< 11 June	13 June >

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tests on rollers[edit]

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

Meaningless article on a non-notable topic. Contested speedy. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Pointless article, not encyclopedic, and it's pretty much unsalvageable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This content could be of use on 4x4. The test this article's author is writing about was rather illuminating in highlighting some of the flaws in different drive mechanisms. Lizzius (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are only five sentences here and a totally incomprehensible table. I find it hard to see anything here that could be described as "illuminating". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article cannot be merged with 4x4 because it applies to e.g. 2x4 (Volvo V50) and 6x6 as well. Could be merged with differential. More green fields and less red fields means better car from the point of this test. That's quite comprehensible. Yes/No can be changed to Pass/Fail. Espr14 (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject is related to deferentials as mentioned above. I see no point this article nor the table. MB (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Cars tested on rollers" or similar. (it can not be a list with the table, can it?) I don't understand how editors do not comprehend the table and the meaning of the article, which is quite clear in my opinion. DeVerm (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my professional engineering career, I have designed and built the control systems for rolling road dynos, including multi-axle systems. I cannot make sense of this article. If you can understand and explain it, perhaps you can help us out? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am just an Electronics engineer and feel mechanics a weak point for me but like I said the article is clear enough to understand it when reading it closely enough. Put a car with one or more wheels on rollers then try to drive: will the car move or just have it's wheels spin on the rollers? Repeat this for different numbers of wheels and you get a very good impression of the car's off-road capabilities. The article is clear and concise. DeVerm (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the encyclopedic value of such an article? Is the table nearly complete? Of course not. Most entries do not contain a model year. There must be several hundred vehicles offered for sale every year. I can' t imagine it would ever be in good shape from the perspective of accuracy or completeness. I agree this is pointless. Should we also have an article listing all cars and the number of airbags the have, or any other feature/attribute/characteristic? I reiterate my Delete. MB (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

MB, I was not trying to make you change your vote; I just voted myself and you are commenting on my vote. On your comment about completeness: an incomplete table does not mean that the article must be deleted: it means editors must try to add more items to get closer to complete. There is WP:NORUSH. DeVerm (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives a simplistic yes/no answer for whether a car can be roller tested on its "side wheels" or not. This is meaningless, for two reasons. Firstly it is an unrealistic situation to test. When are a car's "side wheels" rotated in isolation? More importantly, the key to this article would seem to be something based on the using of non-locking 'free' differentials or controlled / locking / limited differentials. Yet this is just reduced to a simple yes/no for wheel combinations. This makes no sense whatsoever. For any testing of modern traction control systems or differentials it's essential to recognise that they're controlled and have a variable action, not just that they're either totally free or totally solid as this describes.

This article makes no sense and conveys no useful information. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy it is probably from an editor who does not have English as first language. English is my 2nd language and this may be why I read it different than you? I say that because you say the article does not make sense (to you) while it does to me and others... or at least those who created and edited the article. If you ever come in a situation with a car in snow, ice, mud or other slippery surface and you can't move forward , you may appreciate the value of these tests. Because it is about the situation where some cars just spin one or more wheels around while other wheels are stationary and the car doesn't move. Some cars are stuck like that while others don't. The rollers under the wheels simulate the wheel(s) that do not have traction so they can spin without moving the car, which is then left to the other wheels. I hope this makes sense to you because I am at the limit of my explanation capabilities :) DeVerm (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I'm not sure what would be a good merge target. Something like car suspension systems or automobile dynamics or something like that, but I haven't found it yet. If no good merge target can be located, then delete. If somebody stepped up and said they wanted to work on this, and had a reasonable plan for how they would turn this into something useful, then moving it to draft would be acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is sourced to whatever some random auto club decides they're going to do on YouTube with whatever car they can get their hands on at the time. WP:CRUFT for sure. This isn't based on reliable sources; it needs manufacturer's data, not some random silliness in a parking lot. MSJapan (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article may have some information and sources but nothing actually suggesting this is any co text for Wikipedia notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see the purpose of this article on Wikipedia. It is not notable as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. It seems more like a tech manual that one would receive with their car (maybe), except for the humorous videos in parking lots and garages. Linking to YouTube videos as references that show cars on turning their wheels on rollers makes no sense for an encyclopedia - and these are not reliable sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely meaningless. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De la Cámara[edit]

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

This Article has been artificially infiltrated in small dosages into the English Wikipedia Project. This subject involves unverifiable aristocracy claims and self flattery. This article was tagged as non-encyclopaedic and permanently erased from the Spanish Wikipedia Project HERE: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_la_C%C3%A1mara — Preceding unsigned comment added by YUCAGENITO (talk • contribs) 02:48, August 28, 2015‎

Procedural Note: This discussion was not properly transcluded until now, please consider that when deciding on closing. I have also added the above AfD template. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. The few citations given are mostly to a single source and they support the "notable" family members, not the family itself. The paragraphs about the family have no citations and I can't find any with a cursory search. This might not be a hoax but it very much borders unverifiable. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsupported ancestor worship created by an spa. Delete for lack of sources. (I did run a books google on "familia de la Camera" [1] If this was real, something should have turned up. See my comparison searches on familia Machado [2] and "de la camera" [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Verenna[edit]

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

This article should be deleted immediately for the following reasons (with reference to the List of policies to cite in deletion debates):

(1) The entire page contains the problems in question; the page cannot be "spruced up" by quick edits or fixed with further information, since there is nothing that can warrant the inclusion of this article. (2) There are no arguments for notability here; the biographical stump on this page refers to a blogger and non-notable author. (3) The anti-advertising or anti-promotion clause is relevant here, since pages like this are overwhelming created by the individuals themselves to boost notability through inclusion in the Wikipedia format. (4) There are no relevant citations here that prove notability or significance. (5) The individual in question has no scholarly status (despite co-editing one scholarly book), no affiliation with a university, and no doctoral degree. (6) As an "author" or "creative professional," the individual is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; the individual is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; the individual is has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, nor have any of the individual's works have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; and the individual's work has not garnered significant monument, has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has not won significant critical attention, and is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

-cleavercor Verenna is notable in Bible studies academia. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now). To date, nothing has been presented to support his notability. From the information in the article, he seems to be interested in Bible studies but there's nothing to suggest he has any formal education in the field or occupy any important academic position. He has edited a book, but so have loads of other people so if the only claim to fame is having edited a book, then I'd say delete. Jeppiz (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Scholar shows that he is notable within academia. His article is a stub, however that does not imply notability. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe Google Scholar to show him to be notable within academia, please provide a link. And please note that being searchable on Google Scholar applies to anyone who has written even a paper for minor conference and says nothing about notability. Once a person on Google Scholar is cited at least 10.000 times and has an h-index above 30-40, the person is most likely notable as an academic. There's nothing to suggest Verenna is even close to that. Existing and being notable are very different things. A search on Google Scholar makes it clear Verenna exists, but also that he is entirely non-notable. Jeppiz (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Using Google Scholar that way ignores the nature of academiccitations. The measure only has validity in comparing individuals in thesame academic field who do the same sort of work. Bible studies has an infinitesimally lower citation rate than biology--and in fact, SCI as the first academic citation index was originally deigned specifically for molecular biology. GSW covers a far wider range of sources, but studies in this field have relatively few sources to cite, and do it only slectively, so the measure is particularly worthless. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note: This discussion was not properly transcluded until now, please consider that when deciding on closing. I have also added the above AfD template. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really a scholar at all, and certainly not cited enough to be notable, even by biblical studies standards. Not notable in any other way, either. St Anselm (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-mainstream operators and eccentrics can be notable, but, from GS, this one does not achieve it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete just as Nom and others state, there is no notability to be found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the time being and merge into Christ myth theory. Aoziwe (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not very convincing for notability, and few sources can be found. Omni Flames (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's fairly difficult for scholars to establish notability, especially Biblical scholars since there are far fewer places that discuss and reprint the work that would be considered RS on Wikipedia. From what I can see, there's not that much mention of the guy. This is likely because as of 2012, Verenna was an undergraduate. Now an undergraduate can still put out work and gain notability via one of the guidelines, but it is far, far less likely that they'd gain attention over someone who has been in the field longer and is seen as more of an authority. If he keeps getting mentioned here and there then it's likely that he could pass in the future because hey, getting named dropped in an ABC-CLIO book is no small feat (it's enough to where he could maybe be considered a RS), but right now it just seems like it's too soon for him to have an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf of Ansbach[edit]

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

Much like Wolf of Sarlat, Wolves of Périgord, and Wolf of Soissons this article relies on a single source from self-publisher Edwin Mellen Press. To make matters worse, it discusses as real what was probably a tall tale from the distant past. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the German encyclopedia has a sourced article. The wolf is notable, as is the event of a man-eating wolf in 17th century Principality of Ansbach. Moreover, as article states, this wolf has also accumulated notability vial retellings. I'm going here on the German sourcing, not the source that Nom found in English version. 17th century history in an important city like Ansbach is solid and well-documented. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EMG. Josh Milburn (talk)
Keep there are sources in German. Mduvekot (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Peel[edit]

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

Non notable person. Page created twice by SPA/COI. No significant coverage - there is an article in WSJ, apart from that there's not much. Rayman60 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but he does appear to meet WP:NOLYMPICS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Yes, sorry, you're right, I didn't consider it from that angle.Rayman60 (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the best part is basically Olympian, the other contents re not particularly outstanding from there. SwisterTwister talk 01:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS (source). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Systems[edit]

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

promotional and with very little notability. Most of the third party references refer merely to funding. The awards are relatively trivial--top 100 of anything is not notability, nor is a second place prize. The rest of the article describes the merits of the products in terms that belong in an advertisement not a encyclopedia article. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an excellent reason for deletion . Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have found nothing better at all aside from expected PR of course, nothing at all convincing here and that's not surprising considering it's only about 3 years old, nothing minimally convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find nothing except three press releases. No independent coverage. Fails WP:CORP. MB (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional, company not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Ashley Chase[edit]

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

promotional tone and borderline notability. This reads exactly as a press release, from "her family's horse farm" all the way to an uncited statement that she has never performed nude. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means and that's why I speedy tagged this....which was removed with no other attempts actually actually questioning and examining the article thus also perhaps exploring deletion. I examined this when I first reviewed it and found nothing to suggest it could be amply improved. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has been written up in the local Florida paper. Her television roles have not been in notable works. No sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her career is well documented in the newspaper article. It shows she days had only minor roles with the possible exception of the one episode of AMW. Fails WP:NACTOR MB (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hank the Cowdog. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Garbage Monster from Outer Space[edit]

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

Unsourced article that was proposed for deletion, and then deleted after expiration of PROD,and then restored by originator. Taking to AFD this time so that deletion will stick. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hank the Cowdog, of which this is one book title, so is a plausible search term that one day might be a full article. Crow^Caw 21:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I was going to suggest delete, but it seems like this series could be given the Goosebumps (original series) treatment. It should be noted the editor who created this page is creating many similar ones (apparently creating a page for every book in the series). I'm not sure how best to address this. Lizzius (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fails WP:BK so definitely should not be an article. Since the series seems notable, a redirect is reasonable. Same applies to other similar pages as noted above. MB (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 03:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afrocen3[edit]

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

Does not as yet meet WP:NBAND. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does meet #11 of WP:NBAND as they are receiving airplay on major radio stations in West Africa. See links below:

https://twitter.com/my234Radio/status/741355857586360320 https://twitter.com/RadioAfricana/status/730113015509598208 https://twitter.com/GoodlandRadio/status/741193755202588672 https://twitter.com/Wazobia_FM/status/700476002850381824 https://twitter.com/Wazobia_FM/status/692694494475587584 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emvictory (talk • contribs) 07:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The above is from the new user WP:SPA article creator. Found only this barely reliable source discussing the band; all other search results return what appear to be self-published sources or mere mentions confirming the band's existence only. The four "references" in the article are those types of links and cannot be used. No newspaper critical review of the band to indicate notability. —Prhart com♥ 12:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails WP:NBAND —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NBAND. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. unsourced essay either WP:OR, copyright violation or both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANADOLU APARTMENT[edit]

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

Non-notable building. Nthep (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete: A7 as web content with no claim of importance. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Plush Community[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable. PROD removed with no reason Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources on this are either unrelated or not reliable. May even qualify for A7 speedy deletion, but I'm not too positive on this. (Also, an ANI thread on the deprodding "issue" has been brought up.) JudgeRM 18:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian communism[edit]

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

This appears to me to be blatant WP:SYN. The few sources do not establish the content of the article, most of which reads as a personal essay with a very pronounced agenda. I don't think this is fixable either - communism is not a theistic philosophy. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Guy, have you had a look at these sources regarding notability: [4] and [5] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IF for Science & Society is 0.667 (2014 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2015) which fails the criteria as a RS for such a topic. The HighBeam search brought equally unacceptable results with passing mention (insignificant) of the "term". ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the heart of the prose is noncompliant with WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SYNC. It appears to be more of an opinion piece than an article worthy of inclusion based on WP:RS and WP:GNG. The only RS that have been cited actually point to known topics such as Marxism, Christianity, etc. not to any justification for this article's notability or inclusion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Add - there is already a section on this topic in the article Communism which is actually where, if anywhere, this belongs considering the lack of any real substance about the topic (created by SYNTH) in the few sources that are available. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps if deleted, a redirect would be in order, that avoids a redlnk, which is usually an invitation to create the article over again. Montanabw^(talk) 02:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Makes sense to me. Then if an enterprising editor wants to invest in a RS article without SYNTH in the future, they can build from there. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find much of the article to be acceptable, including most of the lead and the first several sections. While there may be some - perhaps significant - NPOV issues, these should be fixed by editing, not outright deletion of the page. The opinion of the editor of whether or not Communism can be theistic should be irrelevant - an abundance of sources indicate that people have believed that Christianity and communism can go together. It seems clear to me that the subject is notable, and most of the sources seem quite acceptable to me as well. Why would they not meet the requirements of WP:RS? I'll just comment too that the article is included in many of the non-English Wikipedia versions, which would suggest that notability is not contested.EAR47 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem is that it's a novel synthesis from often unreliable sources. The idea that the subject is notable is rather contradicted by the absence of scholarly sources - Google turns up a number of blogs and apologetics sites, but nothing usable as a source to replace the invalid sourcing currently in the article. Guy (Help!) 07:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN simply states that you shouldn't use sources to derive novel conclusions. Likewise you shouldn't use a self-published or fringe-view source, in general. However in this case I think many of the existing sources can be used; while several of them do propound Christian communist views, that is a perfectly acceptable source given that we are reporting on what those views are. If we avoid drawing any new conclusions, but simply report the beliefs held by these Christian Communists, WP:SYN is not violated, and the sources can be considered reliable for the purpose to which we are using them. As for the sources themselves: Chilton and Cort both appear to be books published by a third party and valid references for the ideas of Christian communism and some history. Brown looks to be a neutral, scholarly paper. Gernhard maybe we should get rid of, due to it being a blog post. Finally, a quick Google Scholar search was quite fruitful; here are just a few sources I found: [6][7], and Denys Turner Marxism and Christianity ISBN 0389203513. Given the number of books and papers published by and about these people I'd be shocked if you still debated notability. Again I'm not claiming that the article doesn't need work but deletion seems drastic and unwarranted. EAR47 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article goes I think Christian libertarianism should follow right behind it. I don't know about our article on Christian socialism. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – A quick search on Google Scholar seems to indicate that the nominator's assertion that "communism is not a theistic philosophy" cannot be taken to be a consensus view. While the article could certainly use some cleanup, that doesn't mean that this isn't a notable topic that is worth covering. Graham (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I agree wholeheartedly that the article is loaded with WP:SYNTH and a lot of unsourced statements, plus way too much POV-pushing. I'd say keep, but do some major pruning of all the cruft. In fact, I'll take a whack at it and see if what's left is worth keeping. There is adequate indicia of notability. Also, per a search like this, there is some support for the concept, as seen in the Anabaptist Hutterite colonies in my state, which while not Marxist/Leninist in structure (they are, collectively, quite fine with capitalism to bring in income to their community as a whole) have been described as "a communist success story". Montanabw ^(talk) 18:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think that while the article isn't in great shape, the concept meets notability. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is covered in a variety of encyclopedias including The Encyclopedia Americana; Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Politics; Encyclopedia of Protestantism and The Encyclopedia of Social Reform. The topic is therefore notable and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marissa Mayer#Personal life. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Bogue[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED applies. All sources are about his wife. PROD removed with no reason. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I gave for deprodding was, "likely notable." ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally nothing to suggest that the subject is independently notable. The only claim of significance (not notability) is that he is the partner of Marissa Mayer. The entire article seems forcibly padded with information. I don't think we will lose something significant by deleting this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree with Lemongirl1942. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.85.11.169 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing actually convincing of having his own article, not redirect also since it's not particularly outstanding and there is simply nothing at all to actually keep the history contents too. SwisterTwister talk 01:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources: [8], [9], [10]. If consensus of notability cannot be established, I suggest a redirect to Marissa_Mayer#Personal_life as Zachary Bogue is a likely search term and we do have ha significant number of incoming wikilinks. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are significant coverage of Bogue (indeed, one of them is purely about the fact he's Mayer's husband). I do agree though that a redirect to Mayer's article would be unremarkable. Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions for Dreamers[edit]

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

Notability not established, PROMO and NTEMP, maybe some COATRACK and RECENTISM. WP:PROMO: the whole effort was spearheaded by a creative agency (Oniracom), who also released the albums on their own label (founded by one of the agency partners, who also produced the albums). Despite the background, it does not appear that the agency was founded solely for the purpose of this festival, as they are definitely still around and doing business. I'd also note that this article was written by a paid editor, and ~~despite the claim that it was not paid work,~~ the agency was certainly the client - it wasn't the festival, and it wasn't Jack Johnson who requested the article, and it's honestly below the threshold for something one would just find seven years later. There's also WP:NTEMP issues ("coverage only in one context over for one event"), because this was only a one-time event, and the albums seem like a separate item entirely. WP:COATRACK, because even though I cleaned it up, the article still sounds like it's advertising the company instead of dealing with the event, largely because the nature of the activity makes the company inseparable from the event. I also think that because this was an event in 2007, there were a lot of people writing about it online even though it was a local event. The article on Jack Johnson doesn't even mention his participation in this, so a lot of it feels "tacked-on" here. MSJapan (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, boy this is a pretty fascinating and textbook case of WP:Boomerang. Anyway, while we do see a couple of Ghits from the local Santa Barbara paper for the event and "Jacob Tell, CEO of creative marketing agency Oniracom," and there's some minor mentions around the release of an album, the whole thing falls well short of our notability guidelines. Support deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. aas promotional. Singularly poor references, so probably not notable as well. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Generation-SHY[edit]

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

This was dePRODed by Kvng, so I'm bringing it here. I can't think of any reason why this article should be on Wikipedia. This subunit is just something fans want; it doesn't actually exist unlike Girls' Generation-TTS. Random86 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete ~~to Girls' Generation.~~ KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- KGirlTrucker81, why do you think it should be a redirect? It is not mentioned in the Girls' Generation article because it is not a real subgroup. Random86 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because any music thats non-notable (with the exemption of some) should redirect to an article with lists of albums and tracks. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KGirlTrucker81: Girls' Generation-SHY isn't music though. It's an imaginary subgroup that fans wish was real. Random86 (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This so-called subgroup is not real. They have never released any music officially. --TerryAlex (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existence of this page is puzzling. A wikipedia entry on speculation? Might as well have a page based on someone's fantasy to sleep with Scarlett Johansson, because...well, you know..Scarlett Johansson is notable. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as User:ShelbyMarion pointed out, notability is not inherited in the first place (by mention of Girls Generation); but most especially it is not inherited by wishing for that association either. Also delete because Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball - the project does not engage in speculation or wish fulfillment. And, this subject has not achieved significant coverage in multiple sources, and so on... ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red nights (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Article created by director. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. Author's COI notwithstanding, short films have it tough and YouTube does not help. If or when the topic ever receives suitable coverage, it can always be reconsidered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Seems made in promotional interest. -NottNott|talk 15:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coulter's Law[edit]

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

No significant coverage found of "Coulter's Law", either via Google or gnews. Mentions on minor and user-edited websites is largely it. (The words appear together elsewhere, but not in reference to this tweet.) No sign of meeting WP:GNG. At this point, sourced only to the tweet itself, and Wikipedia is not a catalogue of Ann Coulter tweets. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Clear cut delete at this stage; couldn't find any other posts relating to Ann Coulter. Twitter is not a reliable source. Hx7 15:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NEO - all mentions are solely tendentious blog posts, comments, social media... or sourced to Coulter herself. GAB^gab 15:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I endorsed the original PROD saying there was no evidence of WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Coulter is notable but that doesn't mean every statement she makes is notable. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NEO and as failing WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable phrase, no evidence of widespread use. Smartyllama (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Adu[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this Ghanaian athlete has played a match in a fully professional league. Shirt58 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This is a tricky one. The sole reference says that he formerly played for "Metro Stars", but doesn't say which one, and so far I've found three teams by that name in Ghana, in Kumasi, Tuba and Abura Dunkwa. The Abura Dunkwa Metro Stars are in the Ghanaian Division Two, which is a fully professional league. So in short, more references are needed to determine whether he's played professionally yet. Complicating this further, there's another, unrelated professional Ghanaian player named Eric Adu Poku. So if you're Googling for refs, be sure to include "-Poku" as a search term. I've come up empty-handed, but smarter people than me might do better. I can find no trace online of clubs called "Istanbul FC", or a "Dinh Doung". vi:Dinh dưỡng is Vietnamese for "nutrition". OnionRing (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As unverified. If he has played in a fully pro league, it is not confirmed in reliable source, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and there is no evidence of sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, the Ghana Division Two is not confirmed as a fully pro league (see WP:FPL). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taimur (missile)[edit]

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

It is a blatant hoax. Wikipedia should not have articles on such awfully pathetic hoaxes. Nothing like Taimur/Tipu is under development in Pakistan. It is just a imagery speculation of a section of pakistani fanboys. See WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. ArghyaIndian (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 13:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not seem to be a hoax. Rather, it appears to be a proposed missile that is still under development, and has not even been test-fired yet ([11][12]). There's some speculation on it, but nothing concrete ([13]). I recommend we delete without prejudice towards future recreation when the missile is actually developed and becomes notable. GAB^gab 16:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal why this has been included to Aviation-related deletion discussions? Just asking, not sure what this has to do with aviation. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you puzzle over that one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Seriously, you might want to see if missiles are mentioned in Aviation. Have a look! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the missile being from Pakistan and the nominator being from India, calling the article a blatant hoax rings all the alarm bells. It is lack of good sources that makes me !vote delete until sources become available... if they become available. DeVerm (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KVBZ[edit]

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

Unsourced article tagged for notability since October 2015. I have not been able to find any in-depth coverage form independent reliable sources to meet WP:COMPANY or our general notability guidelines. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator See bellow. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A rolling stock carbuilder is going to be notable, but finding English-language sources is always going to be a challenge. The name of the article is problematic. Up until a few days ago it was at Kriukiv Railway Car Building Works; that or KVSZ or Krukovka Carriages seem like better names. I'm not sure why Endrū Hejs (talk · contribs) moved the article. KVBZ appears to maybe be the company's stock symbol, but I wouldn't expect a reliable source to use that. See for example this article in the International Railway Journal: Ukrainian prototype DMU enters service. I believe that's the same company, but the relevant nouns at KVSZ, Kryukov Wagon Plant, and Kremenchug. Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw my nomination Hello @Mackensen: Thank you for your contribution. You are right. According to WP:ORGSIG a company is not inherently notable for being a stock carbuilder. I could not find sources under the original name and the one you cited does not contribute to establish notability as, in my opinion, falls under trivial coverage as per WP:CORPDEPTH. But by doing a search on the new name I could see that the company is listed at an index of the Ukranian stock exchange and I could find this valid source: Company Overview of Krukivsky Carriage Works I could not find anything usable from Google, but I noticed that it was recently linked to the Russian project where I saw there are indeed plenty of references (in Russian)see here. I have not analyzed them in depth, It would be very helpful if Russian or Ukrainian speaking editors could contribute to improve the article, but I am convinced that notability is met.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Siddharth[edit]

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

Delete. Fails NPOL. Has not been elected and only nominated. Does not have any coverage apart from nomination. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Nomination withdrawn as Ashok was elected in upper house, hence making him notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's elected a member of the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House of India's Parliament. How is he non-notable? User:chaitanya.dike

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. It has been demonstrated that the subject meets WP:COMPANY/WP:CORPDEPTH. Concerns regarding promotional tone should be addressed through the normal editing process. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyFarm[edit]

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

promotional and non notable.The refs are essentially mere notices of funding. The combination of borderline notability and promotionalism is a very good reason for deletion: articles like this violate NOT DIRECTORY. DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG this is only one of several as you can see here I am not sure exactly how you define what should and should'nt be on wikipedia but it really does seem to be based on peoples interpretations rather than factual definitions by which pages are being moderated. I believe other opinions are necessary on this matter as these pages serve purpose with factual information difficult to find across the internet. (Marcusw572 (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as this has all of the signs of not yet notable, newly srated, localized and still being funded thus there is still not enough solidity for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (to closer) – See WP:NEWCOMPANY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this is a fruitless exercise to remove useful information from wikipedia, if you take this approach to the content here you will end up tearing down many many pages for no net benefit to the community. If seems illogical removing factual information that is hard to find elsewhere... (Marcusw572 (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Strong keep, the company easily meets WP:COMPANY, as apparently received significant, non routine coverage in all the most important Italian news sources. There are currently about 10,600 news articles in Google News, [14], plus hundreds more in the archives [15]. I just made a very quick search, and I found examples of coverage which include multiple articles in the main Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera [16] eg. [17], multiple articles in the main Italian business publication Il Sole 24 Ore, see here, eg. [18] and [19], multiple articles in La Repubblica [20] eg. [21] and [22], multiple articles in MF Milano Finanza, another authoritative businness publication [23] and so on. I can dig indepht and provide additional examples, but apparently this is not even a close call. Article needs some cleanup, but notability is obvious. Cavarrone 11:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Cavarrone says, this company appears all the time in the Italian press, and quite a bit in English news sources (eg: FT Adviser, Business insider). Some are promotional, but not all are, and I think the potential to make a suitable article out of those sources is there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, such as those posted by Cavarrone and Ritchie333 atop. I have copy edited the article to address the very minor promotional tone that was previously there. The article presently has a neutral tone that simply provides an overview of the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by JamesBWatson, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban & CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The categories and template have also been speedy deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mujtuba[edit]

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

No credible claim of significance. Was summarily deleted by me the other day, now I'm looking for community input to lose it. PS: This is the second location the article has been created at, it was originally at Mujtaba rocks where the content was twice deleted on A7 grounds. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As a matter of record I am including the following in this afd: Category:Singer-songwriters,music director,actor, Category talk:Singer-songwriters,music director,actor, and Template:Mujtuba. This is all one massive self promotional movement, so its all coming under one afd for simplicity. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This is the fourth incarnation of this page from what appears very much like a self promotional account. Burn the page and lock it down. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 and salt Article about a kid that's rapped into a mic in his hometown, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Refs are mostly fake. No coverage online in WP:RS. OnionRing (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:GNG has been demonstrated. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude Wipes[edit]

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

Still a somewhat newly started company with my searches finding only expected coverage especially since they are so far best known for Shark Tank, see this (fades by the next few pages) and also this so this is still questionable for the actual solid notability for Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A comfortable WP:GNG pass. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. See also WP:NTEMP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because notability has been demonstrated according to GNG. However, I don't really understand the nomination (is it even seeking deletion?). If it is raising a valid issue I am unable to refute any such claim. Thincat (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources cited by Northamerica demonstrate that this topic passes WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus after the relistings DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PRO MOTION. The Brad LeBeau Company, Inc.[edit]

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

Heavily padded sources which are either unreliable or press releases. I won't even bother with a rename. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure, but this company may be notable. There are a number of mentions in books and news media, and articles such as this Billboard article suggest that other sources may be available to meet WP:ORG.- MrX 23:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked and found lots of mentions, but no significant coverage. Lots of music studios are like that, they get mentioned but no real coverage. In this case, it is a marketing firm, which rarely gets coverage enough to pass WP:CORP because no one dedicates articles to them because they aren't very interesting. Necessary, but not interesting enough in most circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And to be clear, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I've seen a good many of these types of articles and very rarely do they pass the bar. They of course want to have to their own article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There are quite a few short, but not trivial mentions of this company, spanning a period of around 30 years. This contributes to notability per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:ORGDEPTH. I also found these in-depth articles which discuss the company [24] [25].- MrX 22:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ORGDEPTH specifically mention that WP:SIGCOV must be satisfied, and is just a subsection of WP:CORP. SUSTAINED really isn't even at issue here. The second reference you show is good enough to show notability, but the first is not, per SIGCOV, and it being mentioned but not the center of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing actually convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, no real rationale provided for why the subject is notable, and the provided sources are far short of the standard recommended by the GNG. The company might actually be notable given the (second) source provided above by MrX but I'm struggling to find anything more substantial in terms of significant coverage, hence the !vote. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The four sources in the article are worthless. An article about the founder selling his apartment??? Something labeled PRESS RELEASE in big letters on the top? I did a little searching (admittedly, I didn't put a huge effort into it) and didn't find anything better. Unless somebody can come up with some good solid reliable sources, delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP The company has been around since 1983 but I can't find enough independent reliable sources to justify keeping the article. Meters (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Moshe[edit]

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

Still questionable for solid independent notability as my searches have found links throughout Books, News, browsers and Highbeam, there's nothing particularly noticeable for actual solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not yet sufficiently notable. Quis separabit? 14:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 05:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - The two only reliable sources on the article [26] [27] do not mention Jared Moshe or his work. Star Islington (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Senghas[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines, nor WP:SOLDIER, as no citation is provided for the Knight's Cross. The article has been tagged Unreferenced since Dec 2015. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Funnily enough, I found absolutely no credible sources whatsoever on this individual. Proof of the Knight's Cross would theoretically be in Fellgiebel, but no citation is given. Unless someone can verify this, I'm sticking with delete. GAB^gab 21:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm also not finding anything actually convincing of better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a classic example of an editor deleting large amounts of text and sources then nominating it for deletion. There were several sources on this article prior to their deletion by the nominator. Please check the article history for such behaviour when supporting a deletion nomination. A check of "what links here" would show that his award is cited on the list at List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Schu–Sz) to Scherzer and Fellgeibel, including his rank at the time, the date of award and his position at the time of award. It is not that hard to make such checks before nominating for deletion. All of this information should have been available to editors considering deletion, yet it was not, due to the deletion of significant parts of the article prior to its nomination. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: Following the suggestion on my Talk page, I'm providing a Dec 2015 version of the article, before I edited it. The article's material was not cited to any sources, and no sources were provided except for a section "Further reading". Google book search results produce hits to Willi Fey, Leon Degrelle, Franz Kurowski, and Marc Rikmenspoel. The latter is an author highlighted in the The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser & Davies.

Also pinging GeneralizationsAreBad and SwisterTwister to see if they would like to revisit their comments, following the review of the Dev 2015 version of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. As for those authors:

Kurowski is not an RS, according to Smelser + Davies. This particular book "[paints an extraordinarily favorable portrait of the [Wehrmacht]... Kurowski gives the reader an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes, actually incapable of such behavior."] And so on.
As for Degrelle: "You'll learn the other side of the Bitburg story, the epic of the Waffen SS, suppressed in the controlled media, told by a man whose unique literary talent and unmatched combat experience make him the premier spokesmen for his fallen comrades. War criminals? Victims of Hitlerism? Now you'll be able to judge for yourself." That's the book's blurb. This was a collaborator, a diehard fascist, a Waffen-SS man, and anything but a reliable source.
Rikmenspoel is also addressed in Smelser + Davies: "He clearly saw [the Waffen-SS as heroic and their ultimate defeat not of their own making."] He is identified as a "guru," a wholly negative trait as defined by S + D. Another non-RS.

In short, those secondary sources are not RS. Nevertheless, Scherzer and Fellgeibel establish that Senghas received the Knight's Cross - great. The question is, does he have substantial coverage besides this? SOLDIER says that "individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" if they have received the highest valour award. My opinion is that there is not sufficient coverage, regardless of the reference for the Knight's Cross, to meet GNG standards. After all, SOLDIER is an essay, while GNG is a policy. I continue to support deletion. GAB^gab 22:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add'l comment by nom: As was also suggested on my Talk page, I checked the online Neue Deutsche Biographie encyclopedia, and was unable to locate an entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but tentative. There do seem to be a lot of google search references which do not appear to be mirrors but also do not appear to be solid sources. The is no german article while the german wikipedia does seem to have Knight's Cross recipients listed and senghas does not appear to be one of them. Aoziwe (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Roy[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines, nor WP:SOLDIER, as no citation is provided for Knight's Cross. The article has been tagged Refimprove since 2015. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Switching to a !vote. GAB^gab 01:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Delete - Here are sources on Roy that I can find: [28][29]. Bergstrom calls him "The leading 'Panzer ace' of SS-Panzerjager-Abteilung 12," and identifies him as a "seasoned [veteran]." Számvéber verifies that Roy held the Knight's Cross. However, while Roy may meet SOLDIER, he most likely does not meet GNG. Plus, SOLDIER is an essay, while GNG is policy. "Individuals [with the highest award for valour] will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify," according to SOLDIER, but this appears to be an exception to the rule. GAB^gab 18:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a classic example of an editor deleting large amounts of text and sources then nominating it for deletion. There were several sources on this article prior to their deletion by the nominator. Please check the article history for such behaviour when supporting a deletion nomination. A check of "what links here" would show that his award is fully cited on the list at List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ka–Km) to Scherzer and Fellgiebel, including his rank at the time, the date of award and his position at the time of award. It is not that hard to make such checks before nominating for deletion or supporting deletion. All of this information should have been available to editors considering deletion, yet it was not, due to the deletion of significant parts of the article prior to its nomination. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: Here's the article as of Dec 2015, after it's been tagged with "Unreliable Sources" tag. I believe that 6 months is a sufficient time to improve an article. The material in the article was cited to:
- http://home.att.net/~SSPzHJ/RudolfRoy.html (fan page?)
- http://www.frontkjemper.info/ (internet forum)

Roy appears in a few books, but with very short mentions, such as here: The Ardennes, 1944-1945, by Christer Bergstromsom and Waffen-SS Armour in Normandy: The Combat History of SS Panzer Regiment 12 by Norbert Számvéber. (Same books as mentioned by GeneralizationsAreBad)

WP:Soldier states that:

"In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." The footnote states: "Some awards are/were bestowed in different grades. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. See: Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades."

The GNG still needs to be met, through multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add: As was suggested on my Talk page, I checked for the name in the Neue Deutsche Biographie. There is no entry for the subject there. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the mentions in the two linked books, plus the Knight's Cross sources are sufficient to meet the GNG test, which is not a bright line. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's source is one line; pls see sample. Fellgiebel's work is a directory; this is not "significant coverage" and thus "does not constitutes evidence of notability".The other two books are brief mentions—this does not amount to "significant coverage" as I see it. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead at best as I still have found nothing particularly better and the article is still overall questionable at best, thus with nothing currently better, delete. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tentative. Seems marginally more notable/reliable than Paul Senghas, but again there is no german article. Aoziwe (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alois Kalss[edit]

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

Does not meet notability per WP:SOLDIER (or any other subcategory); Knight's Cross award has been tagged with Citation needed since 2011; overall article has been tagged Refimprove since 2013 K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As above, does not meet WP:GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a classic example of an editor deleting large amounts of text and sources then nominating it for deletion. There were several sources on this article prior to their deletion by the nominator. Please check the article history for such behaviour when supporting a deletion nomination. A check of "what links here" would show that his award is fully cited on the list at List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ka–Km) to Scherzer and Fellgiebel, including his rank at the time, the date of award and his position at the time of award. It is not that hard to make such checks before nominating for deletion or supporting deletion. All of this information should have been available to editors considering deletion, yet it was not, due to the deletion of significant parts of the article prior to its nomination. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's Comment: Here's the article as of February, 2016, with the Refimprove tag. I believe four months is a sufficient time to improve an article. In any case, GNG still needs to be met. WP:Soldier states that:

"In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." The footnote states: "Some awards are/were bestowed in different grades. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. See: Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades."

While the Knight's Cross was a prestigious award, it was not the highest grade (there ware Oak Leaves, Swords, Diamonds, etc). Moreover, the GNG still needs to be met, through multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources, which appear to be lacking in this case. There's a one-line mention in Willi Fey: link, plus Google book search results bring up works by Otto Carius and Franz Kurowski, but I cannot locate the subject's name inside. In any case, these could not be considered "independent, reliable sources". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your views on the reliability of Kurowski were accepted by the community, how is Carius not independent of Kalss? Was he Kalss' brother-in-law? And because the preview function does not show you what the book says about Kalss does not mean there isn't relevant information within the book. I have used many Serbo-Croat sources where the Google Books result comes up with one or two instances not available in preview but the source itself has reams of information on the subject. I am sure the same applies to Germans. Have you at least checked the German Encyclopedia of Biography, given it is free and searchable online? Given the language differential, that would be a basic check you should have conducted and reported as part of the nomination. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion; I checked for the name in the Neue Deutsche Biographie. There is no entry for the subject there. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add'l comment from nom: pinging Deathlibrarian to see if they would like to revisit following the above additions to the thread, and after the review of the 2015 version of the article, which I added per the suggestion on my Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As a tank ace, he destroyed 43 tanks, which doesn't seem to make him notable enough to warrant a wikpiedia page - also receiving that level of the Iron Cross - also not notable, as thousands of people recieved it. As above, does not meet WP:GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the best here is the awards, nothing else is particularly convincing of the needed independent notability and the improvements. SwisterTwister talk 18:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tentative. No german article again. Aoziwe (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsuru Hiruta[edit]

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

I would've PRODed too as my searches have simply found nothing better at all so unless archived Japanese sources can be found, I'm not finding anything convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhary Ravindra Singh[edit]

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

I cannot find any independent reliable sources concerning this person. It is impossible to confirm notability in the absence of any such sources. Not eligible for BLPPROD, and PROD was contested. WWGB (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my deprod, I had suggested this could possibly be merged or redirected to Lachhera. Did you consider that option? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs)

Cannot find even one source that he exists, let alone notable. Why would Wikipedia acknowledge a non-notable person, even with a redirect? WWGB (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't verify, then I agree, a redirect is probably inappropriate. But, there is no notability requirement for redirects. ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources available to even confirm that the person existed, let alone a claim of notability. If any sources in Indian languages are found, I would be glad to reconsider. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a redirect here as it basically fails WP:V --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In this case, the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. WP:V is a fundamental policy, and while redirects are cheap, they aren't necessary when there will be no content at the target. MSJapan (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faulad[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. No independent refs provided but searches also yield nothing other than niche publications. Nothing of any note, not even critical reviews. This may be because of the age of the film before the internet, but notability remains notability, and there is none of that here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts in looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Faulad Mohammed Hussain Vinod Doshi Mulkraj Bhakri Farooq Kaisser Dara Singh Mumtaz Randhir

Weak keep per the age of the film making sourcing difficult (no Indian OLD newspapers archived from waaaay pre-internet 63-years ago), but with the old-age deaths of its many notable stars, it does have some has sourcing available in their obits and in books, and I was able to begin improving. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I could've lived with the one review but since there's simply nothing else, there's nothing for the basic better improvements. Delete instead as there's nothing outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baka-Tsuki[edit]

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

An article on a website which hosts unauthorized translations of Japanese media such as light novels and video games. I admit that I sometimes browse the site, but the website, as popular as it is, has not really been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It needs secondary source coverage like Napster or The Pirate Bay for starters for it to be notable. It doesn't mean they have to be prosecuted though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This reminds me a bit of moegirl [30]. Same kind of things, but no secondary sources to establish notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The internet is full of resources for obtaining grey area or downright blatantly pirated media and manga is no exception. Only a few trackers and other "download databases" become their own media story and generate press, and Napster and TPB to use the above examples are notorious for their own reasons (usually because of well publicised attempts to take them down). Internet forums and perhaps blogs will be full of mentions of Baka Tsuki, but they aren't reliable sources and age doesn't prove notability. The big anime and manga sites would never dare discuss them unless there was a pretty big reason so unless I've missed a big news story I don't think there are likely to be many, if any reliable sources. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While fan translations play a vital role in the Western popularity of anime and manga and the phenomenon itself is notable, individual sites like this lack coverage. I couldn't find any mention of the site in reliable animanga sources, and only two passing mentions in published book sources. (one in a translation used as a citation, and another in an interview of an American fan) Opencooper (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without third party feedback we cant consider this website notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This site is popular and I even have their app on my phone, however BT has always flown pretty solidly under the radar, partially because they operate in that grey area of legality but also because light novel translations have never really ever gained the attention that manga scanlations have. I adore the site, but the site just doesn't pass notability guidelines per NWEB. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep or perhapas a merge to scanlation#history would be better. I managed to scrape together some coverage: Kotaku has an article dedicated to Baka-Tsuki, and how "the light novel translating community" is centered around it 1. Game Industry News mentions Baka-Tsuki as "the biggest Light Novel Translation hub in the world" 2. Also name-dropped by The Daily Star and Cartoon Cultures: The Globalization of Japanese Popular Media. 3 4 Pinging @Opencooper, Knowledgekid87, SephyTheThird, and Tokyogirl79: on whether they're open to a merge since their !votes are based on Baka-Tsuki having no coverage whatsoever. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds. Based on that I would support a merge, though maybe Light novel would be a better target since this is mainly translation while scanlation refers to a process based around comics. Opencooper (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you Kotaku. I don't know about GIN as a source as this is the first time I've come across it but saying he has an admin position at the site isn't exactly neutral and it is a passing mention. The latter two don't give any significance to the site, daily star just mentions it as being the place to go to download a particular work. And the book mention is just an interview with someone bragging about his torrenting resources. I don't think they would pass as sources in general, never mind notability. More like Kotaku and I would be more receptive, but as it stands I don't think my opinion has changed.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as there's still nothing confidently suggesting the needed solid independent notability and searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is purely promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. Any editor may create a redirect as part of the normal editing process. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alimihan Seyiti[edit]

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

One of a plethora of unsubstantiated claims of extreme longevity. Only 2 sources, both over 3 years old (thereby failing "ongoing notability" requirement), one of which casts doubt on the notability claim. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:PERMASTUB and WP:NOPAGE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "ongoing notability" is some new requirement, then we are going to have to delete 99.999% of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With birth records in much of the world spotty before 1900, and even in many places later, and destroyed in other cases, there are undoubtedly people who have lived over 110 years for whom we have no evidence of such. However this should not be seen as license to follow every weak story to create a new article on claims that lack any evidence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Subject appears to only be "notable" for the claim of the WOP title as references are from August 2013 and Google search brings up nothing else. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources still report on her...they're just in Chinese. More can be added. --104.56.23.57 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN of proof is on you to provide them. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note - The IP address above has been blocked for ban evasion. CommanderLinx (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nonsense. Unrelated query to DerbyCountyinNZ: what do you mean by "ongoing notability requirement"? E Eng 07:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, that's what I figured -- except what NTEMP says is, "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." If by "ongoing notability requirement" you mean "ongoing coverage requirement", there's no such thing. E Eng 07:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as regardless of actual longevity, there's still nothing actually suggesting, like with several of these, the necessary signs of solid independent notability as her own article thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Newspapers write about these people simply as human interest stories. Pburka (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RAN1958 is fine, too. Pburka (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longevity claims where his entry appears. The rule is not to delete when a valid target is available. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Particularly egregious longevity claim fancruft. Unsubstantiated claim, per nominator. Also, GNG, per the Commander. And John Pack Lambert speaks good sense. David in DC (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuru (rapper)[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand alone article. The sources currently in the article doesn't show notability and a Google search of the subject doesn't either. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above mainly. I did another search myself and couldn't really find anything except some Wikipedia mirror sites, and a Ghanaian news report of 4 April 2016. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is realized that the article has been improved and more references added to the article. The rapper has a mention on the CNN website as an African rapper. Also, there isn't a lot showing in search engines because of the change in stage name, some few months ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.199.1 (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not confidently better to keep the article, however. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Note that some of the sources, like the CNN link, say nothing meaningful about him--it merely repeats one of his tweets. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been improved and some key references added. Most publications on Nuru are within the traditional print media. This makes it quite difficult to show here. More references will be provided in the coming few days to improve article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itspoojkins (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What key references have been added? And what references do you expect to provide in the next few days? NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe reference to his social media accounts being verified to prove authenticity and another reference about his publishing deal with Sony/ATV. Pretty sure this article can be improved with time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.239.42 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reference that was just added re: Sony/ATV is to a press release from HypeGH that was issued just yesterday. But, the Sony/ATV web site has no analogous press release (the most recent one at that site concerning signings is from last month, and for a different artist). I must agree with the other commentators who argue that there is no notability here. By the way, I can't shake the feeling that all three of the "Keeps" are from the same person. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Gregoire[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failing WP:NHOCKEY by itself is not a valid reason to delete, since there are other ways a subject can attain notability, such as WP:GNG. And there is at least one substantial source in the article. Rlendog (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. two time winner of the QMJHL scholastic player of the year..kinda a notable award Triggerbit (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a notable award. Joeykai (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not by itself. But it generated at least one instance of significant coverage for the subject that is already included in the article. And there may be more, which is why it is particularly important to address GNG here. Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you've found others, would you mind sharing them? Beyond that, I disagree with Triggerbit: this isn't a QMJHL award, and wouldn't be considered notable if it was. Ravenswing 13:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have not found other instances of significant coverage, and apparently no one else has. The Guy Lafleur award itself does not meet NHOCKEY, and one article about winning the award is not enough to satisfy GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That award definitely is not a major award. And I can't find any significant coverage on the player. Fails to meet GNG or NHOCKEY. Nothing has changed significantly since the last nomination. Should have been a speedy. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that the subject fails to meet NHOCKEY and shows no evidence of meeting the GNG. The only cite from a reliable media source doesn't clear WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 13:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has twice won a notable award (Guy Lafleur Award of Excellence) and has been the subject of in-depth coverage in several sources: [31] [32] [33] [34]. The subject has also been mentioned in numerous additional sources. Passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.- Mr X 23:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quite aside from that the notability of this award is suspect enough that I'm about to prod it -- only a handful of reliable sources even mention it, and not a single one gives the award "significant coverage" (as opposed to "Soandso is the 2014 winner etc") -- what notability criterion gives a presumptive pass for winning it? Moving on to your links, in order to meet the GNG, a subject must (a) receive "significant coverage" in (b) multiple (c) reliable sources which (d) do not constitute routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Three of your four links are blog posts; all involve routine sports coverage. Mere mention in other sources, no matter how numerous, do not satisfy the GNG. Ravenswing 04:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If policy is supposed to describe how content is treated in practice, then widespread practice would show that many thousands of articles are based on sports news. Just the number of football player articles alone strongly supports that we would retain an article where the subject was noted for standing out from his peers.- Mr X 11:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing a crucial distinction: that the bar for sources supporting facts listed in an article is far lower than for those certifying the notability of the subject. A match report could verify that a player had reached a milestone in a particular game; a biographical webpage on the website of a subject's employer could verify a birthdate or spouse's name. We'd accept both for those purposes. We'd accept neither as evidence of the subject's notability.
Beyond that, it can't be news to you that notability criteria establish thresholds. A singer who won a local 'battle of the bands' competition certainly would have been "noted for standing out from her peers," but WP:MUSICBIO plainly sets forth that what consensus holds to be a significant award for notability purposes is a Grammy nomination or thereabouts. By contrast, "standing out from one's peers" (which is entirely subjective) forms no part of any NSPORTS criteria. Competing at the top levels of performance does. Gregoire didn't win a major NHL trophy; he won, frankly, a minor award for academic achievement, unsanctioned by any league, and did so as a teenage amateur.
Ultimately, though, this is looking like a smokescreen. If Gregoire was truly notable, there'd be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources saying so. If you're convinced of his notability, you should be able to produce such qualifying sources, and I'll be pleased to change my vote if you do. Ravenswing 12:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I meant to comment sooner especially no one else had, there:s simply nothing, regardless of any notable awards, at best confidently suggesting keeping as his own article. This would at best be better linked to his best known work instead. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep weak though. Sees to have a reasonable number of mentions in secondary sources, but freely admit I do not know enough about them to assess their reliability. Aoziwe (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Goode[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN John from Idegon (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he appears to me to meet the WP:GNG, with solid sourcing. This isn't a one reference, one paragraph biographical stub that we typically bring to AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not impressed with the sourcing and Richard Arthur Norton would do well to read them. The Alcalde mention is in a deceased alumni section and Goode doesn't get an actual obit, just a mention. It's a fine citation to source his education but GNG requires that there is sufficient coverage to confer notability. The other sources are also problematic. The U-T link talks about an archive of pictures from San Antonio Express-News where Goode is pictured. That Goode had his picture in the paper isn't notable nor is the fact the University has said pictures. It's fine to use the website as a source but again, people are trying to hang general notability on this stuff. There's an old issue of The Historian listing my name as a member of Phi Alpha Theta and that's fine to source my membership but you can't call me generally notable if you pile up a half-dozen such mentions. In all, I think Goode ought to be the subject of some good secondary-source academic writing in the future and that would suffice for notability. Right now, I'm guessing Goode fails our notability criteria although I'm not going to vote for deletion because I'm not a deletionist and I think there will be enough coverage for us to presume notability. Let's also remember Goode also fails WP:MILPEOPLE. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability guidelines for politicians since he lost, any mention of his role in the race can be included in the article on the winner. The obituary is not enough to establish notability. We need a good secondary source article, which may well be justified, but it does not exist, so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a major congressional race between a Mexican-American Democrat and a white Republican at a time, 1961, when neither group had that much clout in Texas politics. Later Mexican-American Democrats and Republicans would dominate the state. The election was important enough to bring in a former President, Dwight Eisenhower, to join the campaign. Hot Furnace (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hot Furnace: Could you make a policy-based argument? This argument is about a person, not a race, anyway. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this case, the candidate was not elected but he was important in the historical sense. We shouldn't restrict politicians with articles to only those who won an office. Hot Furnace (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on my standards. He served in several civic and political committees at a fairly high level. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on national coverage of the election and Eisenhower campaigning. The article needs work as I would say at least the first 50% is background that doesn't address what makes him notable, and the election is insufficiently covered. I'll add to it if the result is keep, based on things such as [35] and [36]. This is not just the case of a run-of-the-mill congressional challenger that lost. MB (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to National Highway 183 (India) by nominator. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 06:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Highway 220 (India)(old numbering)[edit]

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

The Highway is renamed as NH 183

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Cantonese origin[edit]

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

A content fork of List of English words of Chinese origin, with all of the content from this page originating from the other article. This duplicate article serves very little purpose given the existence of the earlier article. All content is copied exactly from the other article, word-for-word, with no valid CC-SA-3.0 attribution. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary content fork of List of English words of Chinese origin. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas a content fork from List of English words of Chinese origin. By he way, most of these would be seen by English speakers as "Chinese words," not "English words." Edison (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as 1) the contents are not identical, for example "yum-cha." 2) Merging means a redirect link instead of plain disappearance of the article. 3) Merging also means distinguishing Cantonese and other Chinese origins in the "List of English words of Chinese origin" article, similar to “zh:英语借词#中文借词.” Gordoncy (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this topic move to Wiktionary better. Because Cantonese is NOT the dialect for Chinese (Both them CANNOT communicate with each other.). Additionally, some words are NOT similiar to zh:英语借词#中文借词, and a few word CANNOT be expressed by Mandarin. --WKDx417 (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Re "yum-cha" that is not English, not used in English. Similarly "Gweilo". I don’t see anything else on there that is not in List of English words of Chinese origin. I do see a lot of improper copy and paste without attribution.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's something called Hong Kong English. Timmyshin (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lu[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. LK (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I really don't see a claim that he is notable as an academic. The claim to notability appears to be more as an author and businessperson. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having his work published by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal is not enough to make him notable. We lack sources to show anything else might.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I actually reviewed this years ago and it simply has not changed at all, nothing at all for any applicable notability and the noticeable vandalism along with also nothing potentially convincing is all enough for deleting. I would've frankly PRODed instead. SwisterTwister talk 01:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morton J. Marcus[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. LK (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable economist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article is mainly focused on public rather than academic activities, but presents no evidence of general notability. He also doesn't appear to pass our standards for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I examined the article and found nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Matsui[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. LK (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because she is not an academic. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable for being one of the few female senior bankers in Japan and also for coining "Womenomics". There is a bloomberg article, another bloomberg article and WSJ blog. This article in Forbes (though technically written by a former Goldman Sachs employee) also explains that she is one of the few public faces of Goldman Sachs. She is generally quoted/associated with "Womenomics" as it is her best known work - see [37],[38],[39] Considering that her work is being referred to by the Japanese Prime Minister (and she has been interviewed by NHK for her opinions), I think she is notable enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources to pass GNG as provided by Lemongirl942 Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Upon a review of available sources, the subject passes WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion can continue on talk page as to where to move to J04n(talk page) 19:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 WGC-Cadillac Championship[edit]

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

Event won't be played by this name due to Cadillac no longer sponsoring per this[40]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question. According to the main article about this tournament, WGC-Cadillac Championship, it's not the first time the sponsor has changed or the location has moved. Why isn't the appropriate action here a rename of the article (and presumably also of the main article) rather than deletion? The article does need updating in any case, since we already know they're moving it to Mexico City next year and renaming it as the WGC-Mexico Championship. [41] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I would think that the recent announcements increase notability. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 19:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps at best until it can be established this will be an actual likely search, because if not, it's it's deleted as an unlikely chance. If it is likely, it can then be redirected later. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 2017 WGC-Mexico Championship or possibly just 2017 WGC Championship. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swanest[edit]

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

The refs are press releases, or mere notices or official announcements. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far nothing at all for any applicable notability, newly started and only localized with only expected coverage shows nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove deletion request I dont understand why this page is still being challenged, it has already gone through this twice before. We came to agreement that its coverage Is notable, its is not infact just localised (see ETF.com) what else needs to be convincing? These are all personal views, the page abides by Wikipedia guidelines and is exactly equivalent (and less bias) of MoneyFarm. Please explain if you wish to delete this why MoneyFarm or similar pages are okay as this is hit and miss moderation. (Marcusw572 (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

'Comment You are right about one thing MoneyFarm is at least equally inappropriate as a WP article. I've just listed it for deletion.We have unfortunately a good deal of promotional junk in Wikipedia, and the first thing to do is to not add to it. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG im not sure what your goal is here but you appear to be unravelling wikipedia unnecessarily, I believe you are approaching the moderation of pieces with the wrong point of view, the Swanest page is a factual non promotional summary of information that is not easily obtainable on the internet, it serves purpose as a notable informative page. I believe you are waging a fruitless assult targetting all 'non suitable / junk pages' what is junk to one person is totally helpful and relevant to another... I believe this needs more input from other members on wikipedia. (Marcusw572 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete @Marcusw572 there is a certain track record and degree of economic/social impact that a company needs to have had in order to merit an article in Wikipedia. Swanest may well be on its way to building such an impact, but from the provided references in the article, it does not seem to be there quite yet. I suggest trying to publish again once the company is more established and has made a stronger economic/social impact. Star Islington (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep @Star Islington please refer to the parallel conversation here as this view is not shared by all on wikipedia. Please also note the criteria from WP:COMPANY, this is a notable entity and has place on Wikipedia. I can understand where your coming from, but wikipedia serves purpose by containing useful information that is hard to find from other sparse locations. There are countless pages across wikipedia that do not meet the aforementioned criteria, at what point does an entity become 'established' or having a suitably 'strong economic/social impact' there is a huge amount of wikipedia that serves as informative references. Robo advisory is a very new area emerging, having any information on the subject and who is involved is very helpful start point as to expand from, i see the net result of removing this pages as negative overall. Having this page does not take away from wikipedia, if anything it is indirectly helping build a foundation for this new emerging area (by including those who are leading it!) (Marcusw572 (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Weak keep and take heed that an article about something you're involved with is not necessarily a good thing as Swanest is documented in several news sources about pulling a silly April Fools gag that didn't go down very well. I have cleaned up the article a bit, removed some puffery and added the April Fools' reference (there are other news sources that reported this, but they're all referring back to the same thing). I told the creator to use WP:AFC and put the article in draft space but they didn't take my advice. Now they're stuck with something negative about the firm, which we have to keep in order to adhere to a neutral point of view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 please keep your edits and comments neutral, regardless of whether someone else did or didnt do as you said in the past does not mean you should continue to fruitlessly interfere - personal opinions have no place on Wikipedia . Thank you for adding the negative press piece - I was unaware that it was that ill received (i saw very little press on the matter). I have readded the information which is infact not puffery or a non negative point of view. Its important that the description is done with a non promotional manner. (Marcusw572 (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete I see nothing here to demonstrate notability. References do not show significant independent coverage. Indistinguishable from tens of thousands of other companies. WP is not a business directory. This article is promotional. MB (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable start-up company. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Please can you refer to the parallel discussion on MoneyFarm this exact same discussion has taken place and been rendered as a keep as the company as in this case was deemed notable and non promotional - neutral tone in article. I am struggling to understand how the sources in this case can be deemed non notable - simply because some of the largest coverage they have is from Belgian press...? (109.152.202.6 (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Pearson[edit]

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

Not notable as an author. The only book of hers in WorldCat, "Pathways to success and happiness" is self published and in no libraries. No reliable third party sources. See the AfD on her company, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Coaching Institute DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing at all convincing, especially not independently notable and anything that comes with her Institute is certainly not convincing either. Nothing at all better. SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Brief mention in the SMH six years ago for being one of several recipients of a low-notability small business award. OnionRing (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Speed[edit]

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

No actual notability . Being a newsreader on BBC is insufficient for an article. No independent sources DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not NotableJadeslair (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local non-notable news reader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly classic deletion material I would've also nominated, nothing at all convincing for any other solidity and notability apart from her localized journalism. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable news announcer. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, there is a great deal more about her than you'd expect from this article which is highly recentist. However, I suspect for subjects who remain well known it is better to have no article at all than such a poor one. This will give someone the opportunity to create a balanced article without being burdened by what we have at present. Thincat (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' The rationale given for the deletion ( Being a newsreader on BBC is insufficient for an article) smacks of elitism. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what way:the meaning was being a newsreader even on BBC ... . Some jobs in any profession require more creativity than others, and the description here sounds like the bootom of the pyramid. And, more important as WP traditionally sees it, there's no evidence that the world thinks otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Some jobs in any profession require more creativity than others: Does a News presenter require less creativity? Is this wp:verifiable? 14:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Existing source isn't independent of the subject, and I can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:BASIC from Google searches. Qwfp (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorcha Faal reports[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The references don't refer directly to Sorcha Faal. If the website isn't notable enough for a wikipedia article, then a single contributor certainly isn't. Lrieber (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article isn't a biography, and it isn't about the website. The topic of the article is the reports that appear on the website. Those reports do have significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore the topic merits an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the RSes are significant coverage, all appear to be treating the reports as novelty objects of fun, generally in passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like the news articles are referring to the website rather than "Sorcha Faal". Maybe redirect to a new article on whatdoesitmean.com? Would still need cleanup though. Lrieber (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I note, the references don't even say anything about the actual website either. You can see much discussion on the name for the article on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to delete - it was killed at AFD once already (as Sorcha Faal), it was resurrected as a completely credulous bio, then when the puffery and source abuse was removed it was pivoted sideways to focus on the reports. The reports are barely notable or spoken of in the press except as objects of fun - all the reporting is "look at the silly thing!" and none of the citations in the article is actually about the site. There is no actual information available on the source of the reports; the article contains no actual information about the reports except that they exist and some press makes fun of them in passing mentions. There is nothing about the person or organisation writing them. There isn't enough notability nor verifiable reliably-sourced information here for an article - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see enough, or really any, coverage in RS about the subject to pass GNG or NORG. At best the analogy here would be using a reporter's bylines as sources for their personal notability which we do not do. Jbh ^Talk 13:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Not notable. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources of these reports as a group to pass WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo (Irish band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zoo (Irish band) (3rd nomination)

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

Why the page should be deleted: Lack of citations, as well as extremely poor grammar (to the point where certain sentences become incomprehensible) AnonymousMusician (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The single citation doesn't even directly talk about the band.Lrieber (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Does not meet WP:NMUSIC in any way. Star Islington (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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