< 22 May	24 May >

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noël Saint-Thomas[edit]

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

Contested CSD. BLP article of an author which does not pass WP:NAUTHOR. Writer is one of many for the Teach Yourself series, does not appear to have any other notability to meet WP:GNG, all hits seem to be bookseller/reviewer sites. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one source is in the article currently, a link to a page where a book is for sale that credits this person as an author. I could not find any significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. Notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found. Nothing beyond writing anon-notable teaching book, an honorable thing to do, just not notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. Note that the one source refers to her as a woman, while the article is written believing him to be a man. PamD 07:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing we have listed as a reference (a link to Amazon) is completely inadequate, and I can't find anything better. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Al Bahar : Muawiyah RA[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary. The references, except the YouTube video, are either Wikipedia itself or predate the documentary by a couple of centuries. Huon (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

know reference from the book Islam's Reformers added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmannaseem07 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we already have a well-developed article on Muawiyah I, based on better sources. I take it this is an article not about Muawiyah I but about the documentary (otherwise it would qualify for speedy deletion). Thus we'd need sources discussing the documentary. The book does not do so. Huon (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Muawiyah I- ArtsRescuer • Talk me 11:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as there's nothing significant to suggest better or moving, it can be mentioned however briefly but there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much as I'm normally loathe to agree with Swister Twister (no harsh feelings ^_^) I have to agree. The documentary appears to be completely non-notable, not even worth a mention in the main article. Of course, if someone could find a magazine article about the documentary, or a professional review of the documentary, I'd be willing to reconsider my vote (to keep, not merge). But as far as I can tell, these reviews about the documentary do not exist, and so we should delete. Fieari (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrys Vasquez[edit]

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

City councilor from a city with a population of 76,000. No coverage outside of routine election reports from that city. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NPOL. No suitable in-depth coverage AusLondonder (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors do not get Wikipedia articles just for being city councillors in cities with populations of just 76K, and the volume and quality of sourcing shown is not solid enough to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG, no automatic notability for their position. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all actually convincing of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Buschel[edit]

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

I would've PRODed too, my searches have only found several links at News, nothing else convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The guy wrote two blogs for the New York Times. That is not enough to make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass WP:JOURNALIST. not sufficient for GNG either. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aima Rosmy Sebastian[edit]

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

My searches have found nothing actually convincing, only expected coverage at News and WP:INDAFD, two works so far both with recent time so there's simply nothing for an article yet and I would've PRODed too. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My searches (a quick Google News search under both Aima Rosmy Sebastian and Aima Sebastian) returned: Times of India article profiling Sebastian, Gulf News article about her and another actor, Interview in International Business Times, Gulf news from 2013 profiling her and her sister, Deccan Chronicle article about Sebastian. With these, she passes GNG for non-trivial coverage. She is mentioned in many other articles, but I've only included the ones that talk about her more extensively. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to amend my above post, the 2013 Gulf News article isn't entirely about her. The other sources, however, are much weightier. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate indicia of notabiity. These performers from India should also be cross-listed at WikiProject India, by the way. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks notability to be included, the news coverage looks like promotions of a film which the subject held a minor role and fails WP:BIO and WP:BASIC because the sources generated are not intellectually independent of each other.59.96.59.84 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Achutha Kumar[edit]

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

My searches have only found expected coverage, one news at News and several other at WP:INDAFD, nothing actually convincing from both searches and this article to suggest the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass automatic notability for musicians. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tranceluz[edit]

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

A musician. No refs about him, just the standard social media type sites. The record company he is CEO of, only has social media links. Article is a mess, therefore hard to understand what he has/hasn't done. Prod was removed. Bgwhite (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. Article is a very poor piece of promotional/auto-biographical writing mostly likely self-written, and the artist in question has zero notability whatsoever. Cyanhat (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is quite obvious and expected from the usual subject articles, nothing at all basically convincing and searches were not particularly necessary also since the article itself says it all, his own links are the sources and nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Source searches to qualify !votes in AfD discussions are actually a long-standing best practice and exercise in proper due diligence on Wikipedia to assess notability, as a cross-check to ensure that topics are actually notable or non-notable. As per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. However, in this case, I'm not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. It remains best to check for sources, to ensure an accurate encyclopedia based upon the principles of journalistic objectivity, versus having an encyclopedia based upon assumption alone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching under a variety of terms, including his real name turns up zero independent non-trivial sources. The subject comprehensively fails both WP:BASIC and the alternative criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Not only that, this is a BLP which is unverifiable, not just the extravagant claims, but also the most basic ones. I completely agree with North America's comment above. An AfD discussion should never be based on arguments like "This is so bad, it's not worth looking for sources" or "The sources in the article are bad, delete". If discussants are not prepared to put in even the most basic work required to come to an informed decision, then they shouldn't participate in the discussion. Observe José Tomás which was sent to AfD in this state. Lack of sources in the article and poor writing are not valid reasons for deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam at the FIFA Futsal World Cup[edit]

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

Non notable article that can clearly be merged into Vietnam national futsal team if needed, but most already exists there. Qed237 (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, covered in Vietnam national futsal team. Note: I have blocked the creator for persistently removing the AfD template. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Soccer-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all here actually convincing of its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–Vietnam–Uzbekistan International Friendly Tournament 2016[edit]

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

Not notable friendly tournament (also unsourced). There is nothing notable in these friendly tournaments and it fails WP:GNG.Qed237 (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 01:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Japan Football Association which organizes these tournaments. ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable event. Matt294069 is coming 01:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge is not an acceptable option here because there's unsourced contents and no potential hope this can ever be its own article, nothing at all convincing overall. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 30 May 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 Chevelle (band). MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Bernardini[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability criteria: WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Chevelle (band). Doesn't appear to have sufficient individual notability for an article but merge and redirect seems obviously better than deletion. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It seems to me that some of the final paragraph is encyclopedic content that is biographical for the individual and unrelated to the band.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best for now as the article is simply questionable for its own article, nothing convincing to actually keep. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 21:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:14, 24 May 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 02:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Anthony Lawrence[edit]

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

Non-notable individual known for a WP:1EVENT. Lacks non-trivial support beyond that event. Verges on vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - I would argue that the individual I am attempting to write an article on is notable. Certainly in the art world and has featured in enough National and International media reports to warrant a page about him. Maybe the current one is too detailed, but I believe that he will feature in further news reports that could build towards the article already created. I request that it is not deleted but simply edited down. Also, why was the article not nominated straight away by (talk) ? I think this individual has more independent references in relation to their name than a lot of articles on Wikipedia Paulartfan (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as the current information is altogether still questionable and also including that of the applicable notability, there's nothing else convincing for improvements, and if there ever is, we can wait for that with restarting or otherwise something new. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot notable. Weak references.RockyMtChai (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - Article is interesting and the subject is noteworthy in English art collecting history. Improve pages references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.175.21 (talk • contribs) — 82.7.175.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Please indicate how being an interesting article meets any of the criteria for inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 21:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage about him is primary or local, with the exception of one mistake/hoax which got significant coverage. The mistake/hoax is not notable enough for its own article, and nothing else about him is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus whether also to redirect, but anybody may create a redirect. Sandstein 11:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 in Illinois[edit]

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

Redundant to 2014 in the United States. No other years have an "in Illinois" article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The concept is not bad, the execution leaves room for improvement. My sense is that this is an encyclopedic topic. Just because it is the first state level timeline does not mean that it is necessarily a wrong path. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are there are any other pages similar to this list? The page could use more sources but I like the idea. Meatsgains (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and reluctant delete: I published the page originally, however, I lost interest in the project. I still think it would be a good idea to have state-based year articles, especially for the more populated regions (California, New York, Texas, ect...). It was mostly just me contributing, so I feel there was a lack of interest at the time. Also, being the only one contributing can be overwhelming. That could change in the future though and I may get back to creating state-based year articles if I feel inspired and committed to do so again. (Tigerghost (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)).[reply]
While the United States, in particular, is large enough that by-state splitouts could be justified by the sheer scope of possible content for the by-country level, I'd be more convinced that this should exist if there were a consensus to move in that direction and a commitment to getting as many as possible of them done in a timely manner — if there's nobody else working on creating and populating these kind of pages in a more comprehensive manner, then I don't see the value in this one existing in isolation. Redirect to 2014 in the United States, without prejudice against recreation in the future if there's a consensus to move in that direction and a genuine commitment to getting it done. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a likely search but not convincing for its own article though. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:2014 in Illinois and subcategories therein. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. Also, this article is certainly not redundant to the 2014 in the United States article, because many entries in this article are not present in the latter article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anything in this article could easily be added to that article, however — so the redundancy or lack thereof is not a question of whether or not the content is already duplicated, but of whether or not there's a substantive reason why the fork is necessary. If this were being done more comprehensively, I'd have no objection to keeping — but I can't think of any good reason why this is "special" enough to stand alone as the only year-state subpage that exists for any state in any year. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 21:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice try, but there does not seem to be any move to develop year-by-year articles about the various states of the United States. (I couldn't find any.) Without any tradition of such articles and no sign anyone is going to develop them, there is no point in having just this one. And I don't see any point in a redirect; anyone looking for "2014 in (state)" and not finding it is automatically going to go to "2014 in the United States." --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G11 by DGG. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LE Enterprises & Co.[edit]

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

Article for a company with no reliable sources to be found, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Original A7 speedy tag removed by a Swiss mobile IP with no rationale. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I see this article was just speedy deleted yesterday as WP:G12. I think A7 would apply as well. G12 may still apply as well. No assertion of notability at all, clearly not notable. I wouldn't be surprised if the same person created both of these pages. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:09, 24 May 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) 23:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dahyun[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BIO apart from her membership of a notable K-pop band. No significant coverage online from WP:RS, just the usual fan blogs that cover this sort of thing, Facebook posts etc. The references cited that mention her only do so in passing. OnionRing (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not independently notable. Yannaynay (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. Her only solo activities are the Real Men female special and co-hosting a segment on Weekly Idol. I don't think she has enough independent notability. I also don't think Dahyun should redirect to the band since the Twice member is probably not the primary topic. Random86 (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pas WP:MUSBIO or GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON - Not independently notable, can be merged with Twice (band)‎ Accireioj (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing particularly suggesting independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twice (band)#Dahyun. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Dahyun is a Korean name; this singer is probably not the primary topic. Random86 (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as the particular best thing here is the fact he's a Vice Chancellor of a university that is notable thus he is notable for an article (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M Abdurahman Salafi[edit]

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

Notext, Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 10:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable Islamic scholar, but article needs better sourcing and rewrite, that I'll start working on. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request Hi @MichaelQSchmidt:, @Sainsf: and @Nvvchar: Can you please advise as to what WP:Indian policies/guidlines/sourcing apply to this articles subject please? Also, there are to many foreign language sources for me to go through and would appreciate some guidance on that issue too. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternative search per WP:INDAFD: M Abdurahman Salafi) --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In actually looking:

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

WP:INDAFD: M. Abdurahman Salafi Abdurahman Salafi

Keep per sources being available and an erroneous deletion rationale "Notext, Notability". The article HAS content and context enough to be a suitable stub which can be further improved over time and through even a little editorial attention. Serves the project to improve, not delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)k[reply]

Comment: I see that ArtsRescuer on 19 May could wait no further, and tagged the article with A7. User:RHaworth speedy deleted the article a few hours later. Given the Keep opinions by Picomtn and MichaelQSchmidt I have left a message on RHaworth's user talk page asking him to explain the deletion. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has been around for nearly four years and nobody has expanded it beyond a stub so he probably is not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 19:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS's analysis, meets WP:GNG, not a valid rationale provided by nominator. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calicut. Obviously notable and meets WP:PROF. The VC is the professional head of a Commonwealth university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 25 May 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 Tink (musician). MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Million (song)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NMUSIC. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Redirect to Tink. The song alone lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tink: Subject fails WP:NMUSIC as stated by the nominator. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 19:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jokhio[edit]

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

I am questioning its notability. Help in adding citations in this article would be appreciated. Daniel kenneth (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should really look for sources before nominating an article for deletion, Daniel kenneth. See Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - until recently, this was a redirect to Samma (tribe)#Jokhio, but that section was unsourced and removed long ago. I have found some sources about the tribe, such as this, this, this and this, although the coverage provided by each is a bit thin. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best perhaps unless anyone wants to Redirect to the other article for now, the article is at best still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- ArtsRescuer • Talk me 11:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOREASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 19:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete This article is unreferenced and it seems like no one wants to improve this article by adding reliable sources that discuss this tribe in detail. I am starting to think that this article could not be notable. Daniel kenneth (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Life (2016 film)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) no WP:RS and not due to premier until July, and started by User:Javidrezai so looks like self promotion - Note Draft:Javid Rezai was declined as well KylieTastic (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to recreation once it releases and gains coverage in independent, reliable sources. I can't see where this unreleased short film has gained enough/any coverage to where it would pass WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

Delete for failing WP:NFF. Short films have it quite tough.... and oh, some eventually are found notable... but not many. This can be allowed back when or if it receives coverage to meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, article creator, Javidrezai, appears to be Javid Rezai, maker of film. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, and WP:TOOSOON. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing actually emphasizing any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Luvar[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a music video director, which simply asserts his existence and lists his videography without making any claim of notability that would pass WP:CREATIVE, and which is sourced entirely to listings in user-generated directory databases and streaming copies of his videos with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, a director is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists; media coverage must be shown to get him over CREATIVE for a quantifiable achievement beyond merely existing as a working professional. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I could find no proof that mvdbase.com is based on user-generated content; and VH1.com definitely isn't (except for forums, etc). At any rate, this is kind of jumping the gun; you could have at least started with opening a thread at WP:RSN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody, and certainly not me, said that VH1 was USERG. But what the VH1 links are is streaming copies of the music videos — see above, where I said "and streaming copies of his videos" — which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to confer notability for directing music videos. A person does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify on the web that their work exists — a person has to be the subject of reliable source media content being written or published or broadcast about them to get an article on that basis, not merely the creator of a streaming video that's cited as the "source" for itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just having listings of the music videos he directed is not enough. We need articles that say something about him, which we lack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that just being verified as a director on multiple databases, whether user-generated or not, is not enough by itself. There are are no independent references or sources provided that indicate notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, congrats, he exists. that doesn't mean he is notable. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually insinuating solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 30 May 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 was to keep the page but restore the original (software) version of the article, which I have done. If someone tries to revert it to the "gang" article, request page protection. MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khimera[edit]

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

non notable street gang, none of the three sources listed even mention it Nohomersryan (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought this could be hoax but then I see the article creator worked on another asian gang article that was legit. But it seems a whole lotta original research went into this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every word of the article may well be accurate, but the nominator is quite correct in that there is no notability here, at all, from what I can find. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wondered why this AfD was being flagged in WikiProject Computational Biology, but it looks like this page was on the Khimera software package, before it was completely overwritten in Sep 2015. As it turns out, I was the last person to edit before it was overwritten, see this edit from March 2013. The previous software article was not great, but I believe it is legit - whether the software package is itself noteworthy is a different question.... is it possible to include this AfD in the appropriate science discussions? The talk page suggests software/computing and chemistry, as well as computational biology. Thanks, --Amkilpatrick (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've gone about this the wrong way, but I've copied the last version of the software article and recreated it as Khimera (software), for now. I've also issued a 1st level warning to the editor who blanked this content. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shawn, I agree it's a messy situation. If the gang article consensus is to delete, I suggest we instead rollback to the software article so the history etc is preserved - if we're keeping both, then maybe we can split the gang article off as a new page? I notice from that users history that there are now redirects involved too, just to complicate things further! --Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my concern, too. That the way I've done it wouldn't compromise the edit history. Note to closing admin please note that prior to user User:Ed.un's intervention, this article was a completely different article about software from 2009 to 2015. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is apparently a somewhat newly founded gang within this decade but there's not a lot of information about the group itself so that's a questionable fact there, and then there's the fact there's nothing currently even minimally suggesting basic notability. Delete by far for now until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Christi Community[edit]

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

Non-notable religious home for indigent men. This kind of thing should be on a church website, not here as it is not notable. Lacks the significant and diverse independent refs required to establish notability. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself had reviewed this, there's nothing to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Cursory search yields these sources:
- http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/church-bailed-out-abusive-priest-wilfred-baker-by-paying-his-rent/news-story/d9ca9390b68d125ccb68aacbb7402838?nk=e2b79fda1688a0e6b0248066ce682c97-1464140687
- http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=10397 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoPenguin (talk • contribs) 01:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This is likely the least notable organization I wrote an article on.Jzsj (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It seems to be an old people's home for men, that happens to be established and run by a religious order. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aima Baig[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is singer of notable hit songs for ISPR^{[disambiguation needed]} and has worked in numerous TV ads. Its difficult to find sources currently. She is now also host of late night show. I have gathered all of this from sources present.GreenCricket (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention of the singer anywhere except from her own facebook page and a single news source - Dunya News, which made no significant coverage of the subject either. Fails WP:GNG. --Dps04 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I too looked for evidence earlier and agree there is nothing available except Facebook and the two news mentions in videos. Nothing even notable about her is even stated in article. Sorry. Fylbecatulous talk 11:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mistake (band)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Associated with notable acts, but do not appear to be notable themselves. Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this article on Metal Underground. I'm not 100% sure that's a reliable source, but I think I may cited that website before. There were also a few trivial mentions scattered about – frankly, more than I expected – but not enough to establish notability to my satisfaction. They released albums through Prime Directive Records, but I'm not convinced that satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion #5. If I'm wrong, ping me with some kind of evidence that it's an "important" label, whatever that means. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing at all here suggestive of the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 30 May 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 United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016#Libertarian Party. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 15:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Libertarian Party candidates in the United States presidential election, 2016[edit]

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

Virtually duplicate content of that included in United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016#Libertarian Party and Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016#Candidates. Thus, no apparent compelling need for a standalone article. Sourced almost entirely by primary and non-WP:RS material, fails WP:GNG, WP:42 and WP:DUE. Plus, there is seemingly an infraction of WP:COI, as the username of the article's creator (who has few or no other edits outside this topic) matches the name of the candidate who appears at the top of the listing (giving the appearance that WP:PROMO is at issue here as well). Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comprehensive explanation of Ddcm8991. Melcous (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No need for AfD process. Pburka (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No need for standalone article, but it's a plausible search term and should be a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content and redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016#Libertarian Party. Pointless to keep as standalone article, per nom.--JayJasper (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete content. no need for standalone article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:43, 28 May 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 ISOTX. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Grip: The Oppression[edit]

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

The article is currently still questionable for the applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better than this ( basically being the best source I've found) along with a few other unacceptable ones at browsers, searches at Highbeam also found nothing. Although this is currently sourced and with information, all of it is still questionably solid. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ISOTX (the developer), where the other Iron Grip titles should redirect as well to a section on the series. The Oppression lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had mostly press releases and passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. czar 08:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ISOTX where the mod is mentioned. There are brief mentions at IGN and in a master's thesis. There is a write up at moddb.com, but it isn't clear that the prose is independent. On the whole, not enough independent in-depth RS to meet notability guidelines. That this is an RTS mod created by ISOTX is well-established, however and the topic is a plausible search term. Hence a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Findlay[edit]

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

Still questionably enough as the 3 reviews are still questionably solid to help this article and the BBC coverage is only what remains, and even that is still questionably enough to save this. I should note I have searched and the best I found was this, this, my searches of the BBC have found nothing else. This was accepted in 2012 by Missvain. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. I don't think the subject is notable: she has featured on some (local) BBC radio stations and the reviews really don't add anything to the article. I'd consider her to be notable if there were more evidence, but I can't find any. st170e^talk 18:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say fails WP:GNG. The BBC links don't add any information. The other sources are somewhat reliable (some of them seem self published) but not enough to pass GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Days of Youth (band)[edit]

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

This is so questionable for the applicable notability (WP:BAND and WP:GNG), I nearly PRODed but it may be removed because of the apparent Allmusic link but I should note the Allmusic has no actual information and it has another name listed instead, "Redding Brothers" (apparently perhaps another group or this one, although I also should mention my searches are finding nothing at all so I'm imagining this group is no longer active at all, also since the listed website is now unavailable). From there, my searches have simply found nothing else better. Notifying past tagger VQuakr. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply promotion for a non notable school band. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. non-notable. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Days of Youth" "Tyler James Jacobs" OR "Tyler Jacobs" returns around 20 Google hits, none of them reliable. It looks way too soon for an article yet. I don't see how they have any chance of satisfying WP:NBAND. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keltech[edit]

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

My searches have found nothing better at all and the current article contains nothing else better including for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seriously fails WP:RS... basically WP:ONESOURCE and not notable. - Pmedema (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. When I saw that he received a Christmas card signed by George Lucas, I had to laugh a little. That's pretty awesome. But, unfortunately, it doesn't contribute to notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peyush Bansal[edit]

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

Nothing at all to suggest the needed solid independent notability for his own article, searches only confirmed he seems to be best known for the company itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the sources I can find related to him are about the company, and not him. There is therefore no notability for him, only the company. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love Me Butch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Frankly the best my searches found were: a passing mention at Books, a few links at News and several others at Highbeam, but nothing outstandingly convincing of solid improvements; the Malaysian Wiki certainly has nothing better either. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and no RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bopak Castello[edit]

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

With this English and also the Indonesian Wiki, there's nothing currently suggesting better for WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE, my searches have found nothing else better. The listed award also seems questionable and there's nothing else imaginably better. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet GNG at this time; maybe someday but not currently. Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SWObjects[edit]

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

There seems to be only minimal evidence of notability - of the references listed, only three mention SWObjects (another is a broken link, so it's hard to say). Those three are papers, but only one appears to be from a peer-reviewed journal (BMC Bioinformatics), and that paper seems to mention SWObjects only briefly. All the papers are co-authored by the creator of SWObjects (who is also the creator and main author of this Wikipedia article, for what it's worth). A Google search didn't seem to reveal any notable references beyond those. Yaron K. (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing particularly better from my searches, the current article is still questionable for notability at best. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes LeAnza[edit]

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

Nothing currently suggesting better for WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG, my searches found nothing better than a mention at a press release thus simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references whatsoever. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. This is the best reliable reference I found and it only has a passing mention. Seems WP:TOOSOON as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Scholey[edit]

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

Nothing at all for any applicable notability and I would've considered PROD but would not want it removed thus here we are at AfD, my searches found nothing better at all and the current article is not at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. The article is written in a promotional tone and edited extensively by 2 editors who have a COI. The only reference in the article is linked to the subject. The best reliable source I found is a local newspaper and it only has a passing mention. The subject fails WP:GNG, hence delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG, and is written like an advert. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:11, 30 May 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 06:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Sebastián Lach Lau[edit]

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

Still questionable overall for the needed notability and improvements and my searches have also found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep, more sources can be found on Mexican websites: [1], but not speaking Spanish I can't really assess them. There's a piece solely about him at the Mexican Ministry of Culture website, as well as one at Gastv.mx, whatever that is. His curriculum at Leiden university [2], taken at face value, is neither here nor there as to WP:N. No such user (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Beasley[edit]

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

Non-notable teenage actor. May be notable in the future, but seems like WP:TOOSOON for now. Natg 19 (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for solid independent notability, current works say it all. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even clearly says one significant role in a notable work, let alone two. In the case of minors we should have a high bar for inclusion and he does not pass that bar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 24 May 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 02:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parallels Virtual Desktop Infrastructure[edit]

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

My searches have simply found nothing else better than this and this, there's also simply nothing else convincingly better for the applicable notability. Notifying 2009 tagger AndrewWTaylor. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. It's not the easiest thing to research, though, because the name is so generic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 16:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Copa del Rey[edit]

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

This page is about an event that won't happen for several months yet and has almost no certainties as all has yet to be determined. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is still enough considering the timeline events. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, but it will be notable one day. We should not be adding articles for events that have no coverage (WP:GNG). Why not add one for 2017–18 already? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along the same lines as the comment of Lugnuts above, isn't it the usual practice to allow an article about the next upcoming installment in a notable sports series like the Copa del Rey? Strictly speaking, maybe this article shouldn't have been started until Barca had actually run out the closing seconds of its inevitable win in yesterday's final, but at this point I don't see much upside in arguing about precisely when we can have the next article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only a few months away, will clearly be very notable when it starts (2015–16 Copa del Rey had 80000 page views in the last 90 days), the qualified teams are listed (assuming no sudden rule changes) so it does have some relevant information already. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - draw hasn't been made, but unlike the next season's FA Cup, all competing teams are known. '''tAD''' (talk) 01:32, 28 May 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 02:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alacris Theranostics[edit]

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

Created by an employee of company as disclosed here. I cleaned this up as well as I could but the NOTABILITY is marginal. Am running this through AfD to get the community's input as to whether this should exist, as I am unsure. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are several notations, (1) There's no apparent German Wiki article and there nearly always is, (2) My searches have found nothing better, (3) the article simply contains nothing else better convincing. Delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Louis Miller[edit]

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

A promotional piece written to exaggerate the contributions of Robert Louis Miller. The creator has claimed him to be a writer and legal commentator, not supported by any reliable reference. The page must be deleted. Zunailmeredia (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable for his expertize on the prison system as the Washington Post and other news agencies reached out to him for their articles on reviewing prison's on Yelp.Sgerbic (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable, work is being done to improve the article. We have received information from the subject that indicates this deletion might be an example of an "Orangemoody" style blackmail scam. --Krelnik (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is exactly the kind of articles that people can use to show that Wikipedia is a joke. He is notable because he reviewed prisons on Yelp? Why did he do it? According to the Washington Post article referred to: "I started reviewing because I needed something to kill time while I waited to see clients.” This went viral because the enterprise was both useless and quirky. You might as well put in people who post pictures of gerbils dressed up in tuxes on their pinterest pages. Who put it in the Washington Post? Not someone interested in prison reform, but "a digital culture critic." Moreover, among the sources for the article is the webpage of the subject's law firm. It is pure self-promotion. Whether of not this is part of an organized effort, and fellow skeptic Zunailmeredia offers no proof other than his non skeptical say-so, the article does not belong in an encyclopedia. It certainly is not a notable subject, unless everyone who finds a new use of social media, however unimportant, should be on Wikipedia. Efforts to shore him up with references to his non-notable writing on skepticism just shows a grasping at straws. Incidentally, his contribution to the compilation on California Driving under the Influence (published by something like a corporation vanity press), is a 15 page (badly written) excursion in to the sobriety tests. He is neither co-author nor editor. The one Amazon review of the book says there is "nothing new" and gives it 2 stars. If there was ever a puff piece in Wikipedia, this is it. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Opinion noted, but FYI the nominating user has been reported to the "Orangemoody" team via email as a suspected sock. The subject of this article has reported receiving a blackmail email over this deletion. I am told this is OTRS ticket:2016042810015351, apparently still waiting in the queue. --Krelnik (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject has been emailed (which I take means propositioned for a favor or money in order to not delete the article), then the article must have some value to the subject. This suggests even more strongly to me that the article is an exercise in self-promotion. Which it clearly is: It is not generally considered appropriate to have a self-promotional web-site (i.e., the subject's law firms resume) as a reference. The whole article (except for the "skepticism" works, which are not integrated into the article) smacks of an advertisement, in line with using Yelp! to "review" prisons. AnthroMimus (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite - the article was not solicited by the subject at all. See the Orangemoody article, which says, "Please be kind to the article subjects. They too are victims in this situation." The article was created by one account from India (which has gone idle) then nominated for deletion by another account apparently from India. In Orangemoody-style scams, these are sockpuppet accounts being operated by a blackmailer. So please don't cast the subject as the bad guy here, my best information suggests he is not. --Krelnik (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krelnik: You will be happy, I am sure, to learn, being a skeptic yourself, that I am skeptical of the whole story. Perhaps you can explain it since you seem to have some inside information directly from the subject. So, tell me where I am wrong: Someone in India, reading the WaPo digital culture critic decides that someone who out of boredom reviews prisons for Yelp! deserves a Wikipedia article. He/she makes the article and puts it under the auspices of WikiProject Law. Because there is really no 3rd party sources to cite for this subject, he/she, without the subject's knowledge, cites to the subject's firm's webpage. The subject has no knowledge at all about any of this. Then a different person from India (or the same person, who knows?) contacts the subject to "blackmail" him. Unless you do so-and-so I will delete your Wikipedia article! Oh no, says the subject, not the Wikipedia Article I had no idea existed! I am a victim! The second (or same) Indian does an Afd, and the subject contacts someone at Wikipedia to show how he was victimized. (Exactly how he was victimized, I still am not sure. If someone emailed me threatening to delete my Wikipedia article, which doesn't exist AFAIK, I would delete the email and think no more of it.) An investigation is underway into the motives behind the Afd of a non-notable person. Then two people show up to defend the article. Neither seems to have any connection with WikiProject Law, but one decides to shore up the legitimacy of the article by including unrelated items about skepticism, which are really not incorporated into the article. Does this make any sense, except to someone who has an independent reason for wanting this self-promotional article to remain on Wikipedia? I ask this to a person who philosophically requires proof before believing in implausible things. AnthroMimus (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My, you are verbose. --01:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, is this article an orphan? It is not linked from either the Yelp! article or Prison Reform (hard as that is to believe). I can't think of any other likely to link to this subject. And if you look at the categories the subject is listed in: People born in 1968, attorneys in California, you see that the subject is generic. Any of hundreds of thousands of people belong to those categories. The fact that the article is an orphan is an additional reason for deletion. AnthroMimus (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and !vote: I'd like to make a few points about this AfD discussion:

As a preliminary matter, I was informed about this discussion on my talk page by AnthroMimus, though my opinions in this matter have been formed though my own independent judgment and should not be attributed to AnthroMimus in any way.
It looks like this is a malformed AfD. It doesn't have the usual formatting at the top, and it doesn't look like it was listed properly at WP:AfD. I'm not sure how to fix the technical flaws here, though someone may want to start a discussion at WT:AFD
WP:GNG generally requires subjects of standalone articles to have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis in original). As far as I can tell, Mr. Miller has not been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources, though it looks like the prison Yelp reviews have received a fair bit of discussion in the press. Nevertheless, because he has not been the subject of such coverage, I don't think he passes WP:GNG, and this article should be deleted per WP:DEL8.
I don't want to speculate about the veracity of the scam allegations discussed above, but whatever the case may be, I don't think that should influence the outcome of this AfD discussion; rather, this AfD discussion should simply discuss issues relating to WP:DELETE.

I am happy to change my mind if someone can show me that Mr. Miller has received significant coverage in reliable sources, but until then, I think deletion is appropriate. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I posted a thread at WT:AFD in hopes that someone will be able to resolve the formatting issues with this nomination. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to today's log. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - literally missing every single factor that might make him a notable lawyer. I'm sure he works very hard for his clients, but he is just a run of the mill lawyer. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this simply contains nothing else actually better convincing, quite so clear. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable WP:RESUME. The writing of jail reviews does not amount to notability for an article on the reviewer; although it might justify a one-sentence mention in Review. TJRC (talk) 23:27, 25 May 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. MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Napier Road[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Napier Road does not appear to be the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications, this is effectively a WP:COATRACK article. Please see the prior discussion from October 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napier Road. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's pretty famous, world-wide. "Pakistani sex workers on the Aids front line", Daily Telegraph "the famous Napier Road" Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Andy Dingley for taking the time to comment. If I may make a distinction, this article makes reference to the district, not the road per se. Should this article be renamed in that case? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK and have no connection with Pakistan. Napier Road is the only place I could name in Karachi. It's known by that name, not as a longer form as "District". Sources seem to bear out this personal observation. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead and Redirect however if at all needed because there's nothing minimally convincing here, quite clear from everything listed here. (UTC)

SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 22 May 2016 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Napier Road, Karachi because Napier Road, Singapore. I'll bet Napier, New Zealand has one, too, and that there are others - the Napiers were a remarkable family, they almost make me believe that greatness in hereditary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a simple google [3] establishes that Napier Road, Karachi is a well known red light district. (unlike Dingley, I had not previously heard of it. I won't ask how he did.) Linked from Prostitution in Pakistan. I see no need to call it the Napier Road district, it's a common English usage for districts to be called by the name of a street.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M Gregory's and Andy Dingley's excellent analysis. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surprised this is still going. I thought Andy Dingley's comments settled this. --do ncr am 03:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will userfy the article if requested. MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Que Suegros![edit]

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

TV show that may or may not exist, I can't find ANY proof that this is real at all. This is likely a hoax but not 100% sure, anyway not even sure if this is notable Wgolf (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as I myself actually reviewed this at NPP, nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This doesn't appear to be a hoax. It's been included in List of Puerto Rican television series since that article was created in 2004. In addition, the program appears in archived TV listings, such as this 1983 listing at the bottom of page 17-E in the Evening News of Beacon, New York. Unfortunately, other information on the series appears sparse online, so more information may be needed to confirm whether or not the subject meets WP:TVSERIES. Calamondin12 (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Calamondin, this does seem to exist — and given the language gap, I can completely buy a Puerto Rican series from the 1980s falling through the sourceability cracks if you're relying solely on Google for verifiability. But at the same time, a television series does not automatically get an article, or an exemption from having to be reliably sourced, just because it existed (because even a series that did exist is still vulnerable to having deliberately or accidentally incorrect information added about it, if the sourcing ain't there.) So I'm willing to revise this to a keep, if somebody with access to Puerto Rican sources can dig out a decent reference or two for it — but if it's still in this state by close, then perhaps it should be draftified to permit improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I have no strong objection to moving this back to draft space, I see little point in doing so. The article's creator has made literally no other edits (anywhere on Wikipedia). Also, the article is little more than one person's memory of what the show was about. Nothing is lost by deleting this. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tor bade pran kande[edit]

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

PROD removed. No sources or indication of notability. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:GNG; it is barely a stub, poorly written and has no RS citing, as well. Kierzek (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Article did not make any claim of significance. Plus, all sources are either from youtube or facebook, both of which are not reliable. --Dps04 (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scott-Morgan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article might not meet notability requirements as per WP:BIO. Tow (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concerns about WP:GNG, style and tone. Lack of sourcing outside trade journals, hardly any mentions in mainstream media news articles. Parts of the article are more suitable for a LinkedIn profile than an encyclopedia article. A large chunk of it may have been written by someone with a WP:COI.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No doubt a very talented individual, but does not meet WP:GNG. Mcewan (talk) 10:18, 24 May 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. Not relisting because there has already been substantial debate, and both sides have made valid arguments that are supported by policy. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls[edit]

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

While impressive, every game gets at least this much coverage in the media, this game does not requires its own article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I seriously think we need to rethink our guidelines on notability of some pop culture stuff, and sport articles like this are one of the major issues to consider. Yes, there's coverage, but WP:NOTNEWS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability standards --pgp688 talk to me see my work 06:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which notability standards? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notabile. There is already an article for the Hudson River derby. We don't need an article for each game. KitHutch (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Going by "news coverage" (ie. results in Google News), this game has roughly four times the average coverage of a standard MLS game. In addition, articles for games in which the biggest league win margin occurred is relatively common, such as Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. in the Premier League and Borussia Mönchengladbach 12–0 Borussia Dortmund in the Bundesliga. ♠ SG →Talk 14:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article is not about the rivalry per se, it's about the record win in MLS history. Per ♠ SG. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article has historical significance and is certainly notable via the massive amounts of media coverage it received. --Kevin W. - Talk 16:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Massive amount? Could you provide comparison to other matches on the weekend? 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SG. Plenty of coverage to show this is notable, with a record-setting scoreline. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's definitely notable as the biggest margin of victory in MLS history, not even counting the NY/NY angle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the largest margins of victory. It's happened before. And are you saying that if there is a larger margin of victory, the article can be deleted because it's no longer the largest margin of victory? 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Hudson River Derby where it should be mentioned, does not merit a separate article. Giant Snowman 21:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This definitely deserves to be part of the Hudson River Derby article, but isn't notable enough for its own. SixFourThree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep based on ♠ SG's reasoning. Che84 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add a decent amount of content to Hudson River Derby.

The German game mentioned above isn't remotely comparable: apart from being a record score, it was a record score that the winners needed in order to overtake another team to win the championship, there was an investigation into possible match fixing and/or not trying, and 40 years on, the game is still talked and written about.

The difference between this and the Man Utd–Ipswich game mentioned above, is that this game was played 3 days ago, while Man Utd–Ipswich got a (no-consensus) keep at two AfDs largely because there were enough people pointing to ongoing coverage even though the match was played 15 years before. Obviously there's massive coverage of this one because of the score, the NY angle, and because it's just happened. That makes it a big news story now. But there's no free pass for a match article just because it set a record that might be broken in the next round of matches and it's getting massive news coverage in the first few days after it happened. Wait and see if it receives ongoing significant coverage once the novelty wears off. No prejudice against re-creation if it does. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CRYSTAL works both ways. It's attracted significant coverage, and set a league record. And deleting on the grounds that it "might" be a novelty that wears off violates WP:CRYSTAL. Smartyllama (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction, tied league records. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is clear consensus that matches that are or were at a point in time the record winning margin in a nation's top competition are notable. Fenix down (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This should have a mention on the Hudson River Derby but it doesn't deserve its own article as it wouldn't be the strongest league in the world. So what if it was a big story in the US it doesn't mean that it should have an article. If it was another league like the Premier League or La Liga than I would say keep, but for now I would have to go for a redirect. Matt294069 is coming 01:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's time to close this debate, there's a clear consensus that this article should stay and meets WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEWS. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's time to close this debate, there's a clear consensus that this article should be deleted as WP:NOTNEWS and no one has provided proof that this event has received more coverage than any rivalry match. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lenskart[edit]

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

Somewhat newly founded company with only expected coverage and the current information not being convincing for the applicable notability. My searches have only found expected coverage also. Note I have also nominated the founder's article for AfD, Peyush Bansal. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough reliable sources. Fails notability guideline. Tom29739 ^[talk] 23:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and reads like a company PR piece. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 23 May 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 02:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Böhm[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A WP:PROD with the same rationale was removed on the grounds that the article had previously had a WP:BLPPROD, Quoting from Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Sticky_prod: "This does not affect the regular prod process, which may still be used on BLPs, including BLPs from which the sticky prod has been legitimately removed.". AllyD (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article supported by a primary source and a brief mention in an article about a forthcoming production. One of his short films for children appears to have film festival awards (summarised on its website) but my searches are not identifying sources about the subject in his own right which could sustain an article in terms of WP:CREATIVE or broader biographical criteria at this point. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have found nothing better and, although the current article could be acceptable if we wanted to accept it, this all boils to that it's still questionable for better. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 31 May 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. Not a lot of participation, so I'm going to call this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FlightMemory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability. The article is about a website lacking sufficient independent coverage. Several of the references are primary sources. The only secondary sources are a couple of brief mentions, usually along with other similar websites. An article on a similar website Flightdiary has been nominated at AFD for the same reason. MB (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Take away the blog posts, home page, forum posts and desperate appeal to alexa.com, and the independent sourcing amounts to a bare two paragraphs of fairly routine churn. This does not appear to have ever been a notable organisation. Reyk _YO! 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 07:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have found a few links so far but certainly nothing to suggest the needed notability. Delete at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Lord Ron[edit]

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

I have found nothing else better to suggest the seriously needed solid independent notability and its improvements, the article contains nothing outstandingly better and, since my searches have only found this (hiphopdx.com), the entire article is still questionable.

SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from new user - THIS IS REAL. HE IS REAL. YOUTUBE HIM. HE'S JUST NOT POP RAP. HE IS WELL KNOWN BY REAL HIP HOP HEADS.— Dmash562 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. pure promotion for individual lacking solid coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotion of individual who doesn't meet WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:51, 23 May 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 02:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Commissioner Peshawar[edit]

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

No evidence that this particular administrative post in this particular city meets our notability guidelines. Also contains unsourced promotional statements about a living person. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the applicable notability would be politicians and there's actually nothing confirmed to suggest satisfying that or any general notability, thus nothing convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Commissioner is administrative governmental office in Pakistan,India and Bangladesh. Wikipedia have many article related to administrative office post. If this article dont meet criteria then how the other article and thousand like this. New York City Police Commissioner Please revisit the discussion.Asif —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Publishing Company[edit]

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

OK I will try to be brief as I put at the PROD. This company is responsible for publishing a lot of books for which there are or so-called "Neelix redirects" WP:G6 concession. Those I have been taking individually to RfD, CSD or keeping just because a book has a title does not make that book encylopaeidic and certainly if we have no content beyond redirecting it to its publishing company it makes no sense to have it. However, separately I do not believe this company is notable. The article reads like a WP:PROMO when for example the first thing in the lede is its full address. It really is just not a very notable company, I think. There are thousands – millions @ndash; of small companies (I have worked for a few) all doing perfectly good work but are not is notable by Wikipedia standards, and I think this is one of them. The fact they are a publisher inevitably means they will be slightly easier to kinda self-reference (the references are not literally self-references but are just mentions that this book is published by this company) than your local plumber who may or may not be a company but that still doesn't make the company notable. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches have found nothing particularly convincing and thus, included with the current article, there's nothing convincing at all for a notable article. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing comes up that would make this pass WP:ORG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Services Air Airbus A310-300 crash[edit]

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. Cargo plane crashes are also very common, and in the Congo VERY COMMON, and aren't usually notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kristijh (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. passes WP:GNG A combination of factors which were probably preventable causing multiple non-crew casualties.--Petebutt (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major airliner crashes killing people on the ground; well covered event. The fact it happens in a place where crashes (usually of smaller planes without casualties) are more common isn't relevant. Common occurrences can be notable - we cover eruptions at volcanoes, where most eruptions happen at volcanoes, and don't wait for one to occur in the middle of some major city to be notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a few fatalities, well covered, also the crash had quite a few major effects on the area and on airlines in the area. Also, the plane was very large. Beejsterb (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - cargo aircraft crash ≠ lack of notability. Eight ground casualties adds weight to case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STAROKATOLICIZAM[edit]

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

Not written in English: probably polish but Google search turned up; zero resuls IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as not in English, shouldn't belong in the English encyclopedia. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Running this through Google Translate, it appears this article is very similar to Old Catholic Church, possibly enough to warrant a CSD for an existing article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, the topic is effectively Old Catholic Church. As far as I could tell from a quick check, the content is original (not copied from another online source, including other wikis), so please do not make this a speedy, i.e. give the author a chance to move the text elsewhere. GregorB (talk) 09:02, 24 May 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 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City Centre Hyderabad[edit]

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

In this state advertising. The Banner talk 18:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can make it better, because it is not NPOV, is full of opinions, unsourced, and the few sources I found were from primary sources or strongly opinionated pieces Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Sheepy says, not for NPOV, but the writing that makes it seem like only someone in the mall industry could ever decode this industryspeak mess of an article. Nate • (chatter) 05:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article looked markedly different in 2012 and was about a different subject in a different city and a different state, having been completely hi-jacked in March 2016 then renamed. No-one in this discussion so far has addressed this. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As Uncle G notes, the article was hijacked with a promotional brochure about a different mall in March 2016. The previous article about the mall in Kolkata didn't cite sources either. An initial search for sources didn't yield much, but my inclination is to revert and move back. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have never checked the history. In that case, return the pre-March version to City Centre (Kolkata) and this version and title for Hyderabad should still be deleted. Nate • (chatter) 00:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had seen the hijacking but in my opinion that meant reverting an advertisement back to a very bad article. The Banner talk 17:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability, nothing to suggest an outstandingly better article. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BROCHURE. Hyderabad is a booming city, with shopping malls but also with major daily newspapers. In English. And I'm not dinging stories about this shopping centre.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and Keep, kudos to User:Uncle G The original article topic, before it was hijacked, is about the City Centre Salt Lake, an apparently notable shopping centre in Kolkata. Here: [4] is a news google search on that mall. Several pages of hits, an article on this Kolkata mall can be sourced. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Suggest that we restore the original article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting; there appears to be consensus to restore the original version of the article, but further discussion is needed to determine the title - and hopefully somebody volunteers to do the restoration? MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complete history. Both articles about Hydrabad mall and Kolkata mall did not show any notability or any hint of passing WP:GNG. The 26 Jan 2016 version of Kolkatta mall was equally bad. Hence delete both. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both this promotional guff and the barely-readable unsourced article it replaced fail the GNG quite impressively. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate Everything (YouTube channel)[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTube channel with lots of unreliable YouTube references. Being non-notable is not a valid reason for speedy deletion, but rather proposed deletion or an AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even going as shallow as Google News results, theres no reliable independent coverage of this channel. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find anything to bring it up to notability standard. Fails WP:GNG NealeFamily (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C J Franco[edit]

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

Non-notable actress (fails wp:entertainer). From what I can find, 3 roles in non-notable TV shows and one minor role in the notable film Crime After Crime (film). There is some coverage of her dating Len Wiseman. However, this coverage centers on Wiseman. Notability is not inherited. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nominator. She is more of an aspiring actress/Instagram model at this point, and certainly fails WP:NACTOR, and being Len Wiseman's girlfriend doesn't confer notability on her. If she gets her big break and becomes notable, we can create the article then. MisterRandomized (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage found - article more suited to a gossip column than an encyclopedia. - Arjayay (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I also salted several versions of the name. MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subhas Gupta[edit]

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

Article that has been A7 speedied five times but was created at another title ~~then moved~~ (see comment below) to dodge the creation protection on the page. PROD was endorsed but removed by IP editor, with the non-argument "I removed it because it's notable." Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 02:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As I mentioned in my endorsement of the PROD the most recent iteration appears to have been created explicitly to dodge the auto-confirmed user requirement on the "Subhas Gupta" title. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 06:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It wasn't moved to dodge the creation protection. I simply moved it to its correct title, not knowing that the title was creation protected. That being said, the references are either non-independent or trivial mentions. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should clarify, I was not accusing User:IronGargoyle of anything unsavoury. What I meant was the the original creator of the page seemingly created it with the unnecessary disambig to circumvent the auto-confirmed user protection on Subhas Gupta. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 02:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Cosign. I've edited my nomination to clarify. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 19:31, 25 May 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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack El-Hai[edit]

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

Nothing better convincing for any applicable notability and the best I've found are expected mentions at Books, News and Highbeam and simply nothing to suggest the improvements needed (I will say I found several acceptable sources at News, but the coverage is not sufficiently solid). SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a google news search confirms notability, just barely meets requirements. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep recommend Nom User:SwisterTwister to withdraw this. El Hai passes WP:AUTHOR. I only had to go as far as googling the first book mentioned in the article, The Lobotomist [5] Plenty of reviews in RS to support an article on this title, thereby establishing notability of author. Article does need improvement, sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of his work seems significant: The Nazi and the psychiatrist and The Lobotomist are each in over 500 libraries ,according to worldcat . DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Fedotov[edit]

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

ceo of a number of non notable companies, part of a promotional campaign for him and his businesses. No real indication of notability the refs are essential press releases DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The main article was a stub, and that was the main reason, to get expanded. There is one company which is notable. I agree to Delete, since the article was expanded (looks like a self-promotion or autobiography case). OGfromtheGut (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing convincing for the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill marketing executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 24 May 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 02:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters (magazine)[edit]

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

Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 11:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing actually convincing of the applicable notability and I've found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could see this qualifying under criterion #5 of WP:NMEDIA, but I see no evidence of outsize influence in the community of British Muslim women. I also don't see any coverage besides passing mentions in reliable sources (i.e. not blogs). MisterRandomized (talk) 04:58, 23 May 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 06:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarath Babu M[edit]

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

Contested prod. Filmmaker with no reliable sources who comes under way too soon. Wgolf (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem if there isyet sufficient notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient notability (only one credit), and WP:TOOSOON (that credit either just came out, or hasn't come out yet). Fieari (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palmas Pueblo[edit]

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

Article which takes the two main districts of Cataño, Puerto Rico, which already have their own standalone articles at Palmas and Pueblo, and conflates them into an unattested and unverifiable alternate name that's falsely described as being a district of San Juan instead of Cataño (which is admittedly near San Juan, but is a separate thing.) It should also be noted that this was originally created by an editor who's since been blocked from editing Wikipedia, mainly because of problematic and sometimes hoaxish editing about Puerto Rican topics. Is it worth redirecting this to Cataño, Puerto Rico as an alternate name for it, or should it just be deleted as effectively a WP:HOAX? Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as still likely for keeping since it's a community, not independently notable for its own article apparently though.... SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's source doesn't confirm the separate existence of this "place". Nowhere in the cited census report do the two words appear together and nowhere is either one described as the "foyer" of San Juan, or of any other place. To top it off, the infobox identifies it as a township, but all of the information regarding government officials are for the Puerto Rican territory as a whole. --User:NewYorkActuary
Delete. User:NewYorkActuary points out that even the officials in the infobox are not relevant to this supposed place. Nothing to save. --do ncr am 03:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of professional wrestling organisations in Australia. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleClash[edit]

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

No notable promotion. Most of the sources aren't reliable. Looking for sources I only found notes about the partnership with GFW. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of professional wrestling organisations in Australia. This article was originally created as a redirect to List of professional wrestling organisations in Australia and was later created as an article, although, an independent article for this topic should not be included in an encyclopedia because it fails the general notability guideline. — Music1201 ^talk 20:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as simply not independently notable for now, my searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of professional wrestling organisations in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pidzz (talk • contribs) 06:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the above - and, indeed, it seems that this has already been redirected as per WP:BOLD. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:56, 25 May 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 Pro Wrestling Women's Alliance. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Alliance Australia[edit]

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

No notable. Only 4 sources in the article, 3 of them are from the promotion. I didn't find sources about the promotion HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pro Wrestling Women's Alliance. This article was originally created as a redirect to Pro Wrestling Women's Alliance and was later created as an article, although, an independent article for this topic should not be included in an encyclopedia because it fails the general notability guideline. — Music1201 ^talk 20:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect instead as there's simply nothing solidly convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pro Wrestling Women's Alliance.

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else recommends that the page be deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

László Salgó[edit]

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

Okay, more than willing to withdraw this nomination if someone can provide a source showing that the parliament that is referred to in the final sentence of this stub is the national parliament of Hungary. The two sources do not state this (at least the computer translations of those sources don't), neither does the obit. Without that, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show this person passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found one here. --PootisHeavy (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adjusted article to use AP archive story that is explicit in stating that he was in the National Assembly, which is the parliament. Also makes explicit that he was Hungary's chief rabbi. Also dug up some coverage of an award he received in 1980, finding some further mentions in journals covering the Jewish communities of the Eastern bloc. Avram (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets at least WP:NPOL as a member of parliament; may also meet WP:BASIC if you dig enough. I have added a search term for "Salgó László". Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we've not only surpassed the notability standard, we've also addressed the nominator's challenge to source the service in the Hungarian National Assembly. Time to withdraw or speedy close. Alansohn (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As asked, the parliamentary question has been answered, so I'm Withdrawing the nomination. As I'm retired now, could an admin please close (or even a NAC, since it is withdrawn and there are no delete !votes). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 23 May 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.