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 note the Keep comments, but the Delete consensus is overwhelming. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Keem[edit]

Daniel Keem (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 youtuber/streamer. Fails GNG and all sources are either unreliable (Reddit etc), self-published or passing mentions in articles about other subjects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No indication of significant coverage in reliable sources to pass the GNG benchmark. GAB^gab 02:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although there looks to be plenty of references that mention or speak of this article subject, very few (like this one, this one, and this one) cover the article subject in-depth (and some of them cover an event, really). Significant coverage is not established here; there isn't enough reliable sources that cover the article subject primarily and in-depth to be able to create an article about this person without the use of original research, which is required to be established before WP:GNG can be met. This person's focus area can be debated as to whether he's considered an entertainer or a creative professional; either way you look at it, this article subject fails the notability requirements for both. Hence, I am voting delete. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Oshwah. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 03:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He is extremely notable in the youtube community as every youtuber knows about him. There was a petition to ban Keemstar from youtube, that has gained over 50,000 subscribers which is a lot considering how small the YouTube community is. There have been videos made on Keemstar including Phillip DeFranco, Yousef Erakat, GradeAUnderA and h3h3 Productions who have close to 14 million subscribers collectively. Alot of people may want the Wiki page removed due to personal reasons, but not everyone can be happy with a page Hawkeye75 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to put in perspective - 1.46 million subscribers vs 4.78 million - Merely having a lot of subscribers does not make someone notable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  If you watch youtube, than you would know who Keemstar is. Keemstar is more notable than NikkieTutorials since he is covered by so many different fanbases. No one knows who Nikkie is, since she doesn't she create drama (which is why Keemstar is notable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - Completely article is not bad but unfortunately some information is missing, I'm disappointed but youtube search for some of the missing. Junior5a (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Oshwah's analysis. GNG is not satisfied. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Side note - To User:Oshwah: just because there aren't enough references doesn't make a wiki page up for deletion. If there aren't enough good references than you can use the "citation needed" tag. Hawkeye75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's get roiiiight into delete. There needs to be reliable third party sources before we could even get into this. _{Perhaps a merge with Gnome?} --Adam in MO (talk)
• Adam in MO is trolling, please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye75 - I understand that you're frustrated over this AfD discussion and that the wording in adamfinmo's response might have upset you, but he was not trolling or being disruptive. The best thing you can do to learn and gain positive experience from this is to read the guidelines and policies that are linked within the votes here, and use them to understand the rationale behind the reason. Nobody here is disagreeing with your vote and the outcome you'd like to see happen because they want to discourage you or drive you away; they're simply using their experience to follow policy and improve the project. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think you should be allowed to just use a "per user" on a deletion page. You should have to voice your own opinion and not just stand behind other's opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with another editor's rationale and citing that explanation in their own statement is perfectly fine to do. While it may not be an explanation from their own words, their input is still helping the discussion achieve its primary goal: coming to a consensus. So long as the input is supporting the process of achieving consensus, the method in which it is actually doing so matters much less. Remember: Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote "tally" does not matter whatsoever; it just happens to be the format that this project area chooses to communicate in. It is the statements behind the vote that do matter. If someone wishes to cite another editor's response as their own, it supports the bottom line of this discussion. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OshwahTo be fair I was teasing a little. People familiar with Keemstar would be familiar with the jokes. I stand by my honest critique. I have had hours of entertainment from Keemstar's videos but he just doesn't have any coverage from mainstream sources. As much as I would personally like to see an article on him (and I do), he simply doesn't meet the criteria for acceptance. Hawkeye75 when approaching a community discussion editors should always read the comments that have been left thoughtfully and thoroughly. You'll often find a seasoned editor has posted a link to a policy or something in the MOS that might change any knee-jerk reaction that you may have. There is no shame in agreeing with a previous statement. That is how consensus is done. I also see that you are new to the project, and should this AFD end in way that you would not favor I hope that you will stick with us. Often it is in a new editor's first conflict or deletion that they learn the most about how we build and encyclopedia.--Adam in MO Talk 02:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adamfinmo couldn't have said it any better :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable youtube "star". There is literally thousands of people just like him on Youtube and Twitch. Not all of them deserve an article. Luckily we have GNG to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Nothing in searching google shows reliable secondary sources talking about this guy. All I can find is stuff like this [1]. If being famous for starting feuds with other strangers on youtube is the bar for inclusion to Wikipedia, then everyone who has used the internet in the past 15 years should be on here. Valeince (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Per Oshwah.--Yufitran (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG and other applicable notability guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No mass following; has made no unique contribution. Fails WP:ENT. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Has been talked about by many reliable sources: article, mention, article, article, article, article, article, mention, mention. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:00, 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 no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The massive changes the article underwent during the AfD, and the fact that many earlier participants did not come back to comment on the revised version or later claims of sources, makes it essentially impossible to derive a consensus outcome from this particular discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ching's Secret[edit]

Ching's Secret (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)

Pure advertising, but a previous AfD closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. Nominated for G11, and it meets that criterion, but that's technically unavailable after even a non consensus close DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nominator. Clear case FOR G11. Uncletomwood (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article as nominated is clearly highly promotional, and therefore non-encyclopedic. However, I do believe the company (barely) meets GNG: see this, this, and this. There are a number of other mentions in news sources, which are not quite as substantial. If the article were pared down to material that just came from these sources, it would be worth keeping. I will try to clean this up shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've thrown out nearly everything promotional, and added all the substantive English language coverage I could find. I am not 100% certain this is worth keeping, but if we decide to delete this version, then I'll be certain it was the right call. Vanamonde (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete by all means as I myself tagged for G11 since it cert applied, I made careful searches and examinations but essentially found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Mall, Damodar (2014). Supermarketwala: Secrets To Winning Consumer India. Haryana, India: Random House India (Random House). ISBN 8184006497. Retrieved 2016-08-08.

     The book notes:

     So here's a trick question: Which is the cuisine with a uniformly high pan-Indian appeal? In other words, which type of cuisine can now be found all across the country and has a uniform acceptance rate? ... Ajay Gupta, a food entrepreneur from Mumbai, had asked me the question about the truly pan-Indian cuisine. When he saw my confusion, his tongue-in-cheek but accurate answer was, 'Indian Chinese. Indian Chinese is popular as street food, restaurant fare, and now also at home, across the country, from Aizawl to Jaisalmer and from Leh to Quilon,' he chuckled.

     He should know, for Ajay has been selling the Ching's Secret brand of Chinese food products for fifteen years in India. When he launched the brand, he clearly saw the popularity of Chinese food in India.

     ...

     To add to the charisma of the brand, Ajay decided to explore one more aspect of the middle-class Indian kitchen. While the woman of the house wanted to be adventurous in her cooking, she had no idea what this entailed. For instance, most women were aware of Hakka noodles as one of the chief dishes of a Chinese meal, but not what went with it. Was it enough to have a sweet and sour vegetable? Was something more required? Ching's Secret found itself in the position of not merely an innovator, but a mentor. When one of the largest retailers in the country suggested that Ching's Secret present itself as a total solution, Ajay knew exactly what he should do. And since this retailer was a brand partner as well, Ajay got the freedom to represent all Chinese cuisine ingredients together on the shelf as a single section. Now the customer saw not Ching's Secret Hakka noodles in one aisle and Ching's Secret soya sauce in another, but the entire range together, at one single place. The power of suggestion became a multiplier in itself. The supermarket shelves 'told' the customer to buy sweet corn soup to go along with the main meal. Ching's Secret no longer stood for 'ingredients for Chinese cooking', but a do-it-yourself Chinese menu. The product range opened the door for any woman who wished to prepare a full Indian Chinese meal at home. No wonder the brand succeeded in the face of giants like Knorr and Maggi. The difference between them and Ching's was that while they offered a product, Ching's—the Chinese expert—offered a cuisine solution.

     Today the brand advertises on TV, was a sponsor for the popular reality show, Indian Idol, sells in both urban and rural markets and has a huge presence in all kirana stores, but Ching's Secret was probably the first mainstream brand in India that was built in modern retail stores and then moved to traditional retail. It successfully tapped into the access and depth of the large, self-service supermarkets, and capitalized on the growth these offered to its advantage. The mantra of Ching's Secret's success is now being replicated by other newage marketers ...

  2. The sources mentioned by Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs).
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ching's Secret to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) has cleaned up the article so that it is no longer promotional. Cunard (talk) 01:02, 8 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Sullivan[edit]

Tyson Sullivan (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)

From what I'm observing, this actor fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The article cites his minor role in the TV series Banshee and two minor roles in other productions. The actor also will perform in a minor role in an upcoming movie with Robert De Niro, Bus 657, an information that cannot be used to support notability. Regardless of what the article shows, I've also searched for hints of notability online, without success. I have not found any reliable independent secondary source talking about this person, except for an interview, which is already cited in the article. To me it seems a simple case of WP:TOOSOON and I'm proposing the article to AfD so that a consensus can be reached. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 01:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some things to the bio that show the significance of his character on Banshee, as well as another bio I found on tv.com. ( sorry wasn't logged in when I sent it, and didn't know how to go back and change that sorry guys I'm still a noob haha) The assessment that his role on the tv series Banshee is a minor role I think is inaccurate he was a major villain starting season 2 of the show. I think that the way it was written before may have seemed that way but it's not a minor role in the series. I'm not too sure whether his role in the upcoming Bus 657 is major or minor as well because I can't find much on the project except for a picture of him and Dave Batista from a local Mobile Paper discussing the film.^[1] and didn't know if I should site that on his Tyson Sullivan page? Popcornfury (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG and despite claims of a more major role in Banshee, there is no reference to either character or actor on that page. I notice also that Popcornfury added him as as a cast member to the articles on Bus 657 and Demonic - both on the same day that this article was created, so I'm now wondering about WP:NPOV. Mediavalia ^talk 12:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character is listed on the banshee wiki if thats what you're referring to ^[1]?? But beyond that, (since I think that's probably not a citable source, I don't know??) someone who actually watched Banshee would very certainly know who he is. Which is pretty obvious through the interview I cited ^[2], since hes a pretty big character, therefore passing WP:NACTOR. Also I just assumed that when adding a character page I should link it to the other projects on WIKI, don't see how that would be WP:NPOV Popcornfury (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making about WP:NPOV was that the two pages you linked to were updated by you on the same day that this article was created, i.e. it appears you were creating links to prove notability which makes me suspicious. Are you this actor, or related in some way to him? WP:NACTOR requires multiple, significant roles or a large fan-base or cult following, neither of which apply here. Mediavalia ^talk 14:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I got ya, So in the future should I not link at the same time? Sorry I'm newer on the site, the name was already on the Demonic page but not linked so I linked it, I did add it to the Bus 657 page after I read the article I linked. No I'm not the actor nor do I know him, just a fan. I think as far as WP:NACTOR requiring multiple, significant roles it passes that having the credits that are cited, but could be a matter of opinion. "Or a large fan-base" He's got quite a few twitter followers^[1] but is that citable?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcornfury (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 1 December 2014 (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 04:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cruiseable[edit]

Cruiseable (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 frankly would've PRODed too, but in case this gets removed and also if we need G4 later, here we are; my searches and examinations are noticeably simply finding unacceptable sources such as press releases, advertorial and PR speak, trivial passing mentions and the like; there's nothing actually substantial here. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – This source provides significant coverage, but not finding other sources that do. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As NorthAmerica says, there do not seem to be multiple reliable sources that give this subject significant coverage. Vanamonde (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- advertorial content & insufficient coverage in RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Senad Gashi[edit]

Senad Gashi (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 boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:BASIC as it "have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject" 173.52.99.208 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment--user 173.52.99.208 has been blocked for block evasion. Papaursa (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX and the coverage is mainly routine sports reporting so WP:GNG is not met.Mdtemp (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX. He also doesn't meet WP:GNG because the articles consist primarily of fight results, which do not constitute significant independent coverage. Other claims do not appear to meet any notability criteria and a boxer defeating a kickboxer in a boxing (hand-fencing) match is not surprising. I found no evidence that the Muay Thai and kickboxing champions he beat would meet WP:NKICK. Papaursa (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW--The "Muay Thai world champion" he beat failed to win his first 31 boxing matches. Mdtemp (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the reference does not mention anything about world champion (some titles) and I don't think this champion would meet notability criteria for kick boxers.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:40, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quixey[edit]

Quixey (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)

Entirely advertorial as all of this is either puffery, press releases or trivial coverage; nothing at all from it is actually convincing and my own searches are also mirroring this by not finding anything actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Also passes WP:AUD per national-level news coverage. The article would benefit from copy editing, because it reads as a press release in areas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Needing cleanup or a rewrite is not a reason to delete when there is a large amount of reliable, independent source material with in-depth coverage of the subject. Clearly and obviously passes the general notability guideline. Steven Walling • talk 06:47, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dodd[edit]

Matthew Dodd (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)

Only one of the sources, a local newspaper, verifies anything; no indication of notability. Peter James (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He has created a documentary on a specific incident in World War II, and has worked as a camerman, at one point rating second camerman. He is only 18, so he may well go on to be a truly notable cinematographer or director, but he is not there yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Not enough coverage at present for the subject to meet WP:BASIC. Qwfp (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability. Agree with nomination and previous comments. Derek Andrews (talk) 01:10, 8 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 04:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York Life Protection Index[edit]

New York Life Protection 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 GNG. This is some random stat that got some minor coverage in 2011 from ESPN and some hype on launch. It was used intermittently in 2011, but doesn't seem to have gained traction, it's not cited regularly in sports news reports, and its page no longer exists. I'd argue that this was indeed temporary, and was little more than sponsored trivia. It's not even worth mentioning in the NYL article. Interestingly enough, it was created by User:Socialnyl, which means someone missed a UAA violation. I point this out because it indicates an ulterior promotional motive in article creation. MSJapan (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if this did once receive coverage, it was minuscule at best. WP:NTEMP states "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." (bold added) The prod was removed with the assumption that the article satisfied WP:NTEMP, but all that can be immediately found on it is a single ESPN article from one game in 2011. Beside that, first-party sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Lizard (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes[edit]

Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes (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 let this sit for a few weeks, but the article is filling up with trivia in an attempt to show notability. This still fails WP:BASIC and WP:NBAND. We have no idea when the group was formed. The extent of their recordings is one EP on an indie label. The article information is being gleaned from WP:PRIMARY sources, and from posters, concert dates, and other materials explicitly not allowed to be used by WP:NMUSIC to show notability. There is WP:COATRACKing - there is no need to use three sources to show a band member left.There is nothing established that shows this group as anything but local, and in fact, much of the material establishes them as exactly local: they had no discernible influence on any other act, no one has ever covered their music. Over half the article is post-band activities, which are not relevant to an article on the band, some of which is speculative. Their inclusion in a book with over 1200 other acts is not indicative of notability, nor, per WP:NOTINHERITED is the fact that some notable third-party had a flyer from the band that ended up in his estate, or that their co-producer won an award with another group. These are not things that an actual notable band has to have included in their article to show notability. The amount of work put in has not shown what is required for the article to pass the relevant guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MSJapan post made at 19:23 31 July 2016. Quote:- "I've let this sit for a few weeks". So you have let this sit. OK then. So you say Quote:- "but the article is filling up with trivia in an attempt to show notability". Well, let's have a look at what's been going on with it since User:David Fuchs removed the AFD tag at 19:17, 15 July 2016‎. Well, User IP 51.9.15.175 to date has made 3 edits. These related to him writing Music for Film & TV. Being a Senior Lecturer in Audio Production. And his recordings were featured in the 2016 Video Promo for Belarus writer Sasha Romanova. Then we have an edit by User:Sitush at 23:21, 22 July 2016, who had changed "passed away" to "died". Then we have an edit by User:Karl Twist (That's me) at 10:26, 25 July 2016, adding "Two songs ended up on the AK 79 compilation". And at 10:54, 25 July 2016, I think I added Mastering work done. This is to indicate what I believe may be the arrival of a release. I also had tidied up the ref link that User IP 51.9.15.175 had put in. Then User:Warpozio had changed WEA to Warner Music Group. You say "filling up with trivia in an attempt to show notability". I say that's a massive overstatement!!!! You say Quote:- "The extent of their recordings is one EP on an indie label". What's that got to do with a band being notable or not??? Their label RTC has a catalogue of more than 185 releases. It also had artists like Dead Kennedys, UB40, Gerry and the Pacemakers released on it. The label also had the distinction of having a first, with the artists on their label having both an album and single at no 1 on the NZ charts. See Billboard, September 19, 1981, page 72. So this is not a self-released album. There's no need for you to even mention Indie label! Also the group received an IRANZ award for their mini album. You say Quote:- "The article information is being gleaned from WP:PRIMARY sources". Actually, the band has been covered quite well 3 times at least in Rip It Up. The band were featured in an article in the 25 September edition of The Auckland Star. The article about them also featured a portrait of the group. At current the article sits at National Library of New Zealand [2]. Before anyone even contemplates deleting an article. When it is known that such documentation of a subject exists, the responsible thing to do check it out! You say Quote:- "Their inclusion in a book with over 1200 other acts is not indicative of notability". Actually if you could please go back and re-examine this, Discography of New Zealand Popular Music, 1960-1990: Rock, Jazz, Folk, Blues, and Bluegrass. New Zealand Music This is a discography that covers 1230 audio recordings from a period of 1958 to 1987. It's not as you put it 1 band out of over 1200. It is a collection of 1230 recordings out of 10,000s of recordings made in New Zealand. It is a historically significant collection of recordings by New Zealand musicians of various genres. See Christchurch City Libraries * You say Quote:- "Over half the article is post-band activities, which are not relevant to an article on the band, some of which is speculative". Yes some of the article is post-band. But not over half. Please go back and have a look. Count the words! And "speculative", where????? And the post-activities are worth including as they are on thousands of other Wikipedia articles. Other stuff you've mentioned isn't really necessary to respond to. You have, I believe, been somewhat selective in how you've approached this. That's OK but, I do hope you're not being intentional in some of the things you have stated. You're grossly incorrect on much of what you have stated. BTW: The flyer thing is not an attempt to add to notability. It's just for historical interest and for the interest of the reader. Thanks Karl Twist 12:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Band does not meet any of the criteria under WP:BAND and none of the 50+ sources make any attempt to provide significant notability, quite possibly much of it is original research. Subject is heavily reliant upon one self-interested user. WP:FANCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Hi Ajf773, Quote:-, you say "Subject is heavily reliant upon one self-interested user". Ok, assuming you're referring to me, I'd like to show you where my interest lies. Now the editing that I have done in Wikipedia is only a fraction of some of the more dedicated editors and contributors. But, in my way I try to contribute a bit. So I'd like to show you where my interest lies. Earlier this year, I came across Alma Lloyd. This was up for deletion. Before I got in and did some improving, it looked like this. After some editing, I got it to here. Then, I came across the Ellis Brooks Auto Center which was nominated for deletion. Here is where the article was when I started. After 10 edits, I managed to get it to here. Of course I voted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellis Brooks Auto Center to keep. Then there was Patrick Pinney. Now that was some work. Before I started on it, it looked like this. After I did around 23 edits from April 6 to April 21, the article ended up looking like this. Of course User talk:Stewader91 and User talk:Mkrgolf did a couple of minor corrections. And as you can see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Pinney, I became quite involved in the discussion, and voted to keep. And as you can see I got involved in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alma Lloyd discussion. So as you can see, I have an interest in improving articles that are worthy and have notability. Same as what I am doing here. Also Fancruft shouldn't be used here. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD discussion is not about all the other articles you've worked on. We are talking about this specific band article. How is this article notable as per any of the twelve reasons list in WP:NBAND to be considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Ajf773 (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ok Ajf773, of course I know the AFD discussion is not about "all the other articles" I have worked on. And I have only shown a fraction of what I have worked on. But as you said, "Subject is heavily reliant upon one self-interested user. WP:FANCRUFT". I have just shown you where my interest lies. Just in case someone reading your post gets the wrong impression and thinks I'm someone fanatical or overly fond of this group. Or just in case some thinks I am in a moment of one-artist obsession. That's why showed you want I have done. Now you ask the question " How is this article notable as per any of the twelve reasons list in WP:NBAND to be considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia?". Well there are >>> articles about them in the Issue 21, April 1979 edition of Rip It Up magazine, Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes by Dominic Free. They're mentioned here >>> also in Rip It Up again Rumours. They are also mentioned in another article in the Issue 21, April 1979 edition of Rip It Up magazine, Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes by Louise Chunn. I've come across another Rip It Up article that is in photo format as well as another mag / paper article similar. The band was >>> featured in an article in the 25 September edition of The Auckland Star. This is at the National Library of New Zealand Profile of Auckland new wave band "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes. Their mini album release >>> was on a significant independent label RTC. The label is also notable and historically significant in New Zealand for a number of resons. They also received an IRANZ award for their EP! Also the duo Desire that Gary Havoc was a member of had their mini album released on the WEA label. There's a bit about Gary Havoc & Desire >>> here on the Elsewhere website. There's also other stuff about there about them in archives. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND only needs to pass on one criteria. Obviously this fails on 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 or 10. I've never heard any of their music on regular rotation on multiple New Zealand radio stations, fails 11. Nor have they been substantial enough for a broadcast on TV or radio, fails 12. They certainly haven't been reputable for nationwide tours (let alone overseas tours) fails 4. None of the band members are notable enough for their own articles, fails 6. Has been prominent for the representation of their style of music within a city, even for Auckland it fails 7. That leaves 1, which requires multiple, non-trivial, published works that are both independent of the musician themselves and reliable. Based on the sources you provided, blogs are not a reliable source. 'Rip it Up' is hardly the same as 'Rolling Stone' in terms of music prominence, it's always been a gig guide and interviews with up and coming artists does not grant anyone instant notability. The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source), I have no idea what elsewhere is. The article by Louise Chunn is about XTC, I'm sure you've heard of them. That alone is not sufficient enough to pass criteria 1. WP:FANCRUFT is a good representation of what this article is purporting. Ajf773 (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply* You say "WP:BAND only needs to pass on one criteria." Well it's passed on some!
* You said " I've never heard any of their music on regular rotation on multiple New Zealand radio stations, fails 11". Ok Ajf773, we're talking 1978 to 1981 or abouts. That's over 35 years ago. And I'm sorry but whether you have or haven't heard them on the radio or can or can't remember them is not an indication of them failing #11. If you were, we'd be using you as a reference.
* You say "Nor have they been substantial enough for a broadcast on TV or radio, fails 12". Again, how would you know? From what I understand, the band has appeared on television on various occasions back then.
* You say "They certainly haven't been reputable for nationwide tours". Well actually the research I have done and referring to advertising material shows that the group had toured the North Island of New Zealand. Between Auckland and Wellington and multiple places in between. Perhaps they didn't do the South Island. Being Auckland city boys and the South Island being a bit of a wild and cold place, they may have decided not to risk it.
* You say " Has been prominent for the representation of their style of music within a city, even for Auckland it fails 7." Actually, they were prominent on the scene. Very prominent at the time. Just as The Terrorways were and others in the Auckland Rock Scene.
* You say " None of the band members are notable enough for their own articles". Well, that may not be correct and I'm sure it isn't. I have a feeling that in time Gary Havoc may be notable to have his own article. Graeme Scott who played with Satellite Spies from 1991 to 1997, and from 2000 to 2001 former spies, and a band called Rated X is a possible candidate if more research turns up other bands. BTW: He also played on an EP by his daughter Kendall Lee.[3], [4]. But Gary Hunt is definitely a good candidate for consideration. He has a resume that reads out like the "Who's Who" in NZ rock history. Past and current. Hunt was in The Terrorways [5]. Recorded with them too. He played and recorded with Gregg McKenzie [6]. In 2015, he was playing in New Zealand in a group called led by former Pop Mechanix and Coconut Rough frontman Andrew Snoid', called Andrew McLennan & The Underminers. [7]. Later Hunt would later work with Hamish Kilgour.[8] They worked together and released the Hollie Fullbrook / Tiny Ruins Hurtling Through EP.[9], [10]. Another group Hunt had been playing in some time in the 2010s was The Wonderfish Collective.[11] They were a 15 piece group.[12].
* You say " 'Rip it Up' is hardly the same as 'Rolling Stone' in terms of music prominence,". Well, it may not be. But it is reliable source ads it is referred to and referenced many times. Please have a look at the Rip it Up page here in Wikipedia. It says by the mid 80s, they were printing 30,000 copies. Also it was unequalled as for many years as a New Zealand source of information on rock music. The back-catalogue of the mag "provides an unrivalled reference for information about the history of New Zealand's rock music". Comparing it to the Rolling Stone Magazine is like comparing Arthur Lee to The Rolling Stones and saying Arthur Lee has no influence. Now Please go back and read the article by Louise Chunn because it is NOT about XTC. The XTC aricle is by George Kay. The Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes article is by Dominic Free as is The Terrorways article. Gary Havoc (((I'm starting to think this guys name is a curse, I'm nuts for spending this much time on this))) and his crew are also included in an article called 5 New Bands in Auckland by Louise Chunn. So once again, the This is XTC article is by George Kay. The article about Gary Havoc & Crew is by Dominic Free. The other article that features them 5 New Bands in Auckland is by Louise Chunn.
* You said "The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source)", Am I now reading this correctly, you're saying "The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source)"??? Yes most news papers are corporate friendly but that's not the issue here. And I know that's not what you meant. You need to re-think what you have just said here as I'm going to have to say that thousands and thousands and thousands of edits in Wikipedia will have to be changed. BTW: The Auckland Star ran from March 1870 to 16 August 1991. Have a guess what the circulation was ? Sorry, but you haven't really shown anything that proves the band to non-notable. I'm sorry for saying this. And you're still using that " WP:FANCRUFT" again. This should not be thrown around like that.Karl Twist (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom and Ajf773. Frankly I'm surprised the previous nomination was "No consensus", 1 keep (the article creator) and 1 weak keep which was implicitly changed to a merge and 4 deletes, all based on wiki policy, seems clear. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Hi DerbyCountyinNZ. First of all please check your facts. There were 2 keeps. I was one. I am not the creator. User talk:Andru0711 was the creator!. Article was created at 19:48, 2 April 2016‎. I came in at 08:57, 20 June 2016, and started fixing it up to improve. In the previous nomination .... You also said Suspected either COI or COPYVIO (or it could just be poorly written). I asked you where the Please tell me where the COI is????. Please check the facts. I just want to straighten this part. Many thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, I have done a good amount of looking up on the band. I've been around for a while now and I know the historical value of this band. If it had no value, I wouldn't bother with it. The nominator for this intended deletion is being carefully selective in their wording in an attempt to prove a point. A previous accusation by MSJapan made at 14:32, 14 July 2016, shown here, "The fact remains the following: I said "possible" hoax, and you took it to mean "definite" and have been pissed-off about that ever since. "
  was totaly incorrect and uncalled for. Strange that this should be thrown about. I'll reply to the nominators statements later. Got other things to do. Karl Twist (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unfortunately the band is still below the notability line for the reasons cited above, despite all the work, which is a pity. NealeFamily (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Hi there NealeFamily, welcome to the discussion for the deletion of Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes. You say "the reasons cited above". Well, over a period of time, I'd like to show you that a good deal of the reasons above are not valid and some are (I hope) unintentionally misleading. I'll come back and explain a few thing that relate to this band and also what I believe is a misunderstanding of things. So I'll be commenting on some of the comments above. It's also interesting to note that two of the three voters to delete, plus the nominator have come back here in quick time. One of deletion voters attempted to back up his / her vote but saying something totally incorrect - " Suspected either COI or COPYVIO" Seems a bit misleading there. Karl Twist (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - With all due respect, Karl, shut up about COI/COPYVIO; it prefaces every single argument you make, it has nothing to do with the content, and it hs nothing to do with whether the article should be kept or not. I made that comment in response to the state of the article here, which was unsourced and had not been substantially changed from its creation by an SPA a year previous. So where did the information come from if I couldn't find a source for it? Either another source that wasn't cited, or someone who had inside information. You never showed otherwise; you only screamed (repeatedly) that I was wrong. So I'm tired of you constantly claiming that the article should be kept because "COI/COPYVIO wasn't proven." The article was nominated for not meeting WP:NBAND. You had several weeks (your "period of time") to "prove" the group met NBAND, and they have not. The policy specifically prohibits usage of the types of sources you have used as indicators of notability, and I told you that in the last AfD, but you went ahead and filled the article with inappropriate material anyway. As an example, you cited an award to a concert flyer. Moreover, your opinion of the band is irrelevant - if you cannot show it by acceptable sources, your opinion on a subject does not matter. MSJapan (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: Irrespective of any past dealings you may have had with the user, telling another Wikipedian to "shut up" about anything really isn't cool in any situation. KaisaL (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's funny how everyone else's conduct is consistently excused except mine. I was pretty sure baseless arguments weren't cool, either, nor repeatedly accusing people of being "carefully selective in wording to make a point", "misleading", and "totally incorrect" without proof, and that's only in this ANI. Yet if I go complain about getting templated on ANI for no reason, I'm told to "grow a pair." So which is it? Do we treat each other fairly, or do only certain people have that privilege? There's also something called unnecessary provocation, so I'm not buying the righteous indignation thing. MSJapan (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MSJapan (post 17:23, 3 August 2016 ), actually I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about DerbyCountyinNZ who said COPYVIO. You said WP Hoax. Thanks. I wasn't referring to you. Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why I believe this nomination for deletion is wrong. I will soon be adding reasons for my belief that this Articles for deletion/Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes (2nd nomination) is wrong. I will add it in 2 parts. The first is why the band is notable. The second will be why I think the nomination is incorrect. So I'll add what I will below here. Other comments unrelated to this could be posted above here if possible. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  My reason #1. When MS Japan nominated the article for deletion at 04:14, 19 June 2016, it looked like this. Yes it was pretty tragic! I can understand articles not having references and being hastily put together attracting the deletion nomination. I decided to investigate. Not only did I discover that the band was notable, I realized the "possible WP:HOAX" on MSJapan's 4:14, 19 June 2016 nomination was incorrect. To the nominators credit, when people are busy editing and doing other stuff, they may overlook certain things and not have the time to investigate a bit further. Well I did. In my follow up Reason #2, I'll go in to what my research has turned up. The first vote to delete was by Ajf773 at 09:01, 20 June 2016, which was only 4 mins after my edit at 08:57, 20 June 2016. And at that time, the page looked like this. So even if Ajf773 had looked at the page, the changes were only small. The only 2 references were from WorldCat and Discogs. Here [13] and here [14]. The second delete vote didn't arrive till after the 3rd relist at 01:19, 5 July 2016. This one was by User:DerbyCountyinNZ who at 03:58, 5 July 2016, said " Appears to fail NBAND and SIGCOV. Suspected either COI or COPYVIO (or it could just be poorly written).". Well, by the time DerbyCountyinNZ added the deletion vote, the article looked like this. Ok, possibly poorly written. DerbyCountyinNZ could have a point there. I'm not the tidiest guy around or a good proof reader. But I can't understand where the COI or COPYVIO applies. A following deletion vote but a good'n busy editor in a following vote mentioned "consensus". Yes it seemed to be heading that way. Sadly the previous votes sometimes ward off others from investigating further. Now the discussion was closed by User:David Fuchs at 19:17, 15 July 2016. And 16 days later at 19:23, 31 July 2016, it has been nominated for deletion a second time by the original nominator. Coincidentally in the same order, the other 2 deletion voters from the first round have voted to delete. For all their good intentions is it possible that they are just voting again because they believe what they did the first time? They haven't had time to do the research I have and look at the historical positioning of the band as well.
  Now we're at the second nomination. I disagree with the first deletion vote by Ajf773 at 21:01, 31 July 2016. The group meets some of the criteria. Also the statement "one self-interested user." is wrong. As is "WP:FANCRUFT", which doesn't even apply here. The next delete vote from DerbyCountyinNZ comes with the statement, "1 keep (the nominator)". What is that ???? Who is that ???? Well, there were 2 keeps and 3 deletes. Also DerbyCountyinNZ said "1 weak keep which was implicitly changed to a merge". Well it wasn't changed to merge! Where was it changed?? The only other post by User:Grutness apart from the 2 that were made was a reply "Yeah, I could support that" to User:Robyn2000's suggestion of "Could this instead be turned into a paragraph in the The Terrorways article, then?", quite possibly as a way to save some of the history of the band if the article was deleted. This is a tactic used to preserve sometimes. And Grutness saying "Yeah, I could support that" is not a change to a merge. The weak keep vote stayed there!. So I count 2 Keep, 3 delete, not quite as you put it, "1 keep (the article creator) and 1 weak keep which was implicitly changed to a merge and 4 deletes". Now the first nomination was closed and a second one opened 16 days later. Still we haven't had time to access what is in the Auckland Star, a major newspaper (24 March 1870 to 16 August 1991) or others like The New Zealand Herald. Without the Auckland Star, the band is notable. But good to access what is in the article. Karl Twist (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It breaks my heart to say this, but Delete because the band just doesn't meet any of the criteria under WP:BAND. It's not possible to negotiate around this - Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes were not a significant enough band in the history of New Zealand music. I support adding a brief section to another article, such as Terrorways or something else if it is more relevant. Robyn2000 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Hi Robyn2000, how's it going. So far reliable sources that give an idea of the prominence the band are,
>>> Rip it Up Issue 21, April 1979 Page 8 - "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes" by Dominic Free
>>> Rip It Up Issue 21, April 1979, Page 8 - "5 New Bands In Auckland by Louise Chunn"
>>> Rip It Up June 1979 Page 6 Rumours by Vince Eager
Elsewhere Jul 30, 2014"Desire: Broken Heart" by Graham Reid
>>> Auckland Star, 25 September 1979 "Profile of Auckland new wave band Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes" ......... But perhaps we're not allowed to use the Auckland Star as a reference because Ajf773 says .... "The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source)". Is that right? Are we allowed to use the Auckland Star as a reference or does it just have the credibility of a cheap detective magazine?
>>> A good point by User:Grutness as per "Weak keep. The band definitely existed and is referred to a few times in the seminal "Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll 1955-1988" by John Dix. Some notability in that (according to Dix) their EP was self-financed and successful, the first time that had happened with a New Zealand band, and as such kick-started to boom in self-released records ("Stranded in Paradise", pp. 219, 294). Ex GH&H member Gary Hunt later joined top NZ punk band The Terrorways, as well, which adds another nod to meeting NBAND." [15].
But, Robyn, before anyone considers the deletion so close to the last nomination, there should be further research. I was going to hope that one of the NZ'ers on Wikipedia might want to hop over to the library, but I'm wondering if New Zealand news papers have any kind of credibility. Ajf773 seems to think not (as far as the Auckland Star is concerned. Please read my replies to this member, see Revision at 14:29, 5 August 2016, as there are things stated by him/her that don't add up. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, my reply to Robyn2000.
>>> The band also got an IRANZ award for their EP.[16] Karl Twist (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the Further to the above.
>>> The group is mentioned in Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll, 1955-1988, as per another member mentioning it. They did "a first:" in New Zealand that is notable. I followed it up. More on this later when I have time. Karl Twist (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin, please allow this discussion to continue as I am still researching and will attempt to come forth with further info over next week or two. thanks Karl Twist (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be some information in Audioculture which is worth including. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grutness: Do we consider it RS? It sure looks like user content with no apparent editorial control - they're looking for anything from anyone, apparently; which is too bad, because it looks like an interesting resource. It appears they have financial oversight due to funding, but that's not content-related. Anyhow, there's nothing there other than a namedrop that "ex-Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes drummer Graeme Scott was in another band with Deane Sutherland, who started Satellite Spies" (I think; the article is somewhat jumbled, which is why I'm concerned about it in general - this article, by the way, was apparently written within the last day). However, there is neither an entry on the band, nor Gary himself. MSJapan (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be RS itself, but Audioculture kis pretty strict in requiring information to be sourceable, so it would indicate that there is published information available on the subject. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Grutness, thanks for that. I have seen about a half dozen references and bits and pieces about Gary Havoc and the ex-members. I'll check the rest out. I came across some website that archived Rip It Up, besides this one. I have to find it again as it had more stuff about Gary Hunt. Karl Twist (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MSJapan, Quote:- "It sure looks like user content with no apparent editorial control - they're looking for anything from anyone, apparently". Not quite so! Sorry, I have to disagree here. The site is accurate. The editors there are well experienced in their field. One of the editors there is none other than John Dix, who is the author of the Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll, 1955-1988. That's the book that goes a long way to confirm the notability of Gary Havoc & Co. The book confirms "The group is also notable for making history for being one of the first, if not the very first New Zealand band to self-finance their record and be successful with it. This act created a definite flow on effect for other bands." Yes you are correct that there isn't at this time a page for Gary Havoc or some members of his band. I have a feeling that there will be one very soon for Gary Hunt though. Both Havoc and his members are referred to multiple times and the entry (Which I have seen) that was done on the 6th is proof that there is on going contributions being made that will continue to feature the group and it's members. What needs to be understood is that even without the confirmation of their historical status by John Dix's Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll, 1955-1988, articles about them in the Auckland Star and historical New Zealand magazines, the group is definite of New Zealand Rock history. Not only for the members that went through the group to play with The Terrorways, Satellite Spies, Hamish Kilgour, Hollie Fullbrook etc is the group of important historical value, they were part of the scene that influenced other bands. Anyway Gary Havoc recorded for 2 record labels that quality him RTC Records, and WEA. Another thing is that Google and other search engine don't always turn up valuable info straight away. Sometimes you have to look in another way. The other day I found some info on Gary Havoc and Co. that was in JPG / Pic format but I lost it. Looing for related stuff can sometimes turn up stuff you wouldn't otherwise get. It's a bit like aiming to the left of the target and hitting the object beside it to fall on the intended target. Karl Twist (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter - content from an established editor or professional writer in an unmoderated medium is not reliable. This is spelled out by WP:QS which says, Questionable sources are those that...lack meaningful editorial oversight. WP:SPS further indicates as na exception to the "expert rule", Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. You are doing nothing here but constantly arguing semantics with editors instead of arguing policy adherence with relation to content. You claim the band had an influence, but you haven't found a single act that says "we were influenced by Gary Havoc." An unreleased recording for a label does not meet WP:NBAND - it requires two major releases. They didn't have that. RTC was not a major label, and there's nothing in their article that proves that. I'd note you wrote said article, so what you're doing is creating a WP:WALLEDGARDEN of superficial notability; you're claiming that because there's an article on A, A is notable, so B is notable because it's associated with A, and A is also notable because of B. That's not how notability works. I also notice you like using the word "probably" in your edits to make assumptions about information you don't actually have available - that's WP:OR. You can't make a non-notable group notable, especially by relying on inappropriate sources. I assume you're also going to turn around and write Gary Hunt (as you insinuate) and then claim notability via association again. You simply aren't editing within policy - you're too busy writing your opinions to bother to understand how you should be editing. MSJapan (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has written for Audioculture, I can confirm that it does have editorial oversight and is quite thoroughly moderated. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to (MSJapan post: 17:30, 7 August 2016) The requirements are met! Yes there are some references that can't be used as the main backbone for the article. These references, the sites, sources they come from appear on Wikipedia by the thousands in thousands of articles. They are only there to give breadth to the article and add other interesting facts as many articles have.
The reliable sources so far include ....
A)) Rip it Up Issue 21, April 1979 Page 8 - "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes" by Dominic Free
B)) Rip It Up Issue 21, April 1979, Page 8 - "5 New Bands In Auckland by Louise Chunn"
C)) Rip It Up June 1979 Page 6 Rumours by Vince Eager
D)) Elsewhere Jul 30, 2014 "Desire: Broken Heart" by Graham Reid
E)) Auckland Star, 25 September 1979 "Profile of Auckland new wave band Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes" ......... But perhaps we're not allowed to use the Auckland Star as a reference because Ajf773 says .... "The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source)". Is that right? If it was a morning or mid-day paper, would it be more reputable? I'm at a total loss here ????
F)) Pages Page 219, Page 294 of Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll, 1955-1988 BY Dix (This describes the group making history in NZ as a first for self-financing their mini-album which opened doors for other artists. BTW: I may have another book by a Kiwi author.
G)) Mini Album Havoc RTC RTS 71012 (1979) on the NZ RTC label. A highly successful, notable and history making (See Billboard October 11, 1980, Page 58) NZ independent label.WorldCat, Discogs (they got an award for it)
H)) Mini album Desire (Gary Havoc & Suzy Devine) on the WEA label (major label). See Desire: Broken Heart at Elsewhere website.
I'll reply to other content in your pos (dated 17:30, 7 August 2016) later on. I have to say that there are things that you are saying that don't make sense. Karl Twist (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Draft instead as there's still not enough actually convincing coming from the article itself. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 8 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 4K resolution. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2160p[edit]

2160p (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)

Is an alternate name for 4K resolution; the 4K article has better coverage of the idea in general. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to 4K resolution -- if it's another name for 4K resolution, this seems straightforward, as the latter appears to be the primary topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to 4K resolution. I agree with Rhododendrites; it does seem pretty straightforward to redirect and merge to the 4K resolution page, since 2160p is just another name for 4K and 4K is the primary topic. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to 4K resolution. It is fairly straightforward. While I do not think any content needs to be merged, some of the sources could be transferred. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as withdrawn as the collections listed at the website such as the national or state museums are sufficient (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sama Raena Alshaibi[edit]

Sama Raena Alshaibi (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 frankly would've PRODed but chances are that will be removed.... No permanent collections and frankly still nothing actually suggestive here aside from the apparently only best claim, a Scholar award; my own searches have simply still not found nothing anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nothing suggestive? Photographers may dream of (like Diane Arbus) having a book published by the Aperture Foundation; this photographer (or artist) has achieved it. She's also been exhibited with other unusually noteworthy photographers (example). As for collections, there's quite a long list in her resume. No, the latter is of course not a RS for such a claim, but have you tried and failed duckduckgoing for additional evidence for these collections? -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 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 04:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

André Simoneau[edit]

André Simoneau (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:BLP, PR-toned and based entirely on primary sources (a press release from his show's own production company and IMDb) with no reliable source coverage in real media shown at all, of an actor and web series director. Actors do not get a free pass over WP:NACTOR, nor directors over WP:CREATIVE, just because they have IMDb profiles -- media coverage, sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, has to be present to confer passage of a notability criterion. So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually locate better sourcing than I've been able to, but nothing here hands him a no-sourcing-required inclusion freebie just for existing. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable; it does read like a promo piece and has RS sourcing issues, as well. Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot find any substantive coverage in any reliable sources, and I don't see any other claim to notability. Also concerned by the tone of the article. Vanamonde (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Found no significant coverage from a reliable source. Has a Gemini award nomination but that's not enough. Gab4gab (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 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 04:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salshabilla Adriani[edit]

Salshabilla Adriani (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 sure if this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and this should've frankly been BLLPROD tagged, searches are not finding convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable and nothing of substance. Kierzek (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: She appears to be a member of the Indonesian girl band Elovii [id] (~460.000+ Ghits, 25.700 Gnews), and judging from a cursory read via Google translation of a few of the ~823.000 Ghits on her own name, Salshabilla Adriani, she is not a nobody in her own country. Alas, I speak none of the languages of Indonesia, so I'm not really WP:COMPETENT here. @Adam9007, SwisterTwister, and Kierzek: what did you find, when searching for sources? I will delsort this hoping to get some input from editors who can vet the sources. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: I found a few (possibly) reliable sources, but none are in English. Do you want me to link to them here? Adam9007 (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd stick them in the article. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: I put them on the talk page. Adam9007 (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Indonesia Wikipedia has the same page; one would think that if she was notable for a stand alone article, it would be there and it would be more substantial. Kierzek (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She is a 15-year-old, we need much more than a link to twitter to establish notability. BLP concerns are especially high with minors and so we should not create an article without having good sourcing, which we are as far from possible here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 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 04:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohi ud Din Ahmad Jillani[edit]

Syed Mohi ud Din Ahmad Jillani (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. Article doesn't cite any independent sources or assert notability. FallingGravity (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; not notable and not even enough "information" for a stub. Kierzek (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I cannot see evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillier Parker May and Rowden[edit]

Hillier Parker May and Rowden (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 twice by User:DGG and User:K.e.coffman .Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG .Now there company has been bought by CBRE Group. See little need for separate article the information can be included in the CBRE Group article itself. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Four editors in total have raised issues with this article with tagging for notability, lack of references and COI in addition to the CSD and PROD. It was at one stage 8KB long now down to 0.5KB but still not notable. Sorry guys, but this just isn't the place for your "in memoriam" article.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as by far nothing at all convincing and based from what's currently listed, I consider this A7. SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a non-notable corporation. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was a company that was in existence for 102 years, and for much of that time was a significant player on the London property scene, and latterly on the national UK property scene. It was sold in 1998 for $69 million – that is not a "non-notable corporation". Inter alia, in the interwar rolling out of shopping parades throughout the UK, "Woolworth’s is known to have collaborated closely with several property developers and their agents, including Hillier, Parker, May & Rowden, Second Covent Garden Properties and Central Commercial Properties, firms which routinely employed their own staff architects to develop parades." (Kathryn Morrison and Paul Stamper, Shopping Parades (Historic England, 2016), p. 15.) Brian Raggett, Senior Director of Hillier Parker, also served as President of the Royal Town Planning Institute. In a memorandum of 1999 submitted by CB Hillier Parker [the firm in its post-1998 incarnation] to a House of Commons Select Committee, it states that the firm "advises the public and private sectors on all aspects of retail agency, investment, planning, development and research". Research reports commissioned from it are cited in reputable secondary sources, e.g. here. The article is not an orphan: it currently has 3 articles linking to it, and no doubt further links could be found/created without too much difficulty. Notability really should not be an issue. The problem is that the article has been created and worked on by enthusiasts who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia protocols and conventions, and have failed to cite their sources, resulting in its current reduction to a stub. This appears to be a classic case of biting the newcomers. They should be guided and encouraged (as, I am pleased to see, Velella has tried to do), not shot down in flames. GrindtXX (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Further to the above, I have now had a chance to look at some of the print sources. Here are some quotes. "The two firms which built up a dominating lead over other estate agents in the multiple shop business [in the interwar years] were Hillier, Parker, May & Rowden and Healey & Baker. ... Hillier, Parker used to advertise in The Times and The Telegraph once a year that it had done business in the following towns, and manage to run through the alphabet from A to Z, giving the name of a town beginning with each letter." (Oliver Marriott, The Property Boom (1967), pp. 15–16.) "In 1922 Hillier, Parker began to issue annual reports regarding conditions in the property market, [and] [t]hese were quoted in the property columns of The Times, and The Daily Telegraph. [In the interwar years,] "Hillier, Parker grew to be one of the two leading commercial estate agents during this period." (Peter Scott, The Property Masters (1996), p. 41.) Those are in addition to several more incidental references in both books to the company or its reports that could be cited. I hope that's enough to persuade some of the deletionists of the company's notability. GrindtXX (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure that using pejorative terms such as 'deltionist' is particularly useful here. In any case, occasional mentions in even reliable sources may not be sufficient to reflect WP:SUSTAINED. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was not my intention to use the term "deletionist" in a pejorative sense: I wasn't aware it had one. I meant it in an entirely literal sense: "one who has voted in favour of deletion". On the more substantive point, I fail to see the relevance of citing WP:SUSTAINED, which is a warning against coverage of topics whose apparent notability is fleeting and ephemeral ("brief bursts of news coverage"). I have quoted statements from two solid, scholarly secondary works that Hillier Parker was one of the two leading commercial estate agents in the UK over a 20-year period; and from a third (Morrison and Stamper) to the effect that it played a significant, if secondary, role in shaping the face of the 20th-century British high street. Incidentally, for those who may suspect I have taken quotes out of context, I have now found that a number of relevant pages from Scott, The Property Masters, are available on Google Books here. GrindtXX (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have 29 news articles from The Times Newspaper Digital Archive to use as a starting point. With citation reference, and URL to the electronic version, for each one. I confess to being a novice at this. Philjones573 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Estate agents that did little for a hundred years until getting bought by a bigger estate agents? = non-notable. No in-depth coverage of anything approaching encycopaedic value. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice, pretty much for the same reasons as Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi; being bought by a notable company doesn't make something notable in itself, and none of the "sources" provided above appear to do anything other than demonstrate that the company existed. While I applaud the enthusiasm of the authors there's nothing really to suggest that this was anything more than a fairly generic mid-sized estate agency—a total value of £42.5 million sounds impressive, but is fairly small beer for a London commercial property developer. (To put that in perspective, the market cap of CBRE—the company which bought Hillier Parker—is around $10 billion, and the average house price in central London is about £2 million.) If and only if sources can be found to demonstrate that this company has itself been the subject of coverage, rather than just passing mentions in stories about other companies or former employees who have gone on to be notable elsewhere, I'd have no problem seeing it recreated. As I've commented elsewhere, there are other wikis like MyWikiBiz and Wikia which would be ideal for hosting this if the creators just want to ensure that the record is kept alive and to have a general place for ex-employees to add their reminiscences, without the obligation to follow Wikipedia's rules on sourcing and notability, but Wikipedia itself isn't the place for it. (Disclaimer: I was the admin who declined the initial request for this to be deleted; I'm also the one who reduced the size of this article by about 90% by removing all the unsourced material; contrary to the accusations made above, this was not a case of "biting the newcomers", this was a removal after repeated attempts by multiple people to explain that Wikipedia is not a free webhost or an appropriate place to build a memorial site were ignored, and that it's not possible to buy notability by making donations to the WMF.) ‑ Iridescent 11:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HPM&R was well known in England between 1900 and 1939. It advertised business and residential property for sale in local papers around the country. Some of them were: Kent & Sussex Courier. Surrey Advertiser. Liverpool Daily Post. Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer. Birmingham Daily Post. Bedfordshire Times and Independent. It managed all of the Crown Estate land in Regent Street and maintained an index of commercial property rents. This is referred in a letter published in The Times newspaper on 20 July 1932. The will of a Senior Partner was published in The Times on 4 Aug. 1950. The company was mentioned in the obituary of Brian Richards in The Times on 20 Feb. 2002.

• Comment: there seem to be a myriad print sources; I'm unsure as to their quality, however. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There appears to be a clear consensus to delete this article. Disregarding the fact that two of the three comments supporting "Keep" are from the same person, and were solicited by the other person who supported "Keep," there's simply not enough material to support a claim of Notability for a defunct company. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What has "defunct" got to do with anything? Wikipedia deals in historic notability as well as current notability. And this is the first time I've seen offering guidance to an inexperienced editor described as "soliciting". GrindtXX (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has 23 references. Most are to editorial in The Times newspaper. The rest are to British Newspaper Archive; two textbooks; and the company's own literature. I have started contributing to other pages. To Castle_Quay_Shopping_Centre I added the detail about the stone plaque commemorating its opening. Which also explains the change of name of the shopping centre, from Castle Centre, to Castle Quay. To Gamages I have added an account of its auction which was reported in The Times in 1931. I have more source material to add to the article; so it is not finished yet.

Philjones573 (talk) 23:54, 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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Splinter Cell characters[edit]

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

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

This list of fictional characters is almost entirely primary source video game trivia and altogether not independently notable from the main series. The characters, or anything noteworthy about them for inclusion in an encyclopedia, could be adequately described in a simple Character section based on the current sourcing. (Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. See ?) czar 08:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 08:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 08:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only five references, with two of them being IMDb and the rest show even less reliablity. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lists of characters appearing in multiple independently notable works are routinely and properly kept, as the content could be included in any of the main articles, but is instead placed in such lists for SIZE issues, as well as to keep people from creating standalone articles on clearly NN individual characters. See WP:CSC item 2. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a notable list of characters, no significant coverage by reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Keeping a crufty article that lacks reliable sources just to prevent crufty unsourced spam from proliferating is a terrible reason to do so. Nha Trang ^Allons! 23:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Regardless of poor refferencing, article has a lot of information and a stream of viewers. The article needs to be better made, yes, but that is not reason for deletion. List articles are common and tend to be poorly made compared to others, however, they serve a purpose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryirregularuser (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 July 2016

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an argument. You're saying WP:BEFORE, but it fails WP:LISTN. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jclemens. These are characters that appear in a successful multi-media franchise (video games and books based on the games). The individual entries do need some cutting down, but the list as a whole shouldn't be deleted. Many sources with editorial control write about the characters in the series and the development behind them in more detail than would be appropriate to place on the page of any particular game article: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] etc. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those article are either (1) about Sam Fisher (Splinter Cell), who already has an article, or (2) are routine coverage of the games and their development. Especially the latter links are brief news snippets on game development, and they all fit in the context of their respective articles. czar 13:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously game reviews will talk primarily about the protagonist of the game series. That doesn't mean that they don't talk about other characters (e.g. Andriy Kobin, who as a key character in one of the demo levels available to reviewers, gets a paragraph or two in most of the game reviews). But all the reviews contains at least a full paragraph on the supporting cast with descriptions, and the various other sources also feature enough information on various characters in the list to be too big to fit in a character section (e.g. my 5th link has a 3:30 video on the character in question, the 6th link to IBT Media has two paragraphs on why certain characters in the game don't fit in with the theme of previous games, the 1st link to Financial Post has two paragraphs on the motivations of President Caldwell), and those above sources are just for the latest game. Searching beyond the latest game gives more mention to characters that have more prominence in those games such as Grim ([25], [26], [27]).

Characters are also discussed over issues such as properly respresenting aging in gaming [28], potentially lacking female characters [29], and being realistic examples of female characters [30]. Sure it's routine coverage for gaming characters, but when reliable sources routinely devote entire paragraphs or entire articles to individual or groups of non-protagonist characters from a series, that passes WP:LISTN. Sources publishing on the game development behind certain characters would also point towards real world notability of those characters. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your response doesn't preclude my comment that the coverage is largely of the characters in individual games and not implying any larger importance. Our standard is to cover those characters in the context of their game articles (which is why they have Characters sections when necessary) and to cover recurring characters in the main series article (whose Characters section is currently famished) such that we only split out summary style when necessary. As of now, there is not enough coverage or sourced information to warrant a split from the parent section. czar 00:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the cast of Splinter Cell in terms of prominence of female cast, how they were affected by improved graphics technology, and realistic portrayal of females (links 12-14) aren't about individual games and do imply a larger importance. The links/reviews about President Caldwell and Grim cover their actions and roles in two games, and that's only from searching reviews for two games; searching for earlier games (5 not covered by the above searches) and the books (7) would lead to more sources about the recurring characters. I'm perfectly okay with cutting down and moving the information on the characters who actually only appear in individual games to their game article, but it makes no sense for characters that recur throughout the game and book series to have their story split up between potentially up to 14 articles, so this list should be kept as a "Characters of Splinter Cell" article which like Characters of Halo would only focus on the recurring and/or major characters of the series, which would be entirely in line with WP:SUMMARY. No reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - That there has been a precedent for character lists really doesn't matter. As of late, there has been a precedent for deleting those that fail to establish notability. There is no reason that the information needs to be covered. There is nothing truly essential that will take away from a person's understanding of the series' articles. Absolute core characters can be adequately described in the main articles, summary style or in very succinct lists. I'm not seeing anything relevant glancing at the above links either. TTN (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2016

• Keep and improve sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Got an actual ground there on which you're advocating keep? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He gave an actual ground: "improve sourcing", which implies that he disagrees with the arguments in the nomination statement about notability not being established through available, reliable sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any examples of more sources? WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 12 independent, reliable sources that cover these characters in varying amounts of depth that is the topic of a thread of discussion at this AfD. All of those, if added, would be improvements to the sourcing. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the sourcing on these characters isn't there. The sources listed above mention one or another of these minor characters in passing, at best, and certainly do not provide enough information for the article content. Adding those sources would be an improvement but they, and others like them, just aren't enough to establish that such a list is needed. Ca2james (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete On the basis of the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Note that the notability of Splinter Cell is not in question, but the characters as a group have very little coverage. Also note that the argument that people visit the page has nothing to do with its notability under Wikipedia policies. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: As much as I hate the bar being raised for character list articles now (as well as the fact that I agree with Jclemens that character lists should generally have their own article), I'm not seeing quite enough coverage to have this one as its own article. However, this should be redirected, not delete. Deletion should be a last resort, per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD-R, as well as to preserve the content for any future potential the article may have. The character section at Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell works as a target. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:11, 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 another has suggested nothing else and the improvements suggest convincing (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtus Health[edit]

Virtus Health (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 partially written like an advertisement for the company and I do not see the notability for why it should be on Wikipedia. The CSD was contested and I have therefore converted to AfD. I would recommend that it is deleted. Dane2007 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are multiple reliable sources writing about this company, including the WSJ, Canberra Times and Financial Review: Passes GNG. It's also the largest IVF provider in Australia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notability clearly established, even if the article is poorly written. Once again, quality of sources or of article is not a factor in a notability discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 21:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- "largest fertility provider" and "publicly traded company" suggests notability to me. Worth pruning and keeping. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:26, 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 delete. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Management cockpit[edit]

Management cockpit (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)

Buzzword-fest, no notability asserted, nothing but a dicdef so thick with corporate doubletalk that I don't even know what it's trying to say. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no evidence this is actually a widely used term. The sources provided are limited . In fact clicking on the 2nd source doesn't say anything about this term. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete: Found a couple of book sources. One is an English language publication by creator here and the other is in a summary of a 2014 Lisbon conference called Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management (does this infer notability?). See here. I'm not convinced it's the same management cockpit and makes different claims about origins (technically not mutually exclusive). It's poorly sourced and quite arcane. I'm not a fan of much of the management stuff here (maybe just not a fan of management in general?) but at least other articles add information rather than just list the central aspect of the theory. It seems like this is a fringe theory of limited notability perhaps the wrong side of acceptably encyclopaedic. Rayman60 (talk) 22:14, 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 04:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nirahua Entertainment Private Limited[edit]

Nirahua Entertainment Private Limited (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)

Advertising, facts stay unclear, awards are won on a local festival. Recreation of Nirahua Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. that was speedy deleted as copyvio. The Banner talk 02:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this was speedied....but removed with absolutely no explanations by the author, and I myself planned to nominate for deletion but feared it would be removed also, so I was reluctant and thus wanted to wait until there was a lower AfD count until nominating, examining this has found nothing at all minimally better for substance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above clearly promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:56, 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 keep. There is established consensus to keep the information, and a WP:MERGEPROP may be filed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Bangladesh Premier League squads[edit]

2015 Bangladesh Premier League squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete. This is in direct breach of WP:IINFO and has multiple issues. If not to be deleted, then please to merge into 2015 Bangladesh Premier League. The same is applying to 2012 Bangladesh Premier League squads and 2013 Bangladesh Premier League squads which are both also in breach of WP:IINFO, again to be deleted or alternatively merging into respectively 2012 Bangladesh Premier League and 2013 Bangladesh Premier League. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 14:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as the info is already in the 2015 Bangladesh Premier League article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is seeming to me that this discussion ending in deletion is setting a precedent here. Very similar in using statistics only and in breaching WP:IINFO. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 10:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:GNG, sources: [31], [32], [33]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 01:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This satisfies the criteria for being a List article with a notable topic. Notability is indicated by coverage in reliable sources per Zayeem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to 2015 Bangladesh Premier League. Important information is already at that article, don't need a separate squad article. Joseph2302 19:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DataparkSearch[edit]

DataparkSearch (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 Internet search engine. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ads nothing to Wikipedia SRich (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Copy/Paste comment of HowardBGolden (talk) from the first AfD 6 years ago:

"DataparkSearch is discussed in the following scholarly articles:

"Open source search and research" in Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Research issues in digital libraries. Abstract: "In this paper, we present a review of criteria for the evaluation of open source information retrieval tools and provide an overview of some of those that are more popular." Since this article is behind a paywall, I will quote the relevant part: "DataparkSearch is an GPL-licensed open source system for indexing and searching a Web site, group of Web sites, intranet, or local system. DataparkSearch is built on top of a relational database, which must be installed separately."

"Open source libraries for information retrieval" in IEEE Software. I don't have paywall access to this article at home, but I do at work.

Update I read this article at work. It is a dense five page article which compares and contrasts five open source search engines. It has a significant description of each engine. A notable characteristic of DataparkSearch is that it is the only engine of the five that can be used with Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Thai languages. Abstract: "We all use search engines to browse the Internet or our desktops. But how can we engineer such functions professionally into the applications and systems we build? Vesna Hassler of the European Patent Office has looked into several open source libraries for indexing and information retrieval, which you can use for application and system development. She compares a variety of criteria, such as query structure and ranking, and provides useful hints on installation and security as well."

My own research via citeseerx show few other conference proceedings, not sure if enough for notability. However, these sources should have been used to improve the article after the first AfD (exactly as wrote closing admin of said AfD).Pavlor (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- uncited promotional content. No notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 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) 16:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ASI Controls[edit]

ASI Controls (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:N. There was a footnotes tag that has been on since 2013. No footnotes have been added. The references that are there can't be found (at least by me) and it's unknown if they are about the company itself or about something else. A google news search for the company shows 5 results, all are press releases except [34] which is on techtree.com, a non-notable source.} CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appropriate article on historical company. You can't expect to find material in GNews for noncurrent subjects. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Campling[edit]

Jon Campling (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 bit part actor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has a lot of roles but none are significant roles in notable productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of his roles rise to the level of significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable productions, which this individual does not have: his roles are essentially trivial. Vanamonde (talk) 13:12, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Chaderjian[edit]

Paul Chaderjian (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:BIO, self-promoting, with no claim of significance JMHamo (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for 2 reasons. Firstly there is hardly any secondary coverage about the subject. The subject has written multiple news articles, but these are not independent sources and there is little which discusses the subject. Secondly, I see that the author User:Chaderjian seems to have tried to request deletion (diff. I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B. S. Bhalla[edit]

B. S. Bhalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Officer is just mid level management. Delete. Being the administrator of a Union Territory does not make someone notable by just holding the post. For non Indian editors there is a difference between Administrator and Lt Governor &Governor. The former being a bureaucratic post appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the latter being a political post appointed by the President on advice by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Union Territories are of a level to confer automatic notability to their administrators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Kundra[edit]

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

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

Officer is just mid level management. Delete. Being the administrator of a Union Territory does not make someone notable by just holding the post. For non Indian editors there is a difference between Administrator and Lt Governor &Governor. The former being a bureaucratic post appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the latter being a political post appointed by the President on advice by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - Non-notable minor regional official. Engleham (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Science Foundation[edit]

Czech Science Foundation (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 organization. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure what the notability criteria for such organizations are, but it appears to be similar to Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, EPSRC, or other national research councils or funding organizations. Of course, the article needs some work, but I believe it should be kept. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Schlosser67: Check out WP:ORGDEPTH, which pertains to this organization. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a few references. Some more would be nice to have. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Substantial part of Czech research is funded via GACR. Schlosser67 provided some refrences, I will look for another.Pavlor (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being a government supported funding agency can arguably make it inherently notable, but I'm seeing enough from secondary sources listed in the article.[35] Definitely needs more secondary coverage, but it meets the minimum requirement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe that there is a very strong presumption of notability for national foundations to promote science and technology. It is far better to improve such articles than try to delete them. This one has been improved, thanks to Schlosser67. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muffins (album)[edit]

Muffins (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)

No discussion of the album or production that I could find; no reliable sources appear to exist; not even mentioned in the Hoobastank article so a redirect doesn't seem beneficial, although attempts to redirect have always been reverted. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hoobastank and protect to prevent undoing, no notability per WP:NALBUMS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allan R. Bomhard[edit]

Allan R. Bomhard (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 claim of notability. I was not able to find evidence of notability. He does not seem to have an academic appointment and his publications are in fringe areas of linguistics and most selfpublished. The three reviews supplied as sources are unfavorable (one calls his etymologies and revconstruction "bad en masse", the other calls them "highly personal") showing that his work has not have a major impact in the field, suggesting strongly that he fails WP:ACADEMIC and GNG. The fact that he is listed in one source as a specialist in nostratic is not itself very impressive given that Nostratic theory is not part of mainstream linguistics - and given that he has been unable to find employment or peer reviewed publication venues for most of his work. There are also no sources for any biographical information.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His ideas are not supported by the scholarly community, thus failing point 1 for academics, the only one he comes anywhere near meeting, and he does not meet the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He did succeed isn getting his work published by 2 major publishers in the field, Brill and deGruyter. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is this enough to establish notability? Should we rewrite wp: academic and wp:gng? Maunus

• keep Linguists argue about the darnedest things. That said, and I want to admit that I have not actually read through to the end of the reviews I see as supporting keep - I read them just far enough to see that his ideas (part of an arcane scholarly debate) are being seriously encountered, not merely dismissed as fringe, in reviews in sundry scholarly journals of several of his books (some for which he is a co-editor of a collection).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I concur with DGG, there are over 4,000 library holdings and they are major publishers. I would've kept this myself simply because of these 2 things. SwisterTwister talk 17:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken but I don't think library holdings are ever mentioned in any of our policies on notability. Maunus

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 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cantaloupe Levels[edit]

Cantaloupe Levels (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:NBUSINESS. Little assertion of notability in the article itself (once all the self-promotional material is removed) - relies on either WP:PRIMARY or WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:SELFPUBLISH sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we are not a web host for NN little reports! Bearian (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stockholm University. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm University Department of Human Geography[edit]

Stockholm University Department of Human Geography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am not aware of specific notability guidelines for academic departments, but this unsourced article does not convince me that this department requires its own article, distinct from the main Stockholm University article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Stockholm University. I don't think any content in the article makes the case that this department has notability distinct from the University itself or that it meets WP:GNG on its own. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Parts_of_schools_and_school-related_organizations is pretty clear that there is no notability unless the department has made a significant contribution to its field. Mostly an indiscriminate list without any standalone notability or anything worth adding to Stockholm University. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not even worth redirecting. The basic standard used in various discussion on academic departments seems to essentially be "world famous" , which this one is not. There's no reason to even redirect, unless we were to make a redirect for every academic department of every university. I think anyone knows that in looking for information, they should start at the university article. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I endorse DGG's reasoning on this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: In this case, leaving a redlink is just bait for it to be recreated. Plus WP:BEFORE pretty much stands for the proposition that where a merge is possible, it's worth doing. If the department ever gets world-famous, the article history will be preserved. Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 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 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Groove Cruise[edit]

Groove Cruise (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)

Previous deleted as G11, but the present version has a little less puffery. Not really my field, so I bring it here without any recommendation one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article still reads in a promotional tone and I feel there would be nothing left if that was cut out. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 03:37, 8 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 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Online Loyalty Association[edit]

Online Loyalty Association (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 association tagged since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - may be moribund. No recent online sources. Official website is dead. Blythwood (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agreed: no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no indications of notability; appears to be strictly promo content. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- strictly promo content/lack of interest. Lucasstar1 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]