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 by User:Sphilbrick following author request (G7). (non-admin closure) Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tealyra[edit]

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

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) by a very large margin. Schwede66 23:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article has no independent references; nothing in the article evens suggests notability. MB (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject's coverage in reliable sources is almost non-existant, thus not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From author[edit]

Perhaps I should save you time. Closed, thank you all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rideron (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rider[edit]

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

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

Notability per WP:ANYBIO seems doubtful. Created by single-purpose account DigitalWikiMan (subject's start-up company is named "Digital Wingman"), which makes it even more fishy. bender235 (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He got some local coverage ([1] and [2]), but I don't think there's enough here to satisfy WP:BIO. The awards don't look like they would confer notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above, any waves made are small and local.TheLongTone (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete run of the mill businessman with no clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too soon at best, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 1 April 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Injured Engine[edit]

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

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and isn't listed at MobyGames (our best index of offline game reviews). czar 22:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw. The three reviews are sufficient for the general notability guideline when added to the potential book sections. Nice sleuthing czar 02:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 22:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches found nothing better and this current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are too many relevant-looking hits at Google Books for me to feel comfortable in saying that it should be deleted. Here's a sampling: Computer simulations: a source book to learning in an electronic environment (Garland Publishing), which looks like it may have an entire chapter on the game; this article from InCider magazine, which looks like it has a review; Educational Computing: A Guide to Practical Applications (Gorsuch Scarisbrick), which looks to discuss it, albeit on a single page; this article in Kiplinger's Personal Finance of all things; and this article in InfoWorld. Gorsuch Scarisbrick seems to be part of Pearson Education. These aren't great results, but they did give me hope. I searched archive.org, and I found even more reviews. I'm not entirely sure I can link to them, because they seem like they might be copyright violations.
  • Home Computer Magazine Volume 5, Issue 4. Reviewed by Rhea J. Grundy on page 39.
  • Commodore Microcomputers Issue 37. Reviewed by Mark Cotone on page 14.
  • Electronic Games Volume 3, Issue 4. Reviewed by Joyce Worley on page 49.

I started adding these reviews to the article, but then my browser crashed. sigh. I'll try to do it again. Anyway, that's at least three full-length reviews, plus the other coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reviews. I think the article shows significantly more notability now. @SwisterTwister: it's got a few sources now; care to look at it again? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate, can you please add the links to the archive.org sources? I think we need more info than the sparse Google Books previews on the first few links to pass judgment, but the reviews would sound good if they are indeed full reviews. Thanks for your help czar 13:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but I don't know how to link to specific pages.

• Home Computer Magazine (tezt)
• Commodore Microcomputers (text)
• Electronic Games (text)

You can click on the text version or view them in a variety of formats. There were a few other hits on archive.org, but they looked like they were likely advertisements, so I didn't bother to read them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [3][4][5] czar 02:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nice job finding those sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Harris[edit]

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

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

Creator of the article de-proded without giving a reason. Cannot go to speedy since claim to notability, formed a band but musician is not independently notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of the page. I don't know how to do this talk thingy, it would be way easier if there was a private messaging system. Anyways, TJ Harris formed one band, then joined another, plus did multiple solo performances, and has also performed with other bands like Relentless Flood. He is independently notable. His discography is massive so far. Him and his band have been nominated for a Grammy once. I feel the page should stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaggoner (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Torn/Push This passes a measure used by MUSICBIO, where he has been part of two notable bands, while I cannot see much if any general notability with regards to coverage of him individually. This is a push, unless you can find some more sources, and this makes me torn with respect to this article being included in this encyclopedia.The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm new to Wikipedia, plus I don't have a good vocabulary. But, I am most definitely not exaggerating his achievements. He has been the front of two bands, plus, he plays multiple instruments. He has been signed by multiple record labels, plus has performed with another band as a featured artist. Massive discography, massive history, massive amount of band and solo performances. It's all over YouTube. Plus, he has also performed live on a radio station, Air1. I don't know what exactly I can do to ensure that this article won't be taken down. Once again, I am new to Wikipedia and everything, so technical terms aren't my strong point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaggoner (talk • contribs) 07:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I am going to help you understand, the Jesus Freak Hideout interview is one source for notability, and it is in the article. We have a second source, from Singing Success, that builds upon the previous article to increase coverage. We have a third source but all I can get is the link to show they interviewed him at Christian Music Review, for their Kingdom Builder series. I would say with these three sources he passes general notability, which would allow for the creation of his article on this encyclopedia, so now we should keep the article.The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew about the Singing Success source and was gonna add it later. But it's good you know about that too. I'm trying to finish his "Decyfer Down" section first. Then, I could add his notable instruments, and that he endorses Singing Success. I've gotta type it in a uniform manner, which I'll do really soon. My apologies for the delay, I'm in the middle of my exams which are about to end this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaggoner (talk • contribs) 07:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to start illustrating and proving notability before just throwing up articles, or more of your new pages, articles, and entries will be PRODed or AfDed (e.g. what this discussion going on is called). I would like you to create better articles, so this does not happen time-and-time again. I am more than excited you come to edit this encyclopedia in the Christian music project.The Cross Bearer (talk • contribs) 11:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added information regarding his solo performance of his own single "Walk Love", at Liberty University Convocation. Don't know how to go about adding Singing Success and that Kingdom Builder interview. Thanks for the advice, and please do suggest a good way of adding those two, if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaggoner (talk • contribs) 13:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I integrated it into the article, where now you can see how to do it for yourself in future instances.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 03:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help pal. I made some corrections, added a bit more detail to the info as Harris and I are directly in contact, plus I have cited sources anyways to prove my edits. I hope that the article won't be deleted anymore. Please delete the notice if this article is no longer being considered as an 'article for deletion'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaggoner (talk • contribs) 07:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm....The Cross Bearer assured that after we integrate Singing Success and the Kingdom Builder interview in the article, TJ Harris will have passed all required criteria for having an individual article. So, why is the notice still on the page? Is there any requirement not fulfilled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaggoner (talk • contribs) 13:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Church of San Dionisio (Jerez de la Frontera). MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Dionisio, Jerez de la Frontera[edit]

San Dionisio, Jerez de la Frontera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Duplicates the article Church of San Dionisio (Jerez de la Frontera)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge the two article if anything. Both are approximately the same length and stub class, and technically this is the older of the two articles although the other appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME (from translation of the building registry).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- I would suggest that the target should be Church of San Dionisio, Jerez de la Frontera. This appears to be a fairly typical local church, but being singled out at a conference and having known architects is sufficient to single it out from the mass of medieval parish churches in Europe. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 3 April 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 San Holo. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMISSU[edit]

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

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

Not a notable song. WP:N is not happy. "A song exist and has views on youtube" generally does not warrant an article. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not seeing any notability, no charting, no WP:RS (actually, no references at all.) Main claim to fame is having a 7–figure viewership.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The song is not notable nor is it covered in any reliable sources. Youtube views doesn't cut it. Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect non-notable song to artiste.TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect non-notable song to San Holo via ((R from song)). - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor 314ce[edit]

Taylor 314ce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Basically just an ordinary guitar, with no claim to notability and no need for its own article. The article has been tagged for failing notability and for reading like an advertisement since 2013. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  22:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Colonel Wilhelm Klink is spot on. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. We have a page about the company, and this ordinary guitar in no way merits its own page. Edwardx (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- 1/3 of the article is a promotion, and no secondary sources to confer notability, so delete. In veritas (talk) 16:07, 7 April 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 The Sniper (story).  Sandstein  19:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sniper (short film)[edit]

The Sniper (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I find no evidence of coverage meeting WP:GNG for this film. Search results don't yield reliable sources, and the film meets none of the notability criteria available under WP:NFILM. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  22:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd suggest an A7 nomination, but the film festival appearance puts it just above the notability threshold for speedy deletion criteria - which only requires that there be something that could assert that there is coverage out there. However it doesn't pass overall notability criteria for films, as film festival appearances do not give notability and a search did not produce any RS that would establish notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

• Redirect Having given the thing a face-lift and having watched the film, it would seem to be a decent interpretation of the Liam O'Flaherty short story "The Sniper". As this is sourcable, I believe a redirect and sourced mention in the story article is sensible. If it ever gains notability enough for a separate article, this can always be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:25, 1 April 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. Consensus is more or less that he just about meets SOLDIER so I'm closing as Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Honour[edit]

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

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

A single award of the DSC is not enough to meet WP:SOLDIER. Neither are the GNG met. Nthep (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not even nearly passing WP:SOLDIER, single primary editor so a COI may be the reason for original creation. -crh23 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Having looked at the sources in more detail, I'm going with Weak keep, as he seems to be sufficiently notable to be mentioned by name in sources not specifically about him, but about the operations he was in. Edited 10:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  22:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  22:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  22:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I have found several books just through quickly searching on Google Books that discuss his work on D-Day as extensive and significant. We could do with more on what he did for the next 58 years of his life (no RS on that, and the sources I've seen don't mention his profession or family), but I think notability is just about established anyway. Blythwood (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, largely per the sources added by Blythwood. I'm not sure what criteria the editors who established the WP:SOLDIER criteria would consider a "significant military event" (even the conversation linked to at SOLDIER doesn't discuss that), but the subject does appear to have played an important role in Operation Gambit, and so could potentially meet SOLDIER criteria #5. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai Plaut[edit]

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

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

Plaut is notable only for having a website. Does not seem to meet the guidelines for inclusion. Uses Blogs, commercial adv, etc. Seems to be a hagiographical page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:BIO. I only see passing mentions in blogs and a book. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:BIO, specifically WP:AUTHOR. Not getting much in the way of independent third party sources either, so fails WP:GNG. -crh23 (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  22:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khris Kaneff[edit]

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

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

In terms of online sources, I found nothing for this actor/producer beyond his IMDb entry and two passing mentions in reviews of the 2012 film Foxfur (itself of questionable notability). Fundamentally, he falls short of the basic notability criterion and judging by the IMDb entry, he also falls short of the the actor-specific criteria. Pichpich (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  22:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  22:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as questionable for all applicable notability, simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's nothing meaningful in the article, nothing that passes as a claim of notability and nothing that would support a claim found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and nothing in the search engines shows that he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwordPen Publishers[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG, no major reliable references. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not convincing of any notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find anything via a search to show that this publisher is ultimately notable. None of their works seem to have gained any sort of coverage, nor has the company itself. As far as the article claims and sourcing goes, the sourcing is almost all primary in one format or another. None of the claims are the type that would give notability as the publisher does not inherit notability from being associated with notable persons and the other claims are fairly misleading. Just about any publisher can get a booth at BEA - the only true requirements center around their ability to pay and whether or not they sign up in time. The BEA booklet mention appears to be just a booth listing and an advert - both of which are things that any conference worth their salt would offer to people paying to exhibit. Even if there was an article on the publisher (which does not appear to be the case) it would still be considered a primary source since articles of that nature are meant to promote features of the conference. The claim of recognition from other publishers doesn't really do anything since it's only sourced to the SwordPen website and looks to be the same as a book blurb, which cannot show notability since it's the type of offhand statement issued in order to promote something and is also not easily verified. The mention in Baby & Kids is a reprint of a press release, so that's primary as well. The only non-primary sources are e-commerce sites (which do not belong in an article at all), a legal filing (which could be argued as primary), and a trademark listing (which could also be argued as primary). If not for the link to Barnett, I'd say that this could actually be speedied as A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:ORG. Have been unable to find any reliable sources that assist for notability. The books listed on its website do not appear to be notable either as I have been unable to find any useable reviews for them either; they have been authored by two people, this publisher appears to be a marketing/promotional vehicle for their products. Wiki is not. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not deleteHello very-helpful mods! This is the OP of the SwordPen Publishers page. Firstly, as per Wikipedia's guidelines, SwordPen is indeed a company ([[6]])) and is a notable children's book publishing company as well. To Tokyogirl: Being in the BEA is not as trivial as it sounds; the BEA checks out each booth to confirm they are indeed a legitimate publisher. In fact, SwordPen is part of Ingram distributors as well. Furthermore, a legal filing is public knowledge, and is as unbiased and third-party a document as you can get.

I have also added the sources from The Asia Foundation that SP donated to, as well as the lawsuit between SP and Henry Holt, which is backed by DWT, one of the most prestigious law firms in the world.

I am more than happy to provide any and all evidence needed to create a SwordPen page. If there is anything I can do, please don't hesitate to ask me. I know this company, but I am not being paid to post on Wikipedia. It is a notable and up-and-coming publishing company. Thank you all. Please forgive my less-than-perfect Wiki-etiquette, as I am learning the ropes :).

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 Bryan Ansell. It's up to subsequent discussion and consensus to determine what if anything is merge-worthy.  Sandstein  19:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wargames Foundry[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:CORP - unable to find a single news article or in-depth coverage from reliable source to establish notability. Elaenia (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, also found nothing. GAB^Hello! 13:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment appears to be part of the early history of Games Workshop, and so if the article cannot be improved should probably be merged there or to Bryan Ansell. I also not that there's an awful lot of unsourced material thats resently been blanked from the page - if that could be sourced and brought up to standard that might be a basis for keeping the article. Artw (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches also found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Games Workshop per Artw. BOZ (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• selective merge to Games Workshop, Bryan Ansell per Artw. Redirect is perfectly reasonable and a sentence or three should probably move over. Not leaving a redirect for a 10-year old article is unwise. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On yet further reading, I'm 99% sure there will be some 10-20 year old RSes out there that aren't on line. I'll ask around. Hobit (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No luck so far... Hobit (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've looked through my magazine archive from those days and either the 1976-77 dates are total red herrings, or else the corporation existed but did not market their products to the general public. Bryan Ansell's corporation in 1976-77 was Asgard Miniatures, who don't have an article yet, although I found enough decent sources that I'm thinking of composing one. It's possible that Wargames Foundry were selling directly to Citadel Miniatures, who were based in Newark at the time which is just up the road from Wargames Foundry's address. I don't think they were a public-facing company in their own right. I'd describe the claims in the article as plausible but not sourceable.

  Unless Hobit's researches pull out a RS I don't know about, I think I'm going to have to go with delete. I can also see the argument for a smerge to Bryan Ansell and I would not oppose this outcome; all we'd really be able to merge is a brief mention so the difference between smerge and delete in this case does not amount to much.—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  15:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ormson[edit]

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

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

I believe that this article fails WP:ENT. As per this, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", the subject of this article has only had one role in Coronation Street and appeared as a guest on a daytime show. I cannot see that there is anything worth keeping in this article, I suggest either redirecting to David Platt (Coronation Street) or just deleting this article. 5 albert square (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to David Platt (Coronation Street) as none of this is better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Found some passing mentions. I have added this to the article.--TheDomain (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect, fails WP:ENT. AnemoneProjectors 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for role in U.K's first or second most popular series for 10 years solid,WP: ENT are only guidelines, his national newspaper coverage passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I completely get all the delete !votes. And I understand how strictly applying the guidelines at WP:NACTOR lead you to that decision. That being said, the guy was a regular on a television show for 10 years. A very popular television show. If William Christopher's only role was as the chaplain on M*A*S*H, I'd say that was good enough (and he only appeared in 218 episodes). That being said, I've never seen the show, so I don't know how significant a role it is, but the fact that it's notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, it's probably a decent role. Although, it looks like most of that article is post-Ormson, so if he was merely a glorified extra for those 10 years, than I'd rethink my !vote. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Onel5969: I didn't watch the show when Ormson was it in but it looks like he was in it from a baby to about 10 years old. Most child characters in that age range tend to be "glorified extras" which is why they end up being recast. These 10 years of the character are summarised by a single paragraph in David Platt (Coronation Street)#Storylines, so it looks like that's probably the case. I don't know if he had a speaking part at any point. AnemoneProjectors 11:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to comment - That's precisely my point AnemoneProjectors, I'm not sure. He may have been a glorified extra, or he might have had a part more akin to that of the Olsen twins on Full House. If it's the former, doesn't deserve an article, if its the latter, he does. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder if letting Coronation Street editors know about this AFD might help. AnemoneProjectors 13:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lorene Drive[edit]

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

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

Fails NMUSIC John from Idegon (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches seem to find nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yeah, doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Krueger[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual, no newsworthy references found. Being a VP at Amazon does not infer notability, nor does being a CEO of a non-notable company. A look at the edit history shows a close correlation with someone editing for CollegeGrad which makes me suspect that this is purely self-promotion. Shritwod (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My searches didn't turn up anything for this Brian Krueger that would lead me to believe he meets GNG. The sources on the article right now are: 1) the company he founded's website, 2) his Youtube page, 3) his LinkedIn profile, and 4) the Amazon.com page for a book he wrote. None of that helps. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an accomplished, yet non-notable businessman. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parth Dave[edit]

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

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

No significant coverage of the actor, with no reliable sources even. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 05:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 09:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 09:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 09:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as he only has background characters such as playing so and so's son, and there's nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment: ALL actors, even some of today's most notable, begin with minor roles... and reliable sources confirming his career are available, though sadly not used... so to disagree with the above, through an incomplete IMDB and searches through WP:INDAFD giving us ("Parth Dave" "Master Parth Dave", it appears that he has had enough significant roles since 2003 to meet WP:NACTOR. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MichaelQSchmidt this is not about the roles he played, this is about whether the subject meets the Notability criteria. Secondly, please do not say again about its roles he played without independent sources. Does it has any kind of coverages in media? If yes then say. Third point we are not promotional agency so do not implement it even mate. Thanks. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 06:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in a lack of individual's coverage notability criteria tell us a discussion then has to be about the roles, and so anyone simply and unfoundedly claiming his roles are unsourcable or insignificant is unhelpful. We do not cherry-pick which guide to understand, but what I do understand after seven years and 60,000 edits is that the inclusion guide WP:NACTOR requires verification of an actor's roles, without demanding SIGCOV of the individual. Those two guides are not set as mutually exclusionary. No evidence beyond supposition that author User:Parthactor is the likely subject, but the user has not edited the stub since November 2010... but it has been edited by many others have since he stopped editing Wikipedia. And while ADVERT/PROMOTION in any article would certainly apply if the article were itself somehow full of unsourcable fluff, rather than sourcable fact, I know you decided to ignore a a reasonable assertion of notability when you wished it speedied. Atlantic306 was correct to decline your requested speedy. Had you given any thought to simply tagging it for sources rather than bringing it to AFD? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as had prominent roles in feature films, there are plenty of reviews such as [7], and [8], I haven't found anything biographical yet. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sorry, I'm not seeing the significant roles in notable films. It only took about 8 minutes to look at all 12 roles, and the only one which even approaches the level of significance is that in Blackmail. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would have to agree with Onel5969 here. He does not have significant roles in most of the notable films (except for 1 or at most 2) he's acted, fails WP:NACTOR. Doesn't meet WP:GNG—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Clearly a borderline case, but no agreement about which side of the notability border she falls on.  Sandstein  15:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hammon[edit]

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

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

Failed WP:PROD. BLP article completely unsourced since creation in 2007. Very borderline WP:NACTOR (two "significant" roles would be Port Charles and Allyson Is Watching), but I can find no significant sourcing for this one, so it very probably fails WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best with nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER, she was a General Hospital character for two years but there's simply nothing convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as had significant roles in Port Charles and Allyson is Watching, found these sources [9] and [10] I think WP:BASIC is only just passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those don't clear it for WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think its borderline.Check out section 2 in the box for instructions to AFC reviewers which defines significant coverage as at least one substantial paragraph here [11], it surprised me as I had thought it had to be more than that. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is, what clears you through WP:AfC is not binding on what happens here at AfD. Put another way, what AfC is telling reviewers is the bare minimum to accept an article for publication in mainspace. But I suspect the AfC people assume that these "single refs" will soon be supplemented by other refs from other editors once the article is published (i.e. they're viewing that "bare minimum standard" as the starting point for an article...). At AfD, OTOH, we're sometimes looking at BLPs that have been entirely unsourced for up to a decade (and which would qualify for WP:BLPPROD if BLPPROD had been "grandfathered" to include them) which is usually a sign that significant sourcing is unavailable for the subject. Note the choice of my words – "significant sourcing". It's not to say that some of these languishing BLPs can't be sourced at all – it's that they can't be "adequately" or well sourced enough to clear WP:GNG (or WP:BASIC). In any case, what happens at AfC is certainly not binding here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep added a source so no longer unreferenced BLP. Certainly there are other marginally famous actors with wikipedia articles. I agree she barely meets the requirements for notability, but she does meet them. Add to that, there is a tremendous disparity in the number of men's and women's biographies, for me that weighs in favor of keeping and improving this article.Knope7 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is precisely a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. SSTflyer 01:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet the requirements for notability of actors. We do not keep poorly sourced articles on marginally notable people because we have lots of poorly sourced articles on marginally notable people. If you think there are others actors who are not notable and yet have articles (which is probably the case), you are free to nominate them for deletion. And to tell you the truth, if they really are less notable than Hammon, I will also vote for deleting that article as well. Just because we cannot manage to nominate all below par articles that do not meet notability requirements at once, does not mean we should keep such articles as we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Borderline. but keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanEman (talk • contribs) 17:40, April 3, 2016‎ (UTC)
• Delete - The WP:OSE argument isn't really valid in this instance. And remember, having two significant roles only means the may be notable (the guideline says "multiple", but does not define it). To be specific, the guideline says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In this instance I don't think the two roles she has had guarantee that she is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Hammon appeared in two significant roles but barely reaches notability. Meatsgains (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ubiquity (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Kadai Raja[edit]

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

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

Need reputable, independent sources to show this even exists, let alone is notable. ubiquity (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts with WP:INDAFD: "Tea Kadai Raja" "director Raja" "Raja Subbiah" "Neha Gayatri" "Yogi Babu" "Sharmila Thapa"

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep as the film is completed and slated to release in one week, and sorry Ubiquity, a diligent search shows the film's production has coverage enough to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). This needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:49, 31 March 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. Never close early but in this case SOFIXIT applies, Obvious keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Ukraine[edit]

List of universities in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This Wikipedia article is now a parody of an encyclopaedic entry. Content of this page is too uncomplete with many existing universities not listed on this page. For example: many universities in the city of Poltava are not listed here. (On the other hand) it is very likely that now this page is listing universities in Ukraine that do not exist anymore. (Since) 76 higher education institutions and their branches were denied licenses in 2015; looking at this page history they were not removed from this article. On the article's talkpage the hope has been expressed that somebody will fix this article. The change that somebody will fix this article is about 0%. Since it has existed for almost 12 years now and was never fixed. I don't see the point on hoping that somebody will fix it.... This Wikipedia article is now a parody of an encyclopaedic entry and should be deleted especially since Category:Universities in Ukraine is a must better substitute for this page. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This appears to be a content dispute and not a matter for deletion. The list selection criteria are ostensibly sound. The fact the article hasn't been fixed isn't a valid criterion for deletion per WP:NEGLECT. (The right answer is WP:SOFIXIT.) —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve per Nizolan above, WP:SOFIXIT. Amccann421 (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. While I'm not a big fan of such lists, I believe SOFIXIT is the way to go. //Halibutt 16:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a list with clear inclusion criteria on a notable topic. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Thanoj[edit]

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

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

Previously deleted via PROD in 2011. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has never played in a fully-professional league or for the senior national team. GiantSnowman 16:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet standards including GNG, plus attracts vandals. C679 11:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muljan HiGh School[edit]

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

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

Also:

Govt. Muljan Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

These articles share the same text (except for the dates), but one is a high school and the other a primary school. They can't both cover the same grades, so at least one is dead wrong. There are no references for either, so no way for us to correct. I couldn't find any info online except an empty facebook page for the alleged primary school. I think each should be deleted until at least one reference is presented proving that the school exists, and what grades it covers. ubiquity (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Whenever you see unusual capitalizations, it's useful to check the article creator's edit history. delete and salt per repeatedly recreated Muljan High School. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See also redirect Muljan Primary School, itself a speedily deleted article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt As per above, this user has repeatedly created this article only to see it deleted again and again. This school fails WP:Notability and, as above, has no sourcing. Since the account is named "Muljan", the same as the school, it's not a stretch to guess that this might be WP:Promotion. Amccann421 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. The original primary school article was never deleted, but was redirected. The original high school article was deleted three days in a row for copyright violation (the author does not appear to understand copyright, or, perhaps, English). Their enthusiastic article creation may be a sincere effort to help, but has been more disruptive than beneficial. A source could be found to prove the existence of the high school, but instead of letting the secondary school slide per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this is a time to stick to WP:NSCHOOL. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:05, 30 March 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 per a mixture of WP:SNOW and WP:G7. I have no problem with this article being re-created once the book releases and gains the necessary coverage to pass WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Birth of a Religion: Altaian Burkhanism - the Religious Form of an Ethnic Identity[edit]

The Birth of a Religion: Altaian Burkhanism - the Religious Form of an Ethnic Identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I doubt that this book is notable and in any case the article is basically a resume of the book's content; as such it risks becoming a POV fork. TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if the topic is notable, summarising a book like this isn't. And might well be a WP:COPYVIO JMWt (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per JMWt above, this type of article (75% summary, failing WP:TERSE) is unacceptable, and likely fails WP:COPYVIO. Either way, this seems to fail WP:Notability. The lead even seems to indicate that this book is not even available yet (WP:TOOSOON). Amccann421 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:ISNOT a book reviewer. Particularly when no-one else appears to have reviewed it first. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a simple book overview. Its worth will need to be established by the specialist scholarly community. So deleting the entry at this stage does not seem unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsk Univer Istfak (talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless notability of the book is established and confirmed by WP:RS Alex Bakharev (talk)

• Delete The contributor agrees with the concerns raised and that it is ok to delete the article until the "book" in question becomes avialable User: Tomsk Univer Istfak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Jiménez[edit]

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

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

No sources conform WP:RS, WP:ONEEVENT The Banner talk 09:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the article's one IC because it failed WP:RS...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Suburban Home School Band[edit]

West Suburban Home School Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not yet solidly convincing, searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable band- No evidence of notability, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 16:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, fails WP:ORG. Amccann421 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Astral Factor[edit]

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

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

Non-notable album: lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has coverage in metal and prog rock websites, seems to be notable . These sources aren't on the avoid list [12] and [13], there are others, including disputed drwp. It would help if there was a list of RS for music for each language.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per sources.BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The two presented sources presented do not establish notability. Metal Norge reviews anything sent to them,^[14] so it cannot be used to establish notability. I don't think either of them can be considered a reliable source. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested.  Sandstein  19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Bouhmouch[edit]

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

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

Director with questionable notability-also looks like a too soon (only a couple non notable short films so far, he is pretty young so maybe someday) Wgolf (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked-one of them is not a short film, 63 minutes actually. This article does need more then just putting he is a director though if it wants to last that is for sure. Not sure of the notability still of this guy. Wgolf (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this currently satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 16 March 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 List of Iraq War resisters#Conscientious objectors. postdlf (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Benderman[edit]

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

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

Known only for one event, desertion. Seems to be covered under WP:BLP1E. All the important details about this man are in List of Iraq War resisters Bonewah (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO. Amccann421 (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As being involved in a single sourced event, the notability of which is only going to decrease with the passing of time. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Project Planning Pro[edit]

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

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

Insufficient indication of notability. The award they won comes from some non-notable site that seems too sketchy to be a reliable source. Without the award, this app just doesn't seem notable. IagoQnsi (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to insufficient reliable third party coverage, and per nomcrh23 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom and also fails to pass WP:NSOFT from the sources I could find. Mwenzangu (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as searches found nothing better, article still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Rosenfeld[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. IagoQnsi (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO: she doesn't appear to be notable. Could be considered WP:PROMOTION. Amccann421 (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too soon at best, none of this suggests solid independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant an article at this time.  Gongshow   talk 22:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamashii no Mon[edit]

Tamashii no Mon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't find a single mention at WP:VG/RS's custom Google search engine. Using regular Google, I found the full Japanese title, Tamashii no Mon Dante no Shinkyoku yori, which also didn't bring up any reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG, with no reliable secondary sources to speak of, only wide reaching database-style sites with little actual content. crh23 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as searches found nothing better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ancient and Honorable Order of Turtles. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient & Honorable Order of Turtles Inc.[edit]

Ancient & Honorable Order of Turtles Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, not externally referenced. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems like a hoax, or an unofficial, not-notable society User:Sheepythemouse —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a hoax, but it is a promotional content fork of the better sourced Ancient and Honorable Order of Turtles. That article discusses the more general subject of "Turtle Clubs" since their inception during World War II, was kept by a strong consensus at an old AfD, and now contains a variety of independent reliable sources. By contrast, the article at issue here describes a particular group that claims lineage from the original, but makes no showing of any particular notability for this particular group. We could redirect but I don't think that's necessary given the unlikeliness of this particular title as a search term, so I agree: delete. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• You bet your sweet ass we should merge and redirect. Per the official link provided, this article title is the official name of (at least one incarnation of) the organization. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect what said above. TeeVeeed (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Very happy with a merger.Rathfelder (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levantine Rûm nationalism[edit]

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

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

Nothing in news results. The sources are not third party independent references. Greek Legend (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what is an acceptable source? Since Arabic Newspapers are not "appropriate" to prove the existence of this ideology?100.1.113.235 (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can give Arabic newspaper source if you want, but there must be at least one mention in some English newspaper. I believe the countries where this movement exist, there must be some English newspaper. I couldn't find anything in Google news search. Thanks Greek Legend (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The substance of the article is unsourced. The sources given are only cited to support general statements about the organisations that supposedly uphold this ideology. I can't find anything relevant on independent sources via Google—note that "Antiochenism" is also used as a rare synonym for Nestorianism, which seems to be how it's used in all the relevant results for that term. However, @Greek Legend: Per WP:RSUE, while English sources are preferred, there is no requirement that sources be in English, or that there be "at least one" source in English. If someone can find sources in Arabic (or Greek) I am open to changing my mind. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that you need mention in English sources, but I agree that this is not notable enough to have its own article. Delete. Can agree for merge/redirect if proposed. Capitals00 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per argument made by Nizolan. Also support the WP:RSUE guideline explanation.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nizolan Hawaan12 (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tried ekathimerini.com and general news and book searches, but I can't source it. As regards the Orthodox Christians of Antakya, may God help them, certainly no one else is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 1 April 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 speedily deleted by Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOVE-Dmitry Kuzmin[edit]

LOVE-Dmitry Kuzmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Since Wikipedia is not social network. High facebook likes and zero news results is not notability. Greek Legend (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 29 March 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:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GTA SA: Cheat codes[edit]

GTA SA: Cheat codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a game guide, and is not for publishing lists of cheat codes for games. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Citobun (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete non encyclopedic. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, blatantly unacceptable. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. --McGeddon (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Not really sure what criterion this would come under so won't tag myself but it's an obvious delete. –Davey2010^Talk 16:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see an obvious speedy criterion either; closest I could come was A11 since it could be seen as promoting what the cheat codes are, but that seems a stretch. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was debating whether to tag it under G1 as technically there is no meaningful content or history but I knew a pedantic admin would decline it, Anyway as there doesn't seem to be a criterion for this I've struck the Speedy, –Davey2010^Talk 12:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, per above multiple times. Amccann421 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nom and above. Next... GabeIglesia (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTGUIDE, not a plausible search term for a redirect. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's just a list of cheat codes with no encyclopedic value. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Album Artists[edit]

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

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

Notability is not shown by the non-independent/passing mentions in the provided references and I can't find anything else significant, just more incidental mentions. The article appears to have been created for promotional purposes (see the original version, bloated with refs that don't mention the company).  —SMALLJIM  10:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -- this has been an issue from time to time with COI and paid editing. The article was started by User:Johnalexwood, who does at least state on his user page that he is a publicist with his own firm. He was also responsible for creating and maintaining articles for several other Scientologists, only one other of which ended up being kept, Christy Lee Rogers, who is a client of both John Alex Wood and Fraser Kee Scott, and should not actually have been kept considering the fact that there are no reliable secondary sources at all for that particular individual, with all information on Rogers available out there based on press releases and promotional items that Kee Scott and John Alex Wood distributed to media, both in the UK and abroad. It gets even more convoluted beyond that with a bunch of articles here that they are responsible but for which I haven't had time to gather any data or evidence, so as far as this article goes, short story is that John Alex Wood, a publicist, started the article using sources that mention neither Album Artists or Fraser Kee Scott, not even in passing. Obviously that is deliberate misuse and misrepresentation of sources, which in and of themselves are not particularly useful since they are entirely based on press releases, with the sole exception of an interview or two with a band like Coldplay, with not a single one of them mentioning Album Artists or Fraser Kee Scott. It is impossible to verify any of his claims, and when pressed for such evidence (off-wiki, by others in the media), he has used a photo of himself with the band, which doesn't in and of itself prove anything. None of the media outlets, including the gossip rags, haev printed any of the claims Kee Scott made in this article by John Alex Wood. Laval (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are three references in the current revision that do nothing to establish notability. #1 only peripherally mentions Album Artists as an "inspirational art company" but provides no factual information other than that Fraser Scott is its director. #2 directs to the Album Artists' website, and mentions that "Fraser … runs Album Artists". #3 is a wikilink to World Institute of Scientology Enterprises. Note that [15] for the first two sources is not a reliable source, nor is wikipedia, which is used for source #3. Mduvekot (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cubuntu[edit]

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

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

No significant coverage. I find part of the article ironic "As a result, Cubuntu is a relatively unknown Linux distribution.". Or redirect to Kubuntu as ((R from typo)). - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it has two independent third party refs that are extensive write-ups, not just passing mentions. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? [16] for instance may be independent but unless high-profile, blogs are generally not reliable. [17] was edited by "kranich" so it is likely the creator. Tigraan (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia is an independent reliable source and the two Softpedia refs cited profile the subject in some detail, this and this one. This meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am behind a firewall that censors, so I cannot check that right now, but as Softpedia is a download site, I doubt that it is a WP:RS. (Moreover, I would argue that two articles from the same website do not really count as "multiple sources".) Tigraan (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia is a reliable software news site with independent editorial oversight. I agree though that the two articles are from the same news source, so that is not "multiple independent sources". - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sources that pass WP:42 are found, as I could not find them (top search results are WP mirrors). Tigraan (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as searches are finding nothing particularly better about this and the current article is still seemingly questionable, delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Prunty[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "No evidence this footballer meets WP:GNG or has played in a fully pro league." - this is still the case. C679 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Number 57 13:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. [–Davey2010^Talk 22:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RDX Sports[edit]

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

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

This article is constantly being recreated followed by speedy deletion as promotional. As per example see RDX Inc and RDX Inc.. Article remains excessively promotional without showing notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article is heavily promotional and there is not enough coverage in WP:RS to establish its notability. Mwenzangu (talk) 23:56, 4 April 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kulbhushan Yadav[edit]

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

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

WP:SINGLEEVENT. He could be well mentioned in the main article in Two-three lines like Pakistan claimed to arrest a RAW agent but Indian Govt. denied his links with RAW. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 07:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the event just recently occurred, and it is in the news. The article doesn't assert that he was definitely a RAW agent, but lists the allegation. The capture of a Naval Officer – of any country – is certainly notable and unfortunate, especially if they're engaged in counter-terrorism activities. The fact that he was arrested and accused is what's explained in the article. There is evidence for that. The article also asserts what your comment states: that the Indian gov't denies any affiliation (though that's standard practice). The article should be kept, and hopefully within a month, the article will be amended to say, "He was cleared of all charges and released."

  ^K_Bⁿ_a^o_t^w_t^le_l^d_e^e

  07:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Passes GNG as it has been mentioned by multiple Reliable sources. His capture is the focal point of a multi nation flash point which may have global repercussions. Iran, Pakistan and India are all focused on this individual. I am not sure how anyone can even dream of him not passing GNG as almost a BILLION people are getting information about him on an hourly basis. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are reliable sources such as [18], [19], [20] and etc. Mhhossein (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]