don't salt. The subject is clearly not notable now, but has a good shot at becoming notable in the near future. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non notable footballer. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Degree Solar (company)[edit]

One Degree Solar (company) (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)

Frankly I consider this A7 material and I'm simply not finding anything else actually better than mere mentions including for working with Coca Cola, of which there's of course no inherited notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mixed on it, I originally created the article and did the initial research but agree that there isn't too much at the moment. The company was founded in 2012 and has under 11-50 employees according to LinkedIn. I'd be interested to know the total sales footprint and # of solar distributors in Kenya to get an idea of how big they actually are. I discovered the company on Keva, so they have a partnership there working on around 23 loans ($188,450). So maybe lacking notability by an order of magnitude, but I can see it as being potentially important as part of a series on solar energy in Kenya.

• https://www.kiva.org/about/where-kiva-works/partners/276

Shaded0 (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't really do any research, but a quick impression is that this is probably a typical non-notable startup, but I'm tempted to bend over backwards to counter our overwhelming bias towards anglo-european topics. Overall, my guess is a redirect to Renewable energy in Kenya and a short mention there might make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another attempt at pulling some resources on notability. I found a good number from the CEO Gaurav Manchanda's LinkedIn: "One Degree products have reached over 200,000 individuals to date. The company has investors, clients, and partnerships including Schneider Electric, Coca-Cola, IFC, and the United Nations Foundation, as well as press coverage in FastCompany and Al Jazeera."

• https://www.linkedin.com/in/gauravman
• youtu.be/TNTRLlHRH_M?t=1m37s (Al Jazeera video, skipping the intro)

I found another couple similar companies, but they aren't necessarily specific to Kenya:

• SunnyMoney - Tanzania and Kenya, SolarAid and SunnyMoney have now sold over 1.7 million solar lights.

• http://sunnymoney.org/assets/SolarAid-IMPACT-REPORT-2015.pdf?
• http://www.solar-aid.org/guest-blog-the-first-rung-on-the-energy-ladder/

• Orb Energy (Indian company)

• https://www.lightingafrica.org/orb-energy-secures-funding-to-replicate-indian-business-model-in-kenya/

• Off Grid Electric (Rwanda, Tanzania)

• http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Off-Grid-Electric-Raises-45M-in-Debt-For-African-Micro-Solar-Leasing-Platf

And an idea for a couple other solar related companies (if sources can be found)

A Ugandan company called SolarNow has a $200 low-voltage television set that runs on the direct current (DC) used by solar systems. A British-designed fridge called Sure Chill needs only a few hours of power a day to maintain a constant 4ºC. A company in South Africa has just launched solar-powered ATMs for rural areas with intermittent mains power.

• http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21639018-solar-giving-hundreds-millions-africans-access-electricity-first

Shaded0 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- non notable just yet. Small company and sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The weight of numbers is clearly on the delete side. More than that, the only two keep arguments 1) come from the article's creator, and 2) are based on the sources in the German wikipedia article, which didn't seem very convincing to the participants in the discussion.

Part of the problem seems to be that many of the sources are not in English. That's not a fundamental problem, but it does limit our ability to provide a good review to either those who read the source language, or the availability of good translations.

If somebody wants to take a shot a finding better sourcing, I wouldn't mind restoring this to draft space. But, as always, this is not carte-blanche to make some trivial changes are expect it will get moved back to mainspace. You will need to do some serious research to find sources which meet WP:RS and WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Bandžak[edit]

Filip Bandžak (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)

Basically nothing but YouTube links, no actual coverage and nothing actually convincing with both examinations at Czech Wiki and my own searches simply finding nothing better to suggest needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from author - I do not understand this upset, bad faith and application for deletion. The article is even very new, I have created only for a month but there exist 17 other interwikis and this is only the first version of this article. If you look at the editing version which is invisible (between invisible signals), you can see the longer text to format and I intend to expand this article but I haven't had enough time for extending it but I will improve it soon. Please Change the temlate "delation" to the template under construction

The proposer is not right, (s)he manipulates because you can see, there are lotsa serious sources for his life and carrier, journal articles, so I do not understand his/her intention because this act does not concern to the article but to the editor who has created it, therefor this is a personal insult and offence against me. I think this article is useful for English wikipedia I am a confirmed editor, so if an article I have created, is nominated to deletion, it is the biggest offense and insults for a useful and friendly editor and they are the biggest malicious proceedings what can happen to a benevolent editor.Borgatya (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable opera singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not a convincing argument because there have been existing many, many less important articles for a long time which nobody cares. He's a young opera singer who 's worth being kept and there exist another 17 interwiki article in several languages? I don't understand why you are so strict. There is enough room in wikipedia, it fits into other articles.Borgatya (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several things I will note, Borgatya, you should mention other articles as examples as I can essily still delete those if they are in fact non-notable. The fact I have reviewed this one and found it non-notable says it at all. Please, mentioning other articles will not save yours. Also, with that said, please message me these other articles and I will examine. Other Wikis have different standards and English Wiki is one of the few selective ones that are not lenient about acceptable all subjects, that's also why nominated this. You honestly should not have labeled my nomination as "upset".... as it was not. Examining these sources found that none of these are the convincing needed sources and his career equally shows nothing convincing, having "particularly known" listed as a beginning sentence but still not having substantial sources, is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not a spy, so I do not deal with other editors' editing and I am not a trator, therefore I do not accuse anyone maliciously, and I do not make reports about another editor's works and actions, I am a freindly CONFIRMED editor who respects other editors' devoted and voluntary works, so if I find some mistakes, I try to correect them, but I never think of asking for delation of honest and fair editors' articles. Second, you are an unfair editor who wants to manipulate the proceeding because you are not right, although he is still not famous world-wide, but in Central (Germany, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia) and Eastern (Russia) Europe and in Asia (China) he is famous. I suppuse, you cannot read the articles in Chinese and Russian, and in other central European languages (Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, Polish) but his name is not unknown in many many countries. Please, be modest and do not judge unfairly. The Bible, Jesus condemns those who judge others before first judging themselves: "Judge not, that ye be not judged." and "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye". And are you perfect and unerring but old Romans said: Errare humanum est that is, to err is human.Borgatya (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and source. There are sources in the German version. I don't have time to translate right now, but he looks notable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Yes, although there may be sources here and at Deutsch Wiki, there is still no noticeable signs of confirming hid own actual notability. I will note that the Deutsch Wiki actually lists his own website largely as a major source so that also makes things questionable. SwisterTwister talk 16:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to imitate the German's degree of detail which is sourced to his website. There are profiles from notable opera houses and festivals in different countries (Italian, Hungarian, among others), - telling me that he is notable enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. References fail to indicate WP:N level of notability through coverage in reliable sources. I read the German article and it is similarly lacking in third-party sources, with the exception of this video posted by a local Prague magazine. A notable singer would have better coverage. Can be recreated if such coverage is found.  Sandstein  08:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the references in this article are not sufficient, reliable, widespread or independent enough to pass WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do not understand this strictness. You are not right, this article owns reliable and independent sources, e.g. an interview with him in a Russian magazine in Russian, though I think, you do not know Russian language but there are lacks of your knowledge, please make sure of the facts and do make your decision with caution:
  • F. Sh. (2014). "«...Как проявить музыкой слово» (How to show the word by music)". Objective (Журнал Oбъектив) (in Russian). 2 (7): 142–145.

There is an article about him in Spanish of his concerts in Lima on the hompage of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic:

• • "El barítono checo Filip Bandžak efectuó diversos conciertos en Lima" (in Spanish). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Retrieved 2016-06-07.

Budapest Bartók Plus Opera Festival in Hungarian, Filip Bandžak et the end of the page with a picture

• • "News" (in Hungarian). BartókPlus OperaFestival. Retrieved 2016-06-09.

An article in Tallinn In Estonian

• • "OOPER RAEKOJAS Iveta Jiřiková, Filip Bandžak, Maria Bachmann" (in Estonian). Postimees Tallin. Retrieved 2016-08-07.

Filip Bandžak: recording Requiem by Juraj Filas in Prague 2013

• • "Filip Bandžak: recording Requiem by Juraj Filas in Prague 2013". mashpedia. Retrieved 2016-08-07.

11th Peter Dvorský International Music Festival, August 1 – 15, 2009, Under the auspices of Václav Riedlbauch, Minister of Culture of the Czech Republic and Marek Maďarič, Minister of Culture of the Slovak Republic

• • "11th Peter Dvorský International Music Festival". arskoncert.cz. Retrieved 2016-08-07.

All the sources are sufficient, reliable, widespread or independent enough to pass. If this article should be delated because of these unreliable and absurd and ridiculous arguments, the 90 percents of the Wikimedia articles should be delated because they lack the reliable sources. Filip Bandžak is a young, talented and notable artist who is worth keeping.Borgatya (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you care or not, you have made several claims that are not giving you good weight as a vote, saying that I "upset bad faith unfair manipulate" this and am somehow this or that, when you are not listening or understanding how things work here. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NPA, you basically said "I'm not a spy" when I asked you for those other non-notable people. SwisterTwister talk 16:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, have looked at the 5 sources cited in the Ge wikiarticle, 1 is his own website, 2 is an opera agency, 3 i was unable to access (sorry), 4 a music festival site with what looks like a cv, 5 a news service, very short but states "the 29-year-old Filip Bandžak which is considered one of the most expressive talents of his generation."[10], so more needed ie. are there any reviews of this performances and/or recordings? Coolabahapple (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Top Gear (series 10)#ep96. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear (Series 10, Episode 5)[edit]

Top Gear (Series 10, Episode 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability of Article in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability, and Failure to Cite Sources for entirety of Article in accordance with WP:NOCITE GUtt01 (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Top Gear (series 10) unless someone can find some decent coverage--I was unable to find anything with a quick search, and I suspect that most episodes can be adequately represented in a list article. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: I disagree with merging this to the article you suggested - 1. The information in the article under proposal for deletion, is un-sourced. 2. The suggested article list the episodes for that series with a short sum, not a detailed overview of each episode. 3. Unless the episode consisted of a full-length, special film (i.e. Their trip across Botswana), or was a spin-off special made by Top Gear, there is hardly any need to detail out an episode from the show, when a simple Series overview article can provide a short, lightly detailed account of what the episode features (a short summary, in other words). GUtt01 (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: If the show was a drama, sci-fi, or fantasy series, detailing an episode of it in terms of plot and cast, would be fine. But this is an episode of a magazine show, and doesn't justify having a separate article about it, unless it covers something unique. There are articles for specials of Top Gear regarding their polar race, and their race between 1940s vehicles, which have notability for being written, but not this episode. Any times set by celebrities and cars put through a "power lap" are noted under other articles, and this site should not be citing the opinions on others about products; if cars should have opinions by critics, it should be on their article pages.

I further, do not agree with merging this to the article that covers Series 10, because the article lists the episodes in that series with a brief overview of what happens in it. GUtt01 (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Top Gear (series 10). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Top Gear (series 10)#ep96. This is a more specific target. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redirect is always preferred over deletion however in this case redirecting is pointless on all forms - If we have this as a redirect then we may aswell have every single episode for every single series created too, I genuinely see no point redirecting, Anyway we already have List of Top Gear episodes which is sufficient. –Davey2010^Talk 01:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a non-notable episode. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ministry of Education and Science (Bulgaria). MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Az Buki[edit]

Az Buki (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 has been deprodded by Bussakendle with sources added; however, many of those sources are primary sources or otherwise unreliable. There are no reliable sources to establish notability per WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May be: many of, but not all. There are reliable sources e.g. from a government web site[11] and from European Commission[12]--c.w. (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: By the way, the most references show not a primary source (this would be e.g. the book or the magazine itself) but it shows the authors (or the publishing houses) description of. Thus, it is by definition a secondary source. --c.w. (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-1 More second sources added

-2 The criteria WP:Company are given, as this company has an unique positition in BG.

-3 The Talk-page is still empty!

-4 Be specific on otherwise unreliable, please.

bkb (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What new arguments do You expect?

GeoffreyT2000 having marked the article for deletion is the only one voting for deletion. Charly Whisky and me, both -neither the one nor the other beeing the author- vote for holding and also refuted the arguments given. bkb (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to its parent organization Ministry of Education and Science (Bulgaria). While I definitely found enough sources referencing Az Buki to know it exists, there is very little information to build an actual encyclopedia entry from that is in reliable sources (i.e. not published by Az Buki). As is, I don't know if it could be expanded beyond the basic information on the page, which at large is more suitable for the Az Buki home website. I would quickly change my vote if some sources in Bulgarian magazines or newspapers were brought to the table. English google searches only get me so far, sometimes. Yvarta (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are independant sources cited, eg. LoC, or scientific cooperation. Bulgaria has about 7.1 Mio inhabitants at all - less than N.Y.City's 8.2 Mio. bkb (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as I'll close this myself since the sources at least seem better (NAC) (note the social media still needs to be removed). SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mister X (band)[edit]

Mister X (band) (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)

None of the sources are largely substantial significant coverage and my own searches have found nothing noticeably better. Unless better native sources can be found, I'm not seeing the acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia exists to help people find information about various topics. Deleting articles such as this kinda goes against the whole aim of this website, regardless of what excuses you find for it. Anyway, I thought these sources already in the article were enough: here, here and here (the third one is unfortunately broken at the moment, but it was a lengthy interview with the band's singer). Here are some more: interview, info about a past concert, where they are referred to as the most well-known Belarusian punk rock band, ditto, again, even older post about a 2007 gig, interview about Grodno punk scene where they are mentioned, interview with the band's vocalist. I could also dig up plenty of sources in Russian and maybe a few in Belarusian, but I think these will do. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When will this discussion be closed? I'm asking only to make sure that there is no expiry date that might end up getting the article deleted. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given as to why the article should be deleted was "None of the sources are largely substantial significant coverage" and SwisterTwister asked for better ones, which I've provided. What else is there to discuss really? I understand how someone who doesn't speak Russian or Polish may find it more difficult to find information about this band, but I've already done that and no other reasons behind the proposal to delete the page were given. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the new sources to the article to show that they are relevant and appropriate. SwisterTwister, can we close this discussion now? I understand that it is your responsibility to select pages that may not be suitable for Wikipedia, but I have already addressed the issues you identified adequately (Belsat, Dziennik Polski, and Gazeta Krakowska are all fairly large and reputable news sources in Poland, Belsat in Belarus for its anti-censorship approach as well, whilst the other sources used - even if much less known - fit the requirements too), so I think it would be better to move on and look at other new articles that (or the plenty of older ones out there) that are much less appropriate. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, it has been almost two weeks, can you please respond? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkActuary and North America, what do you guys think of this? SwisterTwister has listed the Mister X page for deletion, but he does not seem at all interested in taking part in the discussion or at least closing it now that the issues have been resolved. I mean, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, however when looking at his contributions it is clear that he has been very active on Wikipedia for every single day since my initial response and so I don't know how he could not have noticed the 3 times that I linked his name here. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not sure why you're pinging the two other users as they have no interest with this article. As for this AfD, I was simply waiting for others to comment about this, because I still am not entirely satisfied. SwisterTwister talk 01:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Samotny, my only involvement with this nomination was to post it to the relevant noticeboards. But, I've now taken a closer look at the article and I can see why Swister is concerned about the quality of the sources. The Facebook and Bandcamp sources confer no notability whatsoever. And as for the others, they are largely the brief, routine press-release bios that normally accompany announcements of an upcoming show. The Silesia and Belsat sources only give passing mention to the band; the Dziennik Poland and Deadpress sources are interviews with the band's leader (and these can't be used to establish notability either). The only source that goes even a little beyond these routine or primary sources is the brief write-up in the Krakow Gazeta. But even here, the coverage isn't significant. Because I don't want to turn your ping into a "boomerang", I'll not weigh in with a specific recommendation. But I do think Swister had valid reasons for making this nomination, and I don't think your sources have addressed the concerns raised by the nomination. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkActuary, thanks very much for getting back to me and taking the time to look at this. The problem was that I had no idea whether SwisterTwister even cared about my response or the new sources because he didn't care to reply until I asked someone else to participate in the discussion. As for the sources: the facebook and bandcamp ones were used primarily for information rather than to establish notability. The Belsat source does mention the band only once, but the punk scene report pays more attention to them and is in my opinion adequate even if not perfect. Regarding the interviews, why can't they be used to establish notability? Isn't the fact you can find various interviews with this underground band's singer enough to show that they are extremely successful for a non-commercial hobbyist group that releases all of their songs for free? Especially considering the fact that they are from a country like Belarus, which tries its best to suppress people who oppose totalitarianism and makes it hard for them to leave the country to go on tours (yet they still do it and have garnered plenty of fans in internationally). And while the brief write-ups for gigs may not be the perfect sources, how numerous they are should be enough to demonstrate notability to at least some extent. Anyway, another source that is not within any of the categories you claimed are insufficient for notability is this short history of the band in Russian that I added - it describes them as "one of the leaders of the post-Soviet Oi! scene". Also here is another interview, this one is in Russian and with two of the band's members. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing worth mentioning is that they are the second most popular Belarusian punk band on last.fm judging by the number of listeners, which again is quite an accomplishment for an underground music group that has no intention of achieving worldwide fame. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: 1 - a review of one of their albums by a punk zine from Minsk. 2 - news piece about police brutality that occurred at one of Mister X's gigs in Ryazan back in 2013, when Putin's boys stopped the concert early on and used false accusations to harass the audience (if I remember correctly the band members were also detained back then, but this is not mentioned in this story). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here are two more sources about the same event. The first one is from the Komsomolskaya Pravda (Russia's top-selling newspaper in 2006) both added to the article now... SwisterTwister, how can all this info put together not count as enough significant coverage? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an open-and-shut case, assuming the refs are not lying, which I do assume. They are an internationally touring band ("they frequently tour other parts of Eastern Europe as well (Russia, Latvia and Lithuania, among other countries) and have played in Western Europe too") which just by itself satisfies WP:BAND. This is not even considering "the most well-known Belarusian punk rock band" (Belarus is a large country!) and so forth. And they have several records. Why are we even having this conversation? Keep. Herostratus (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can attest to the Polish and Russian language articles being predominantly RS and not small-time self-published blogs. Anglophone world media outlets of the same calibre would be accepted without the blink of an eye. Per Herostratus's argument, they meet with WP:N. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samo Sound Boy[edit]

Samo Sound Boy (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)

Fail WP:BIO; trivial coverage. Meets none of the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close the nomination per album reviews in Pitchfork and Resident Advisor, and also has been heavily covered and interviewed in The Fader, The Verge, Spin and Fact. All I had to do was use a simple google search to find this amount of significant coverage, and there are probably more out there. This is beyond a bullshit and disruptive nominaton. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it passes WP:MUSICBIO #1 per the references EditorE provided. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Virginia Legal Aid Society[edit]

Central Virginia Legal Aid Society (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 nothing but a promotional piece for a organization that fails WP:ORG with no reliable sources that have anything else than a brief mention of it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete unambiguous advertising The Banner talk 21:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - A notable non-profit organization funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia, with 27 inline citations. It does need copyediting, but that problem is not cause for deletion. Consider Legal Aid Society of Cleveland and Legal Aid Society of Louisville as like notable organizations elsewhere. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Dthomsen8: the article has substantially improved since the AFD was listed, but outside of the citations to their own website, not a single one of the rest of those 27 citations is about the organization itself. Those citations only mention Central Virginia Legal Aid Society when referring to a lawyer who currently (or formerly) works there or as a mere listing of legal resources. As far as other similar legal organizations? Those other two have some major notability issues themselves and may deserve their own AFDs. Besides, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Jauerback, 15:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's nothing to work with here. This badly fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Yes, this organization is mentioned in passing by a variety of sources. That doesn't make it notable. Several of the sources cited do not even mention this organization. The only marginal claim to fame is this organization supposedly twice won the Harrison Tweed Award. The problem there is the citation used to support this claim is broken. This award is given by the American Bar Association. Looking at their site, I can find no reference at all to support this claim at least as far back as 1994 [13]. I am also troubled that a single purpose account, User:Mcwhitfield, is the prime author of the article. Is there conflict of interest violation here? One of the main reasons we need secondary sources to support content in an article is so that a balanced approach to a subject can be obtained. Secondary sources that do more than mention this organization are completely absent. Not surprisingly, several passages in this article treat the subject in superlative terms. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, because we have tended to keep larger LAS's and this one is pretty big and well-known. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up a bit. It's not so bad as to warrant WP:TNT -- normal editing can fix it. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Government Engineering College, Bhuj[edit]

Government Engineering College, Bhuj (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 can't find any evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as their website here shows it's a degree-awarding school thus certainly notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is affiliated to Gujarat Technological University and is a degree awarding college per this and per thisPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete per ORG. (I say "reluctant" because I spent half an hour cleaning up this article before deciding how to vote. Ha ha.) At this point, all the information in the article is appropriately cited either to reliable sources or to permissible self-published sources, and there is some coverage, but it's not significant, so, per the notability guidelines and FAILN, the subject doesn't get its own article. (ORG, by the way, reaffirms what should be obvious: schools, like other organizations, must meet the notability guidelines' modest requirement for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the source and each other.) Rebbing 01:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the addition of ((cite book))s that verify the institution exist, cf. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that says: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per long standing consensus on educational institutions of this type. Clearly passes WP:V. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously, as a degree awarding university. Anyone suggesting otherwise is adamantly applying ORG without a degree of the flexibiity our policies allow us to excercise.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seb Buddle[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Kosack (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:39, 31 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) 07:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for a footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non notable footballer. Should this perhaps have been PRODed? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of metropolitan areas in the Californias[edit]

List of metropolitan areas in the Californias (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 basis/criteria of inclusion for this list of metropolitan areas was the former The Californias (region) article, which was deleted per AFD earlier this year. Since that main article was deleted for not being sourced, non-notable synthesis, among other reasons, I do not see how this sub-article should still continue to exist. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed with the deletion of The Californias (region) the list has no primary topic, failing WP:LISTCRITERIA at its most basic level. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails LISTCRITERIA and LISTN. No coverage found. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 06:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Ziaul Haque[edit]

Md. Ziaul Haque (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 sources found or presented to show subject meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Books are self-published. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If anything this is worse than the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Ziaul Haque. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as he appears to fail both WP:GNG as well as any additional SNG criteria. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- does not meet WP:Author with self-published books. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andie Case[edit]

Andie Case (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)

PROD with the basis of adding sources but those are not actually making the article better as they are either only interviews (for events) or also trivial local mentions (also for events); simply still not enough substance. SwisterTwister talk 16:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Billboard coverage, a UK top 30 hit, more coverage: [14], [15], [16], [17]. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep good coverage, rising star, sources meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michig; meets WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Don't usually close on 2 !votes however sources have been found thus making the article meet AUTHOR & GNG and it seems BEFORE wasn't followed anyway but either way easy keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanil Sachar[edit]

Sanil Sachar (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 extensive and detailed PROD was removed with absolutely no explanations and thus I still confirm everything I said there. SwisterTwister talk 16:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The prod rationale suggested there were only local news sources. Coverage is from good sources from across India, e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21], plus those already cited. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment analyzing the listed sources - Here's the thing though, #4 is only a mainly interview, thus only 3 of those sources are acceptable, and I would have only been open to keeping had there either been larger amounts of sources or better ones of substance, thus this is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dilruba Sultan[edit]

Dilruba Sultan (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)

There is no material to write a proper article on the subject. It seems that the only thing that appears in the sources is that Davud Pasha married a daughter of Mehmed III, about which not even the name is known; the article's content is invented or based on the matching character in the drama Muhteşem Yüzyıl (except when it concerns the husband or relatives of this obscure person. The external links have nothing to say about her, nor do RS dealing with harem topics. Phso2 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The whole thing seems to be driven by a Turkish TV programme, which is probably at best a case of fiction historical passing out fact. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- uncited and I'm not sure it's not a hoax / fiction as no RS can be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devolution index[edit]

Devolution index (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. Also, notability is not inherited from Devolution. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The sources are almost from one author giving me the impression this is not subject to peer review of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of law enforcement agencies in Tennessee. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesborough Police Department[edit]

Jonesborough Police Department (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)

Unsourced, fails WP:ORGDEPTH. MSJapan (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of law enforcement agencies in Tennessee - I have seen an increasing number of AfDs for similar police/fire departments. As it fails WP:ORGDEPTH I would say redirecting it to the list articles would be a good solution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but the list is pretty much chock-full of redlinks, and I'm not sure what utility it's going to be, as it won't actually supply any information to the reader. MSJapan (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation continued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collierville Police Department --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirect as specified. We should probably addredirects for the others also, but individual town police departments are almost never notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ania Bas[edit]

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

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

not notable — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sources and references added to further corroborate influence of contemporary artist with exhibitions throughout Europe. user talk:genericxz —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since the nominator couldn't as much as string a sentence, let me help: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. ". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all here ,such as collections. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No signs of coverage as per this search of British media -- and this search of art sites shows there was one event with Tim Knowles, not much commentary on her as an artist, or critical reviews. Maybe WP:TOOSOON?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of law enforcement agencies in Tennessee. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collierville Police Department[edit]

Collierville Police Department (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)

Unsourced, Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. MSJapan (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of law enforcement agencies in Tennessee - I have seen an increasing number of AfDs for similar police/fire departments. As it fails WP:ORGDEPTH I would say redirecting it to the list articles would be a good solution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list is pretty much chock-full of redlinks, and it won't actually supply any information to the reader on the organization. MSJapan (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the same too. But since this article has existed for a while and there may be links from external websites, I just thought a redirect is a good compromise. Another thing is, while the current list is in a pretty bad state, there is a possibility that someone can improve it. For example, creating a table which lists the police departments by city and also providing information like date of establishment, number of personnel, area of jurisdiction, headquarter location etc. (The existing redlinks can simply be removed, but the current bluelinks can be redirected) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect is a bad idea. There are many articles which discuss the police force's of entire states in depth. Even if they fail WP:ORGDEPTH individually as a whole they are notable as agencies of the state government.--Savonneux (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Already deleted by MBisanz.  Sandstein  08:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSZ CMS[edit]

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

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

Article about a new CMS. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. Possibly a CSD:A7 candidate. - MrX 16:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - WP:G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Page was afd deleted on 20 July 2016. Still has no significant, independent RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous nomination. I understand that G4 might not apply here since the previous nom didn't attract much discussion and could be viewed as a WP:SOFTDELETE. This second discussion should strengthen the outcome. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of manga magazines. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Comics[edit]

Amazing Comics (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)

Short run manga anthology magazine, only ran for 5 issues. No ja.wiki article. The Italian wiki page is just a translation of an older revision. A stub article should be capable of expanding into a Start or higher class, I don't see the possibility for that to happen and proving notability would be extremely difficult considering the short run. SephyTheThird (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of manga magazines. Would a redirect be okay, or should we remove the title altogether from the list? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking coverage in either Japanese or English; searching for sources results mostly in false positives. Sadly, given its obscurity, I don't think this would be a viable redirect. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of manga magazines I wasn't able to find any book or scholarly sources discussing the magazine. Searching the kanji yields mostly blogs or retail sites. Unfortunate considering it published mangaka like Oshii and Otomo. Regarding the redirect situation, my understanding is that many non-notable topics can be mentioned in broader articles and it was a manga magazine despite its short run. I also don't see how obscurity plays a role since the entry in the list is sourced to MAD. Opencooper (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since the article was nominated the table at List of manga magazines has been updated to include a section for comments about the individual titles (such as changes to publishing schedule). Although I don't see the need to withdraw the nomination seeing as the reasoning is still valid, I am prepared to perform a non-admin close as merge to the list if that is acceptable.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adem Akyol[edit]

Adem Akyol (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 couldn't verify that he meets WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 30 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) 19:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Yorio[edit]

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

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

I've read the previous AfD. Notability notwithstanding, this is an unsourced BLP that, per the assertions on the talk page, seems to be the product of multiple single-purpose accounts. I'm having trouble finding adequate coverage in secondary sources to support the article properly. Ringbang (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a CEO of a non-notable company; most coverage seems to come from the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertorial, nothing convincing for substance and I frankly would've PRODed if not for the 1st AfD. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and yet another article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've been attempting to police the SPAs in vain, would have done this myself if it wasn't for the first AfD. Brandon (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any references which contribute to notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable business exec.; reads like a press information release. Kierzek (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin closure. Nomination withdraw. Keep as per previous AFD. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leema Dhar[edit]

Leema Dhar (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:BIO, WP:AUTHOR. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drawshooting[edit]

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

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

Not notable under WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent sources. Acalycine (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's taking photographs, for heaven's sake. Everything else is just soapbox. We could also redirect to Street photography but I'm not convinced the term merits one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Looks to be an attempt to legitimize a particular term/technique. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. The term has not found acceptance among specialists, and is not widely used. Mduvekot (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm calling this one now. Only one dissent, and it turns out the user was socking and has been indefinitely blocked. Clear consensus that the subject does not meet our notability standards, and he requested deletion on his Twitter account as noted below. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Mendelsohn[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)).

Tom Mendelsohn (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- no 'significant coverage' and such coverage as it has is solely WP:PRIMARY, and neither third-party nor independent. Specifically fails WP:JOURNALIST, as subject is neither widely cited or a creator. Non-notable individual. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above. Also appears to be a bit of a magnet for people with a grudge. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this now-stubbed attack piece. EEng 13:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article appears to have been created as an attack page. The very first revision was by Tom Mendelsohn who contested the charge in the article, but was promptly reverted by the author. WP:CSD#G10 may be in order here. Bradv 13:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • He contested sourced facts that he is proud to admit to his friends. Lord help us if we let every person do that '''tAD''' (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The idea that using sources that reflect that a journalist admitted to publishing race-bait troll pieces on a major British newspaper's website is "rumour" or "attack" is ridiculous. Funny how after the world gasped as a privileged white male had his sentence watered down, we now rush to protect another privileged, elite-schooled white boy from having publicly known facts (that he admitted himself! [22]) made public. Are articles on other similar people like Rod Liddle, Richard Littlejohn, Katie Hopkins and Milo Yiannopoulos "attack pages" for documenting their controversies? '''tAD''' (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It only has primary sources as the third-party one was deleted for documenting things that the subject regrets '''tAD''' (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: (after (edit conflict)) Created as an unbalanced attack page, when stripped back there is no significant coverage in RS to justify a claim of notability. Subject has requested deletion at BLP/N and with such sparse coverage, this request should be respected. Also note that the article subject has edited it twice as an IP and then once as a registered editor and been threatened with a block for edit warring, so we have a BITE situation too, sadly. EdChem (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only "attack" was to misconstrue him as the writer of that troll piece when he was just the self-confessed publisher who showed no contrition. And now this all gets treated as if he had absolutely nothing to do with it and I was accusing him of a part in the Kennedy assassination. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete noting a singular lack of notability, lack of wide coverage of the claim which one editor has edit-warred for, lack of compliance with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. Salt heavily. Collect (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The so-called edit war was removing COI edits and correcting "writer" to "publisher", which in any case is even more involvement. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My friends at the synagogue told me to protect the reputation of one of the chosen people. How dare a man have to live with the consequences of his actions! Yours, David Asher Solomonbergowitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr0p th3 pr3ssur3 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Checkuser note: Dr0p th3 pr3ssur3 is a  Confirmed sock of The Almightey Drill.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about User:Edjeff? EEng 06:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect EdJeff is the subject of the photo that was uploaded (going by the comments from the source). Given they both work/ed in the journalism sector, I think there is some off-wiki beef going on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sock puppet of whoever that is I'm just a fucking idiot.

• Delete as an attack page. Marginal indications of notability selected principally to portray the article subject in a bad light. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not only was the article created as an attack page, but it was a crude and unsophisticated attack. This journalist is simply not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gil rozenblatt[edit]

Gil rozenblatt (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)

Despite the claim that he is the media director of Occupy Wall Street, as well as the creator of its Facebook page, searching for signifcant coverage in reliable sources returned at best brief mentions, and not much specificially about him. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. His one claim to fame seems to be to have created a Facebook page for the Occupy movement - but aside from the fact that that in itself does not confer notability, even that claim is not sourced to a reliable source but instead just an opinion column. I cannot find any other sources. Kolbasz (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Kolbasz said, we do not have a reliable source to establish that he created the Occupy Wall Street facebook page, and I am willing to go so far as to say we should have no articles on people whose closest claim to fame is creating a facebook page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Yong[edit]

Jeremy Yong (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 Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I would've PRODed instead. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable, article created by WP:SPA, looks like a WP:AUTOBIO. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Me in the Ironbound[edit]

Meet Me in the Ironbound (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 short film, no significant coverage by third-party sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources in the article to establish notability and nothing found in a Google search to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found some local coverage here (although this one isn't really a RS since anyone can write for the Patch) and here, but not anything else. This just doesn't seem to pass NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While the movie was set in and filmed in Newark, and the article I used as a reference was a Newark magazine, the two were unrelated. The article wasn't written by the film makers. Also, the film is on YouTube to watch.Vincelord (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Eagle Party[edit]

American Eagle Party (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 has been tagged for WP:A7 speedy deletion as "an article about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Indeed, the text the article reads "is an unregistered political party in United States".

Due diligence done, in my opinion this article should be deleted That is only my opinion, and I ask for other editor opinions.

Perhaps this article should be a WP:REDIRECT to Merlin Miller? Shirt58 (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while I found some interesting articles about corporate American Eagle shindigs in LA, I think this political party might exist more in the minds of its member(s) than in any real viable form. I couldn't even find a trivial mention. Yvarta (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not merit a redirect to Merlin Miller, a fringe figure, since the only sources I could find [23] are 2 articles in the American Free Press, a fringe publication put out by the fringe American Freedom Party whose 2012 Presidential candidate Merlin was. Too closely related to be used for notability, and no RS sources found. None. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above reasons. Bulbajer (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was } speedy delete as obvious hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Chained In[edit]

WWE Chained In (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)