< 21 June	23 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kennebec Regional Development Authority[edit]

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

promotionalism for small business development organization ; no real justification for notability and only very local references DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches are finding a few several links so far but still nothing actually solidly convincing this isn't anything else than a local group. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 22:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the first reference were an article on Wikipedia I would call it a coat rack. It starts out talking about the park, then most of the very short article trumpets the virtues of the T-Mobile located there. The second ref shows that it exists. The third ref connects to its website. It seems some people are putting any old thing on Wikipedia. This organization is not noteworthy - the coverage is local because this is of regional concern. Also, sources other than those connected with the organization are needed. There has to be more coverage than it simply exists to be considered notable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This organization has received only very local coverage, and there isn't even much of that. Clearly fails GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 10:08, 30 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UGC 10[edit]

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

No notability is established, and apparently none exists. There are no published papers specifically about this galaxy, only catalogue entries and lists. Lithopsian (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching GScholar for "UGC 10" finds about 150 hits. Many of those are false positives, but there are two papers [1], [2] that have some info about UGC 10. There is also the simbad entry UGC 10 A, which seems to be a synonym for UCG 10. These together aren't enough for notability, but that the galaxy exists, along with basic properties, is verifiable. --Mark viking (talk)
Delete, while it certainly exists, there's no evidence of notability. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best I can make of the available sources is one or two primary sources which are a short report of the discovery with little or no follow-up. No notability for it's own article. DeVerm (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the two peer reviewed journal sources mentioned above cover this galaxy then it is notable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also listed here [3]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No ADSABS results for UGC 10, UCG 10, nor any of its Simbad aliases, nor its NED aliases (Abell 2694 & PGC 226 being the most hopeful). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above reasons. With respect to Steve Quinn's comments, the journal articles in question are not specifically about UGC10, but include it as a comparison or find it in large-scale surveys, respectively. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 30 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) 05:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Cohen (judoka)[edit]

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

Irrelevant martial artist. All references listed are either passing mentions or lists that briefly speak of Cohen. Nothing in-depth to explain his notability can be found. ALongStay (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm agnostic on his article, but a key question is the notability of his medals at the Pan American Judo Championships. Is this a notable event that would meet WP:NSPORTS? Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my opinion. The Championships are not the same as the Pan-American Games where gaining a medal would contribute to notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still thinking about this but he certainly has had a long career at almost the highest level-don't think I would choose the word Irrelevant.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly the coverage is weak--judo gets virtually no coverage in the U.S., even during the Olympics. However, a 5 time U.S. champion (plus 4 time runner-up) along with winning 4 medals at the continental (actually inter-continental with North and South America) championships seems like significant accomplishments. Definitely meets WP:MANOTE (yes, I know that's an essay) but his accomplishments seem superior to the requirements of other sports listed at WP:NSPORT. Papaursa (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was in the top 3 five, not four, times at the PanAm championships.Mdtemp (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As per above but I would prefer to see better coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The accomplishments are there but the coverage is weak. It's the repeated success that makes him notable to me.Mdtemp (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes WP:MANOTE with a number of achievementsAtlantic306 (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has several notable achievements, and has competed in the World Judo Championships, the highest judo-specific event in the world. Smartyllama (talk) 20:10, 29 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. Hut 8.5 21:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maddi Poteet[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and no sources provided to indicate she played in W-League to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD removed by page creator with no explanation provided. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commentmore information is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.0.222 (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If she has played for Melbourne Victory then she can be notable per WP:NFOOTY. One of the sources within the article mentions her as Maddi Moon. I couldn't find anything substantial on google. Views of experts on Australian football will be helpful here. Hitro talk 13:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @HitroMilanese: I tried to find some sources that would back up that she played for Victory, but she's not listed on the team's current roster and there don't seem to be any articles elsewhere referring to her on the team. Also, Moon is apparently her married name since according to a brief mention here (which mentions nothing about her being a soccer player) she married a minor league baseball player named Logan Moon this past April. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since there are no sources at all to back up that she has ever played for Melbourne Victory, the subject fails on WP:NFOOTY. Hitro talk 16:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:33, 28 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) 05:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homonationalism[edit]

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

This article was created by the same editor (DaddyCell (talk · contribs)) who created the Heteropatriarchy article, and I was unsure whether to bundle the deletion nominations. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion says "If you're unsure, don't bundle it." My argument for the deletion of this article is the same as the one for the Heteropatriarchy article. This article falls in the neologism territory. And, per WP:NEO, I'm usually not for neologism articles on Wikipedia. This term is covered in some WP:Reliable sources (see, for example, the Google Books search), but I still question its WP:Notability, and whether it should be a standalone article even if it is WP:Notable; see the WP:No page section of WP:Notability. I argue that this topic can be covered in an existing article with no need for a separate article and that our readers will be better served that way regarding the topic as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major term in critical theory — an interdisciplinary field that crosses philosophy, political theory, gender studies and more. It grows out of Lisa Duggan's scholarship on the homonormative, and was developed by the scholar Jasbir Puar.This is not a neologism. Is is an important, operating concept with a growing bibliography behind it. It isn't unique to Puar's work, but can be found in the work of diverse scholars. (A simple google scholar search affirms this, producing 2,415 results on a search conducted just prior to posting this.) Note: Jasbir Puar's page has been subject to homophobic and racist vandalism. This query isn't, I hope related to that. Note: Homonormative has an entry, as it should. Judyholliday (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a major term in critical theory, that should be fairly easy to prove. Perhaps you could provide more sources to show its relevance? Also, you assert that it is an "important, operating concept", but what makes it so important? I don't get that from the article itself. Of course, it was just created a few days ago, so perhaps it just needs a bit more time. I'm asking these questions before !voting here because I'm not sure how I feel about this AFD. I like the article, and I think a case can be made for the significance of the term, but as it currently stands, it does seem to go against WP:NEO. -- Irn (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some references — just work with "homonationalism" in the title (excluding Puar's many publications)

Cameron Greensmith and Sulaimon Giwa, Challenging Settler Colonialism in Contemporary Queer Politics: Settler Homonationalism, Pride Toronto, and Two-Spirit Subjectivities. American Indian Culture and Research Journal: 2013, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 129-148.

Paolo Bacchetta and Jin Haritaworn, "There are Many Transatlantics: Homonationalism, Homotransnationalism and Feminist Queer-Trans of Color Theories and Practices" in Mary Evans, ed. Transatlantic Conversations: Feminism as Traveling Theory (Routledge, 2016)

Gianmaria Colpani and Adriano José Habed, "'In Europe It's Different': Homonationalism and Peripheral Desires for Europe" in P.M. Ayoub et. al. (eds), LGBT Activism and the Making of Europe (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) -- note, "homonationalism" appears in the title of other articles from this volume

P Hubbard and E Wilkinson, "Welcoming the World?: Hospitality, Homonationalism and the 2012 Olympics" in Antipode: a Radical Journal of Geography (2014). Full article available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anti.12082/full

Akyra Monet Murray[edit]

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

I'm not sure what the long-term notability is for this person. It is tragic that she was the youngest victim of the deadliest shooting in U.S. history, but her long-term notability seems to be in doubt, as many other victims of the Orlando nightclub shooting have been similarly chronicled by newspapers. Even giving this a wide benefit of doubt, there only seem to be 138,000 results for Murray's name – which doesn't seem to be particularly indicative of notability. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I understand your doubts at to the "long term notability" of this person; however, I fail to see the long-term notability of biographies for people like Rachel Scott, the first victim of the Columbine shooting. Of course, she has a myriad of books written about her, but these books were all written by relatives and the books themselves are not particularly notable books. This is not to say your point is moot but I assumed that since articles like that exist based solely on the fact that one held a superlative title in the shooting (first, youngest) then this would be a reasonable article.

@Benmite: It turns out that Scott may or may not be notable. A case can be argued either way. However, I prefer to merge this article to the Orlando shootings article for now, unless more detailed sources about Murray come out. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I am perfectly alright with the deletion of the article, as long as parts of it can be merged into the article concerning the shooting itself. I now understand that details involving her personal life are not of the utmost importance due to her lack of any particular notability; however, I do think that parts of what I included in this article could be important regarding the article about the shooting. ~benmite (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry to be Mr Nasty, but this seems to be a clear case of ~~WP:BLP1E~~ 'Subjects notable only for one event'. Unless her role is significant (beyond the obvious of having been killed tragically), this has to be a delete. Pincrete (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad & tragic news but WP:BLP1E, WP:CRIME, & WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply. If we are to look at a similar issue, editors judged that Vicki Soto, one of the Sandy Hook teachers should have an article about her, written because of continuing notability re: Presidential Citizens Medal, schools/scholarships being named for her, social movements, in other words her continuing legacy. The other victims - the teachers and children - do not have articles. I don't know if it is possible to merge this with 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting or not - at a quick glance, doesn't seem like there is any place for it to fit within that article. I do regret that someone obviously put a lot of work into creating this content and that it might possibly be deleted. If the consensus is for deletion I would ask the closing administrator to consider possibly moving the content to draft space pending possible inclusion, if notability is established in the future. I don't even know if that is possible. So sad. Shearonink (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, sorry. The fact that she's the youngest and her age can easy be added to the entry for the shooting. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. There are another 48 stories just like this one. We do not need an article on every victim. There is nothing in the article to indicate the subject was notable in life. Likewise, her death was no more notable than all the other victims. WWGB (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry, but it's a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Parsley Man (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable victim of a large scale massacre is still not notable. It is not BLP1E since that is biography of living person, and Murray is dead, but still is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Parsley Man and per nominator. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. A part of the content should be merged in the main article. --Dcirovic (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like others, WP:BLP1E is the issue. Merge info into relevant articles if necessary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 16:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rachel Scott managed to become a successful writer posthumously, as artists sometimes do, but athletes typically have much smaller windows, and sports are generally better appreciated in their own time. If her high school basketball videos start selling well, I'll reconsider, but that seems very unlikely. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E - people must be notable for more than one thing. -- Callinus (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, and being notable for one event. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 02:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL & WP:BLP1E. DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly a sad story, but the subject is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Perhaps a mention in the Orlando nightclub shooting article that she was the youngest victim is warranted, but other than that there's nothing that really sets her apart from any other victim. Omni Flames (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree this is clear case of WP:BLP1E. Tragic and sad, but needs to be notable. Merge.JRockets☯ (talk)

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. KaisaL (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Spears, American TV Producer[edit]

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

Sounds like a great guy, but not a notable one. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable enough body of work. — Wylie pedia 05:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG based on the sources in the article and a couple of searches I did. Right now the sources consist of passing mentions and his IMDB page (which doesn't count). ERK^talk 09:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB is not a reliable source which can be used to show the notability of someone, and all of the other references are short mentions which don't really help to show that the subject passes WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 10:13, 30 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. KaisaL (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Christian Crusade[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources are not that strong, but it is hard to find local news coverage from decades ago. These gatherings would have had a few small articles written about them in obscure papers and church magazines. The sources I found show consensus in what is stated in the article - that it was a Christian charity, active for decades, that organised many events throughout the UK. JianKwai (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The existence isn't in dispute, the notability is what is being disputed. The standard is significant coverage by reliable third party sources. And that coverage needs to be verifiable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews . Article is fully of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because not only is this all currently not convincing for any basic notability, my own searches have also come to show there's no other noticeable coverage thus we only have what's currently listed....which is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(with some regret) Delete -- Since this is defunct, and became so just before the Internet, we are probably not going to get satisfactory sources. This seems to have been a two-person ministry. My normal view is that such ministries are generally NN. The lack of discoverable coverage also points to that conclusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:GNG and using self-published and primary sources, many duplicated Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG for lack of third-party material. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. (non-admin closure). Yet another arm in the acrimony between MSJapan and Kvng. Kvng obviously wants this kept but nominated it for deletion on the premise that MSJapan wanted it deleted. MSJapan doesn't want it deleted. Nobody wants it deleted. There's no real case for deletion and a merger can be hashed out elsewhere. p b p 18:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bengay[edit]

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

MSJapan has boldly redirected this to Johnson & Johnson#Products claiming WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTGUIDE. The article was prodded by CoatThese and I deprodded it and added evidence of notability on the article's talk page. WP:BRD has not so far worked to resolve this so I am bringing this here because I beleive it is MSJapan's desire that my deprod be reversed and the article be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, it is hard to find a history of it because there are so many Ghits for it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close as disruptive - This is a case of WP:POINT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Had I wanted to AfD this, I would have done so; I did not. It was redirected for lack of sources but clearly passing WP:V; not every product has an article on Wikipedia. AfDing an article with a rationale that amounts to a personal attack is not appropriate. MSJapan (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Elisha McPherson Jr.[edit]

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

non notable. The description of him as "Canada's foremost economist" is an advertorial from a political party, the GCCP, reprinted in a newspaper. The pseudo-article , titled "GCPP 2012 Manifesto" which has as its by-line "By Great Consolidated Popular Party" reads "Timothy McPherson described the manifesto as being the most comprehensive coming out of Ghana to date. " and , two sentences later "Mr. McPherson is Canada's foremost economist on pan-African development," DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where close to passing the notability guidelines for economists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 16:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC. I am unable to find coverage of this individual from reliable, independent sources. Virond (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - its possible McPherson is notable as finance minister of the microstate of Accompong, I've started an RfC on Accompong talkpage, question him and his bank, see Talk:Accompong#Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong genuine or fraud. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's only a local position, there's nothing else at all actually convincing from there. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 30 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 and redirect to Social liberalism#Active social liberal parties and organizations. Have decided to redirect along with the deletion consensus as this is a reasonable term that somebody may search (reasonable enough for the duplicate in the first place). KaisaL (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of social liberal parties[edit]

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

A list of social liberal parties is already included in the main article on social liberalism, see Social liberalism#Active social liberal parties and organizations. This list is therefore redundant, or in the worst case, may include inconsistencies or contradictions to the other list. It creates unnecessary extra work to maintain both lists, keep them up to date and clean them from original research (always a problem with lists of this type). This list, unlike the one in the main article, does not cite a single reference, therefore fails WP:Verifiability and has to be suspected of original research. The article social liberalism is not too long, so there is no need to outsource the list of social liberal parties to an extra article. RJFF (talk) 12:35, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per consistency: also other articles on ideologies include lists of parties. --Checco (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the rationale for this deletion, the article is at best redundant and at worst a distraction.--Autospark (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Loughnane[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA with one top tier fight as a loss. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seemed suspicious to me. He's a champion, yet there are no independent references? (The references are from his gym, his management company and his facebook page). I do not believe he meets WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what British Champion means - just like there is no US champion.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it means either. He's not listed at List of current mixed martial arts champions. ubiquity (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep and Improve. I have not been able to find what organization he is a champion of, but he has fought in the UFC (1), and has a significant professional record noted in a top MMA site (2). He appears to have also signed a multi-fight deal with Bellator (3) and (4), so based on this quick search, I think the article is worth keeping. Aust331 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Changing my vote to delete as subject fails WP:NMMA. Aust331 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply fighting in the UFC does not show notability (nor is winning a minor championship). See WP:NMMA for the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Papaursa (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noted more reasons than just fighting in the UFC. The subject has had significant coverage ESPN, Mirror, etc., has an established professional record (Sherdog), and has signed a multiple fight deal with one of the biggest MMA organizations in the world, Bellator MMA ([4]), all of which provide sufficient evidence of notability. Aust331 (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at the MMA notability criteria (WP:NMMA). Just being a pro fighter doesn't make him notable, nor does fighting for second tier organizations.Mdtemp (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMMA: “Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization.” Brendan Loughnane has fought for the UFC (1), BAMMA (https://www.bamma.com/fighters/brendan-loughnane), and has a signed a multi-fight deal with Bellator (3). All three are WP:MMATIER organizations.Aust331 (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria says "top tier" not "any tier".Mdtemp (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct; I was surprised to find BAMMA under the 2nd-Tier category as it's an organization that comes up often in the MMA community (at least in the UK). Aust331 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG and definitely fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails the MMA notability criteria. He also fails to meet WP:GNG. Links to his fight record and results reporting are not significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 14:38, 28 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. No bar to any redirects by this title. postdlf (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in June[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT; no need for a stand-alone list Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Dingo: So, which policy does it violate? --S I 14:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is just a list of lists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary list of lists. There's nothing particularly notable about deaths that happened in different Junes. Lists of deaths by year should make the cut but not lists of deaths in different years by month. MLA (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT. Not even potentially useful. Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Death in June (band included in "See also"), as a likely mistake, with hatnote there to direct people to "Deaths in June nnnn" in some generalised way. PamD 09:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We already have lists of deaths per specific month of each year and that's all we need. Ajf773 (talk) 09:06, 30 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 Miss Malaysia#Miss Malaysia World. Deor (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Malaysia[edit]

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

Unsourced contentfork of Miss Malaysia#Miss Malaysia World. The Banner talk 11:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable -- for example, see Meet the 20 Beautiful and Brilliant Women of Miss Malaysia World 2016. Andrew D. (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see Daily Mail, the source given above is hardly RS (i.e. it's a redtop tabloid-style website) and the subject is entirely non-notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Redirect. As mentioned above Daily Mail is not a reliable source. This subject fails WP:GNG without any independent reliable sources to validate notability. ERK^talk 10:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll buy that this is a valid search term, so I've changed my !vote to redirect per Melanie. No need to merge since there's nothing significantly different that's reliable on the existing page. ERK^talk 12:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about a redirect to Miss Malaysia#Miss Malaysia World ? --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Melanie, as a valid search term. ansh 666 02:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge content into Miss Malaysia#Miss Malaysia World. As is stands it is a low encyclopedic value list low notability people. Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Speed (TV Show)[edit]

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

Previously at PROD. Removed by article creator. Reasoning was: WP:TOOSOON for an article on this TV show. Googling the name brings no reliable sources. It's also possible the page was created by someone affiliated by the show because the user has the same name as the host. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional. Clearly fails GNG and TOOSOON (if ever). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No tie-in to Top Gear as alleged, and couldn't even be arsed to use original art, cribbing off BBC art. YouTube fakery is clear. Nate • (chatter) 09:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at Top Speed. WP:TOOSOON at least hints at future projects. This one appears to not be on radar (also a YouTube series). — Wylie pedia 05:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG. There's nothing to validate this production's notability or meet WP:TVSHOW. ERK^talk 10:44, 30 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. KaisaL (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armor Defense Inc[edit]

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

Current PROD removed by Toddst1 but I still confirm the PROD here considering there's nothing at all minimally better suggesting this can be improved with both notability and substantial improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another corporation with sources based on PR releases. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not notable and promotional. It's time we stopped acccepting sources such as the blog posts and press releases that are used for this article. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 30 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. KaisaL (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Drake (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

My searches have by far found nothing actually solidly convincing to suggest solid independent notability, current amount of news is still not actually solid for his own article thus questionability still beams here, and I have also nominated the company's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armor Defense Inc. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. part of a promotional campaign, along with his business. No notability for either . DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 30 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. WP:CSD#G3 hoax. Appreciate the good faith in taking it to a discussion first, but I'd say this is blatant. Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Sport Time Live[edit]

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

Leaning WP:HOAX. Unsourced for a year. It doesn't appear in Nine Network (the network it's on), it doesn't get a hit on the network webpage, it doesn't appear in Template:Australian sports TV series (and someone should have noticed it by now), and doesn't appear in any of the named hosts' articles. I can't get a GHit on it in anything that isn't a wiki, there's no GNews, and honestly, a 2.5 hour weekly program shown in five out of six Australian states right after the news and hosted entirely by known newspeople should have a footprint. Article creator is a persistent hoaxer, but I can't outright prove it's a hoax with enough certainty. If someone wants to make that determination during the AfD because of WP:DUCK, be my guest. Should that be the case, I'd additionally request a SALT to prevent recreation. MSJapan (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Mattson[edit]

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another NN article among hundreds of AfDed stubs from Dolovis, who routinely created articles claiming (against unanimous consensus) that participation in youth amateur tournaments somehow passed NHOCKEY's requirements. This has never been true, and no evidence the subject passes the GNG -- beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE -- was ever proffered. Ravenswing 07:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the awards he has won (see WP:NHOCKEY #4).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure the USHL a high enough league to qualify for NHOCKEY #4. That said, being named the top defenseman in the league may well have earned him sufficient coverage to meet GNG (I haven't checked yet). Rlendog (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The USHL is not a major junior league, and doesn't qualify for #4. As far as passing the GNG, I only found one bit amidst the usual horde of WP:ROUTINE mentions -- a short piece on the Comcast Sports Net Chicago site. It'd be tough to argue from that that a USHL award confers presumptive notability. Ravenswing 19:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is too low to meet GNG, and the award is not enough to gain notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He might meet #4. I am not sure that it is any lower a league than the Central Hockey League to be honest. I know I always considered its awards on par with Major Junior even if the league itself is not. That being said, there is no proof he meets GNG that I can find which in the end rules the day. -DJSasso (talk) 10:55, 29 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Nicholls[edit]

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject is a career backup on the fringes of English pro hockey, which fails all standards of WP:NHOCKEY. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 07:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article on a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 23 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. Rlendog (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teigan Zahn[edit]

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject is a career mid-minor leaguer without especial distinction. The honors listed in the article were won in the lightly regarded Canadian university college hockey, which fails all standards of WP:NHOCKEY. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 07:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NHOCKEY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article on a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 23 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 appears to be at play here. KaisaL (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Elsner[edit]

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment This page can be improved by using a more reliable referencing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuuuu1000 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed? Could you elaborate on your basis for thinking so? Ravenswing 08:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject is a career minor leaguer without especial distinction, and even by Dolovis' standards this is baffling: at the time he created the article, the subject had played a single season of German minor league hockey -- complete and utter failure of NHOCKEY. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article on a non-notable hockey player. We have far too many of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this should be a clear keep, regardless of who created the article. He has made 40 DEL appearance, 33 of those last season, the highest level of ice hockey in Germany and a fully professional league, therefore meets criteria 1 of WP:NHOCKEY. He also received coverage in German media, like in this article about him in the Augsburger Allgemeine (in German). Calistemon (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Criteria #1 does not, in fact, enshrine every top national league, a somewhat illogical premise that would bizarrely accord presumptive notability to any player in a beer league in Puerto Rico or Egypt. If you'd like a list of the leagues that count towards #1, please see WP:NHOCKEY/LA. As to your source, that looks good. Have you others? The GNG requires significant coverage from multiple sources. Ravenswing 11:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a search for David Elsner on just the Augsburger Allgemeine website, the local newspaper for the region, brings up 19 results, among them David Elsner in an unusual position. Further google searches for David Elsner and ERC Ingolstadt combined bring up more German-language results from ice hockey-specific publications and newspapers. As to your list of notable ice hockey leagues it categorieses the Deutsche Eishockey Liga as a minor league but it is the top level professional ice hockey league in Germany as stated in criteria 1 Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league. Some contradiction there but the list provided is an essay, not a binding guideline unlike WP:NHOCKEY. Calistemon (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it is just as binding as NHOCKEY because NHOCKEY references it. That being said NHOCKEY itself isn't binding, only GNG is. Top level in the Wikipedia sense is not referring to the top of a countries hockey ladder. If it did we would be including players from Egypt and countries like that which clearly don't write articles about every ice hockey player. Top level means the highest leagues in the world that players can play in where every player in them would be 100% covered by multiple sources. The DEL is not that, we have found many many players who have played years in that league and never been covered at all. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Calistemon (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He falls well short of WP:NHOCKEY and I can't find anything beyond routine coverage where he is mentioned. Deadman137 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above he doesn't remotely meet NHOCKEY and I can't find any references that meet GNG or rise above the level of routine coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 27 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. Rlendog (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Aneloski[edit]

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. To a superficial reader, there are a number of honors listed for this career mid-minor leaguer. None, however, meet NHOCKEY's standards; honors in lower-tier junior leagues or "All-academic team" citations have long been regarded by all-but-unanimous consensus (the sole dissenter being Dolovis himself) as not meeting them. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article on a non-notable hockey player. I sometimes think it would be better if we deleted these articles in larger groups instead of on a case by case basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 23 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) 05:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mort Glickman[edit]

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

This prolific movie music composer is borderline IMO. He gets a couple of pages in The Encyclopedia of Film Composers, but a lot of his work is uncredited,[5] even at the end of his career, and all or nearly all for low-budget B movies. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is included in the Encyclopedia of Film Composers and the written work referenced in the article, seems to pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a resume and is credited. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Everyone on IMDb has a resume and is credited. What has he done to satisfy WP:ARTIST? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that IMDb is not a reliable indicator of notability. Why, then, do you cite it in support of this nomination? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To show that most of his work is uncredited throughout his career. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case the point I am making is unclear, I mean that the nominator stated a clear reason for keeping, i.e. that the subject has an entry in a print encyclopedia from a major academic publisher. The point of our notability guidelines is that we follow such reliable sources rather than our personal opinions about importance. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has a significant number of released works ^[1]. Star Islington (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.soundtrackcollector.com/catalog/composerdiscography.php?composerid=1861

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there are four keeps, much of the justification is very weak. Additional input is needed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the Keep votes are noticeably still questionable with there still being no convincing signs to improve this to a independently notable level, my searches and examinations have found nothing better too. Delete as a result of all of this. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Atlantic306's rationale: a long deceased person who gets substantial (multipage) coverage in a bona fide encyclopedia on a notable topic like film music belongs in our encyclopedia as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In one book. What about GNG's "multiple sources are generally expected"? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 22 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) 04:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Foreign relations of Iceland § Bilateral Relations. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Venezuela[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Iceland has never had an ambassador to Venezuela and no evidence that the non resident ambassador has actually done anything for Iceland in Venezuela LibStar (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge,~~ to Foreign relations of Iceland § Bilateral Relations. This source verifies that the subjects have been representatives of Iceland to Venezuela, but it's unclear whether or not they were/are ambassadors. A merge will improve the merge target article, which presently has no content inre Venezuela. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to neutral. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the Icelandic foreign ministry website neither country have an embassy in the country in question. Iceland does have an consulate in Venezuela, but for me that does not really account for anything.--Snaevar (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:30, 14 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) 04:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the standard for inclusion should be Ambassador in residence. Non-resident Ambassadorships should fall below the line for inclusion. MLA (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect if wished, as there's still nothing to suggest its own actual article soon. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge content. Aoziwe (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bond Aviation Group[edit]

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

A PROD was challenged and re-prodded 3 times. I don't support the PROD, but it looks like the only way to resolve this will involve AfD.

The PROD rationale was this: "this page is no longer valid. Bond Aviation Group no longer exists and all the detail on this page is either incorrect or can be accessed from a better route. It's not correct to say it has become Babcock Mission Critical Services - this is a much larger international group of companies. Bond Aviation Group has been replaced by Babcock Mission Critical Services offshore and Babcock Mission Critical Services Offshore, both of which have their own Wikipedia pages, linked from their old names of bond Air Services and Bond Offshore Helicopters." Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Flerg: - please comment

keep - If Bond Aviation Group has ceased or changed, then the article will need updating. That is not reason to delete it though. We still keep articles on historically notable buggy-whip manufacturers. I would also remind Flerg that once a PROD has been challenged, that aticle cannot be re-prodded. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we don't delete articles just because companies change name or evolve as this is an encyclopedia not a listing of current companies. If it factually wrong then it can be corrected. MilborneOne (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Dingley apologies if I am doing this wrong. I am not very au fait with the editing process. If it is appropriate that the page remains I will make edits to ensure the evolution of the business is clear and that it doesn't mislead any visitors.FlergFlerg (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead perhaps as I'm not seeing anything particularly convincing of the needed substance and my searches have found only a few links, nothing else to suggest the needed improvements. This can be mentioned however amount needed at the Babcock article. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:12, 14 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) 04:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although I am not certain, this sounds like a violation of WP:OWN, a company employee desiring for an article on a subsidiary of a company to be deleted. This isn't how Wikipedia works - for example, Microsoft has purchased LinkedIn, but the LinkedIn article isn't going anywhere. Blythwood (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milborne One....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:22, 29 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. The delete comments all came before the new coverage added after relisting. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unleashed (Skillet album)[edit]

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

I absolutely have come to hate it when editors add albums that in no way meet WP:NALBUM just because there's a short press release due to a per-release video and a partial track listing. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO, Walter is being misleading. We don't have a "partial" track listing, we have a full one. It's available for anyone to see in the press release, and on the pre-order screen on iTunes. We also album cover, news coverage (including, but not limited to, Jesus Freak Hideout), promotion in the way of two official lyric video releases (one has almost 2 million views, the other just under 600,000). The album is even available for pre-ordering in online stores like the aforementioned iTunes, and the two released songs are available to listen to on Spotify. I contend this is not too soon, as Walter proposes. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 01:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not being misleading in any way. You have a listing of track names, but what are the lengths of those tracks? Who wrote those tracks? Also, what about the genres. Where did you pull them from? The one RS you have doesn't discuss the genre. The one at the iTunes Store is not a RS, but at least they know that "Christian" should be capitalized. I know the JFH press release (not a RS). I have seen all of the releases through the band's Facebook and Twitter feeds. None meet RS. Now, show us the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. breaking that down: significant coverage means that there is a great deal written about the subject, not a mention of the songs; reliable sources means that the multiple sources are all known for good reporting on the subject; independent of the subject means they're not getting payola for promoting the band and they're not just republishing press releases to fill space. I'm sorry, but when I looked I found that there are none. That's why I initially redirected and then nominated. It will be notable. Possibly as soon as eight weeks from now, but we don't peer into WP:CRYSTAL balls, we only create content for currently notable subjects, and this album, as of the first week of June 2016, is not currently notable which is why I have nominated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUM. Also, there is hardly any material except for the track listing. The article as currently exists is specifically forbidden by the WP:NALBUM guideline. On a side note, video views is not a basis for notability. LK (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Video views is not a basis for the notability of the album on which it is released, let alone the video's. See WP:NSONG Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references on the article say delete NO Evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel talked to them about "trying new things" on Unleashed. Billboard magazine found out they "Feel Really Inspired", making their new album Unleashed. New Release Today staff writer Mary Nikkel predicted on how she thinks the new tracks are going to sound. I would say this satisfies general criteria for notability by now.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 22:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the refs, but Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is from October and does not mention the album by name. Nor does the year-old Billboard ref. NRT is speculative, but interesting. Not sure this meets the coverage. However, the previous !vote that focused only on the refs in the article is not appropriate either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz you have a point i can read the reference article on billboard magazine ^[1] did not mention this very album ,,, so this source is not valid Samat lib (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Billboard magazine

Comment. I agree that it is too soon to have an article on the album (and it would be great if people waited before creating such articles), but that doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted. If we have verifiable facts that are not already in the article on the band, the first option should be to merge to the article on the artist. If there's nothing appropriate to merge, then a redirect should be the next option to be considered. I see that this was redirected and reverted. With what we have now, I think a redirect would be appropriate, but with only 7 weeks to its release, it would probably be a waste of effort doing anything but leaving this and seeing what coverage emerges in the coming weeks. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too. I redirected and based on previous efforts, didn't bother to have an edit war over this. We need to stop allowing creation of album articles until they're notable and have admins lock redirects until they are notable, but they're not willing to do that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There should be a speedy or admin oversight on this sort of article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:20, 14 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) 12:04, 14 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) 04:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Found a Blabbermouth source that talks about the songs and mentions the name of the album. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good amount of sources on the article about the album and there is enough info about it at this point to just keep the article. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @TheSickBehemoth: I only see one. Please list the others. There will be more because this is clear WP:TOOSOON, but the existint sources discuss an album, but it's not clear it's this album. Only the recent blabbermouth addition is a good RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This confuses me. If New Release Tuesday and Jesus Freak Hideout are reliable enough to be cited for reviews, why aren't they good enough to source the prose? That seems to me that it would smack in the face of WP:RS. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 22:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry. I hadn't seen either of those. My apologies. They are RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to add now that there is now a music video for "Feel Invincible" off this forthcoming album. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 00:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes the video released, not the album notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, that's what the sources provided on the article do. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 08:50, 30 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move One Inc[edit]

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

Insufficient referencing for notability: Refs 1 & 2 are absurdly irrelevant, tho there may have been something there previously; 3 I cannot find but seems from the titlet o be general, not about the company. 4 is their own publication, 5 is a clear press release, 6 is a self-promotinginterview, 7 8 & 9 are just listings. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom's description of sources. Also, I am unable to find coverage of this topic in any mainstream or reliable sources. Does not appear to pass WP:ORG, or WP:GNG. The only thing I discovered in Google "news" were many links to a lot of entries in the Move One Inc blog. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is so concerning, I nearly actually speedy tagged it, nothing at all minimally better for applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom; references in the article are deceiving. Aust331 (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John H. N. Fisher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tediously this article has been revived after a previous AfD and a speedy deletion template has been removed by an experienced editor who should know better (though I'll admit the previous AfD did not attract a great deal of participation). The sources are entirely press releases, potted biographies on business/company websites and name checks online. There's no evidence of significant reliable news coverage about Fisher. I'd recommend it is re-redirected to Draper Fisher Jurvetson and prevented from being re-recreated. Sionk (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if not Speedily, per nomination. This smacks of a publicist trying to gain fame for a rich client. Wikipedia is not a directory of venture capitalists. Toddst1 (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I put the speedy on, DGG was correct in removing it as the author changed the article with added references that need to be considered at AFD. I don't have a view on deleting or keeping it. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article on a non-notable venture capitalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 23 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of college football stadium video boards[edit]

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

This used to be a list of the largest such boards; now it's just a list of all these boards--yes, TV screens in football stadiums. The topic itself strikes me as fairly trivial given that just about every stadium has one (we could also list bathrooms or elevators), and a list of them is even trivialer. The sourcing doesn't add to the notability of the subject of the article: it's mostly primary sourcing, linking the stadium's website or some such thing. This is nothing more than cruft, I'm afraid--though I am happy to see that Auburn is number one in something. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't have this for NFL, MLB or NHL/NBA venues outside of sourced mentions in individual venue articles; well-sourced on first glance, but pretty much all leads back to each glory page on the scoreboard manufacturer's website (Daktronics being most prominent here). Reduce it to the top 20 largest and this might make more sense, but listing every NCAA venue with a tri-color LED screen is a bit way too much. Nate • (chatter) 09:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Or we could have a list of the smallest ones... Drmies (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually considering nominating this list for deletion a while ago but I agree with you. I don't see the point of listing EVERY single video board in college football. The only point to schools having such big video boards is to say that they have the biggest. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic value. KaisaL (talk) 17:17, 30 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland International[edit]

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

Poorly sourced. Promotional. Doesn't seem to exist any more. Rathfelder (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:COMPANY. Arguments for WP:GNG are poor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The promotionalism can be removed; that it ndoes not exist any more is irrelevant if it ever was notable. there do seem to be sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I actually ending up at this article as I was looking for Heartland Alliance, which turns out to be a completely unrelated organisation (but with Chicago links). This article is completely promotional in tone and seems to be written by people with close connections. I've just tried to follow some of the references to see what Heartland International is all about, but it's a bit of dead end really. They look like a legitimate organisation, but don't appear to be notable to me, so I vote Delete. Seaweed (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now actually and Draft instead as I examined the article and also searched for sources but to no avail it seems, delete until better can actually be made. When we can hope for improvements but often this will not happen that soon. SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is not relevant that the organisation is no longer operating under this title, nor that its "Citizen Bridges International" successor appears to have minimal presence. However, in terms of the notability of the organisation, many of the given references are but passing mentions in local coverage. The most substantial seems to be the paragraph summary for Heartland International, among other organisations, in the "Planting International Seeds" bulletin article. That serves to verify, but I don't see it as the extent of substantial coverage needed for WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 11:28, 27 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Himollywood[edit]

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

Completely unsourced.Guthix no more (talk) 23:47, 21 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non notable. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I concur, not a single usage of the term found. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – It exists, but only finding mentions in mostly non-reliable sources per Wikipedia's standards; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable film industry. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:27, 30 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 keep. - Withdrawn - Looking through my laptop history I somehow searched for "Evelyn Künnek" hence why I found bugger all, Under her actual name there's tons of sources as well as the sources here, Had I copied & pasted her whole name we wouldn't of been here now so my apologies for this afd/wasting everyones time (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Künneke[edit]

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

The article has twice been speedied per A7 in 2013 and I'm seeing nothing different now, (I fugured an AFD would be more productive than simply slapping an A7 on it), No evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An obituary in The Telegraph says she was also known as Evelyn King. An article on dewiki (and es and fr) has sources that look good at first glance. Lelijg (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ENT #1 (>50 films). Further, she wrote 2 autobiographies and is mentioned in many books about German light music in the 1940s & 50s. She had obituaries in Der Spiegel, Die Welt, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, and many more. Her marriage to an unknown businessman in 1963 was noted in Der Spiegel – under the headline "Evelyn Künneke". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Support Michael Bednarek's reasons. And another obit: The Independent of 30 May 2001 says: "..."Sing Nachtigall, Sing"...the second most popular hit of wartime Germany after Dietrich's "Lili Marlene"..." and "...Rainer Werner Fassbinder... rediscovered her as a forthright witness of the Nazi period..." Lelijg (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, among other things, Künneke has an entry in an authorative and widely cited printed encyclopedia about German cinema, the CineGraph's Lexikon zum deutschsprachigen Film published in 1984. Cavarrone 10:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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