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 11:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Survivor episodes[edit]

List of Australian Survivor episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:N and WP:V. Page seems unnecessary given season pages (season 1 and 2) contain this information. Given there have only been two seasons produced (with a third due later this year), hardly seems a need for a separate list article, particularly given the lack of citations. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom. 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 00:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I had also encountered this recently, no need for it. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 15 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. I read this as a rough consensus to keep. Obviously the numbers are stronger on the keep side, though the weight of policy argument is closer. It appears we are somewhere in the gray area of WP:ENT, with more people leaning towards the "close enough" side. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Harlacher[edit]

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

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Hits in animenewsnetwork were passing mentions—nothing biographical. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 18:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar 18:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar 18:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP, there's simply nothing to suggest the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing shows this dubber is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Toradora!#Characters. Weak keep Erika plays a major character in this anime (Ami Kawashima) so this would be the most likely search result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking this over, I do have the Toradora! booklet that might have an interview with Erika Harlacher who plays Ami Kawashima. This source would count as secondary, as it is not about the voice actress herself. I will check into the magazines I have as well later today. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ami is a major character in the Toradora! series. She also voices Kurapika in Hunter x Hunter (premiered on Adult Swim this month), and Asseylum Vers Allusia in Aldnoah.Zero (broadcast on Netflix originals) which are both lead roles. So is Elizabeth Liones in The Seven Deadly Sins anime (broadcast as Netflix originals), Mimori Togo in Yuki Yuna Is a Hero. Also has supporting roles such as Mako's mom in Kill la Kill, which was run extensively on Adult Swim last year. She has 4 convention appearances according to AnimeCons [1] That's fairly strong for breaking into the English dubs of the anime industry. Easily meets WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angus. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AngusWOOF's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing a voice actor, not the characters she voices. Per WP:INHERIT, notability isn't somehow transferred from a notable character or a character from a notable series to its voice actor. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And brigaded once again. If this voice actress and her roles cited are important, where is the secondary source coverage about her and her roles? czar 00:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Twitter & Youtube would be considered primary sources as they are written by her, sources such as The Fandom Post, Anime News Network, and The Monitor in this case are secondary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Monitor is a student paper, The Fandom Post is fan blog (unreliable), and the ANN posts are not about her in any depth—her name is invoked in passing mention and there is no content about which we can write an article. Surely you can see how this makes no sense to see four keeps in a row based on even the added sourcing, no? Everything that could be said about her from these sources is already said in the corresponding media articles. czar 01:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cant vouch for the Monitor, but Chris Beveridge is mentioned in several printed sources, as well as having a panel at Anime Boston. [2][3] I agree that more biographical info is needed, but seeing that her major roles are verified in multiple reliable sources she would pass WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll scrap Monitor as that is more of just a school run blog project. But Fandom Post is reliable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Fandom Post is arguably only behind ANN as an independent online reliable source. Much of the staff were contributors to AnimeOnDvd, several have cotributed to Otaku USA and I believe ANN as well. SephyTheThird (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A blog run by individuals who have once published elsewhere is not automatically reliable... (If anything, it would be as a self-published expert, which I don't believe these are.) What pedigree does this site have vis-à-vis fact-checking to make it reliable? (And mind that this is still besides the original point—that the article is now refbombed with tons of mentions yet none go into any depth about the individual.) czar 18:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted reception on her acting, so of course there will be bombs of reviews. As with film reviews, small portions would apply to the specific actor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but in all of those sources, which ones are reliable+independent+secondary so as to prove her noteworthiness. Right now there's just a number of mentions and, unless I'm missing something, all of the interviews are coming from fan blogs (unreliable, used as self-published sources), meaning that no major outlet is calling her a notable figure apart from what we're splicing together here... czar 21:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an idea Would it be better if the article were made into a template that covers her works? I just can see nothing present when it comes to her biographical info, so why have an article about her biography? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like a navbox? There's no policy on this as I don't think it has been suggested before, but I'd oppose such a move, sorry. WP:NENAN seems to be appropriate, as well as possibly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Voice actors aren't actors, their prominence for your average audience is far less, and even the vast majority of actors don't have navboxes. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't make sense, per WP:NAVBOX, there should be an article about the navbox's subject. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep, neutral essentially. More or less on the fence with this one. On one hand, her roles mean she should pass WP:ENT without too much difficulty, but on the other, you'd think such roles would land her RS coverage, but there isn't much; sources like Anime News Network often run interviews for voice actors but she has none. The only truly "good" source I see is #26, which discusses her with some detail, and that plus the number of (albeit shallow) sources available and ENT nudges me slightly to the keep side. Nevertheless, I'd be wary of using her having roles in notable anime as the sole argument for keeping, as that runs afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED. Would like to see at least an article with Harlacher as the primary subject. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She does have interviews; they are mostly in the form of podcasts and videos. There are news articles focused on her as the primary subject but they tend to be over 80% interview. Very few news articles these days about actors talk about just the actor without some sort of interview portion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...which would be another way of saying that few voice actors are notable. czar 23:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After a bit of a flip/flop I can see now that much work has gone into the article, she passes WP:ENT with now biographical info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She has a lot of reliable sources not just from convention info, but also has several interviews and articles relating to Erika Harlacher and how she started her voice over work. So she definitely passes WP:ENT.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:INHERIT, the fact that she voices characters from notable series does not make her automatically notable. Where is the background info, the reception on her voice acting? Her own comments on the characters she voices is WP:PRIMARY. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As with musicians the biography section usually has something where the artist talks about their own work, theme and inspirations. Similarly with actors and their portrayals of characters. Much is this is sourced by interview. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD we look for interviews from notable outlets as an external measure of the subject's public esteem. Doing lots of interviews with low-grade sources is more a sign of niche importance than notability for an encyclopedia. czar 23:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment requesting admin decision rather than flipflopping of a non admin closure.. Regardless of his thoughts on the article, the nominator is testing the boundries of good faith by using words like "brigaded" (further up) and accusations of bandwagoning because they aren't getting their own way. We get it, they don't think the article should be kept, but it's becoming about the nominator getting what he wants and not the merits of the arguements. The article needs improvement but it's substantially improved. I think there is an argument for keeping it for now and improving it. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we can be clear about these merits of arguments, we're talking about (1) an article that exhaustively cites every minor mention of this individual yet (2) cannot cite a single reliable source that goes into any depth. The policy-backed merit for keeping is what? If she is notable, where's the coverage? czar 23:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe a point of dispute has been reached in the discussion that a closure of no consensus is the most appropriate course of action. Are all sources of the grade I would use in an article? Not exactly. Has a serious effort been made to improve the article with what is available? Yes. I think leaving this article age and mature might be a better option at this point. Esw01407 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NACTOR point 1 (significant roles in multiple notable productions). Also, INHERIT, on its own terms, is inapplicable here; from INHERIT: "[F]our of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances . . . ."  Rebbing  18:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rebbing, yes, when the actor's role is the subject of significant coverage... czar 20:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. The guideline says a voice actress's notability is presumed when she "[h]as had significant roles in multiple notable . . . productions." It doesn't say that the roles need to have had significant coverage, merely that they be "significant roles" and that the productions themselves be notable. That much appears to be satisfied in this case.  Rebbing  20:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, and there's context: how "significant" are these roles when nothing has been written about them in any depth? The secondary guidelines are in service of the basic notability guidelines (note "likely to be notable" vs. "are presumed notable"). This article, as it currently stands, is exactly what you get when you string together primary sources and passing mentions. Maybe two of the article's lines about reception are even about her. ENT#1 alone is not a reason to keep this article. czar 01:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • My assessment is that the characters listed in the lede—Ami Kawashima (listed in § Main characters in Toradora!), Mimori Togo (listed second in its article), Asseylum Vers Allusia (main character), Elizabeth Liones (main), and Kurapika—are all major roles as contemplated by NACTOR point 1, which means that the guideline provides that it's likely our subject is notable. (You're right: the language is "likely," not "presumed.") Based on that likelihood and the article's text, my view is that the subject actually is notable, and, as notability is the only concern raised in the nomination, my recommendation is that the article ought to be kept. Clearly, we disagree on all of these points, but that doesn't mean either of us is wrong: it means we have different judgment.

          By the way, the convention is to use indented bullets created with repeated asterisks (****) when replying in deletion discussions. Thank you.  Rebbing  02:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

          That's a very literal read. Any daily log of AfDs will show that it is not conventional to use multiple asterisk indents for single-threaded conversations. I'd wager that most editors find it hard/annoying to read. czar 05:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep – Seems like enough coverage to meet notability. I'm basing this on other AfD discussions which show wayy less notability but still are kept. The article needs to seriously cut down on the biography section though. NikolaiHo 03:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for Pete's sake, there are 62 sources and this individual has multiple credits, if any voice actor for video games is notable at all, this one clearly is. NACTOR met. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 16 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 Jane Holland. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Number One (book)[edit]

Girl Number One (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:Notability (books). The Cornish Guardian article already cited is the only article I can find on Google News, I can't find any reviews of the book published in reliable sources by googling, and the book does not appear to have won any major awards, have had any other notable works based off of it, or be by a historically significant author. In fact, the author herself appears to be barely notable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jane Holland. Other than the mention in the Cornish Guardian, there's no coverage. Wikipedia doesn't count Amazon rankings as a sign of notability on Wikipedia for several reasons, to the point where it's specifically mentioned as an example of what bestseller lists do not count towards notability. However because the author has an article, I see no reason why it can't redirect there (unless it gets deleted as well). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect perhaps as the few sources are amusing but simply not enough for solid independent notability to an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the author's page. I couldn't find any coverage other than this. This wouldn't satisfy WP:NBOOK. Redirecting is a much better option and considering the article's current length, this information can be easily merged to the author's page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:21, 12 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djiboutian Americans[edit]

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

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

This is a tiny immigrant group (numbering fewer than the 300 people required for a precise figure to be reported by the US census), with no significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find. Fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Far too small of a group to come up with decent sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Djibouti is a transit point for many other Horn Africans, as well as many American citizens who come from the Horn. Djibouti is arguably the most closely allied country to the US on the eastern shore of Africa. Several US citizens who do not have Djoubitian nationality received their green visa lottery card within the country after residing there for lengthy periods or even being born there. The increased bilateral relations between the two countries means this nomination is premature and we ought to see what the relation holds in store for the future. Djibouti is arguably the only country that deals that extensively with the US in military, political, economincal and social contexts. All these points more than negate questionable demographics and merely cement the encyclopedic nature of this article.Ninefive6 (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is the case, then I would argue that the article is premature, not this discussion, Ninefive6. Our notability criteria require significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Cn you point us to any? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - contains nothing of significance. Engleham (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as it's still questionable for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's no real content in this article. The only source provided is a table from the U.S. Census Bureau indicating that the population of this group, as of 2000, was too small to be specifically reported. Some of the issues referenced by Ninefive6 above would be better discussed in Djibouti–United States relations instead. Furthermore, immigrants to the United States who happened to be born in Djibouti or to have lived there, without holding Djiboutian nationality, would not be classified as Djiboutian Americans, any more than one would consider Olivia de Havilland a Japanese American. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - virtually no sources online. Just to be sure, I did a few other searches on Bing and Google, and found nothing reliable or relevant. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 10 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) GSS (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vijai Sardesai[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Reasoning by Mr. Guye was "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also promotional."  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an MLA (Assembly Member) is enough for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Meets WP:NPOL as someone having held "national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" and a "member or former member of a national, state or provincial legislature" AusLondonder (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• While the WP:CIRCULAR referencing to other Wikipedia articles certainly had to be stripped, other sources are present in the article besides that — and a promotional tone can be cleaned up through the normal editing process. But duly elected members of state legislatures do pass WP:NPOL #1 as long as their status as members can be properly verified. Keep and flag for cleanup; I've already stripped the circular references. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 10 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 merge to Twitterature. MBisanz ^talk 11:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Twitter[edit]

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

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

Social media phenomenon with questionable notability. I am not sure if this meets WP:GNG and think a discussion on this is needed. Laber□^T 21:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as article creator. When I was deciding whether or not to write the article in March, what led me to decide it was notable was the range of sources available, including in-depth articles from NPR, Buzzfeed, Motherboard etc. The term has been in use for several years now - for instance this New York Times article (mentioned in passing) from 2014, this Washington Post article from 2013 and this one from 2012. Searching Google News shows ongoing references (with some false positives) regularly every couple of days. Blythwood (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Per Blythwood and, if you check this screenshot of Google Insights [4], you'll see that it's a new term that became popular since 2009. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment:: If I interpret the chart right, it seems that most people who entered the term are false positives who searched for the Twitter account of "Weird Al Yankovic" (if you look at the bottom of the page), which explains why the graph seems to roughly reflect the popularity of Twitter in general. Please correct me if I interpreted this wrong. Also this graph. --Laber□^T 07:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge with Twitterature. I highly doubt there will ever be enough material to sustain a proper article. Twitterature already exists and is the perfect article for this fad or whatever the hell this bizarre "alt-lit" phenomenon is. As I've commented elsewhere, lately Wikipedia articles are becoming more and more like the Twilight Zone or Outer Limits. Encyclopedic sanity is in order. Laval (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Twitterature. Add to the list of sources its sustained use in "weird+twitter" The Federalist. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Twitterature as best connected to that, unlikely for its own article yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 15 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casual (software)[edit]

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

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

Barely notable software product. No references to attest to the importance of this software. Judging by the text of the bitbucket project, it appears to be the first ever release by a small group of developers. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG --Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An interesting open source project I hadn't heard of before. That said, see no evidence of coverage in WP:RS at the present point in time. SJK (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not yet convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 15 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 per WP:SNOW. The outcome seems quite clear and a search brings up a dearth of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel of Simon: Revelation of the Sacred Mysteries[edit]

The Gospel of Simon: Revelation of the Sacred Mysteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. This is a self-published book from Lulu.com, see "publisher" website: "Currently available for purchase from Lulu Books". Therefore does not meet WP:BOOK. Skyerise (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree/Delete. This also might be considered "original research" in violation of WP:NOR. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel of Simon: Revelation of the Sacred Mysteries is a published book. It presents original research and the research of others. The proposed article merely cites the book and is not an attempt to present the research itself.Christopher Carpenter (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Christopher! Just a bit of explanation: books are not inherently notable because they exist (WP:ITEXISTS) and as such, you would have to show where the book has received coverage in independent and reliable sources. This can be incredibly difficult for most books, regardless of content and publisher, but it's especially hard for books that are self-published. It's also somewhat difficult for religious books to get coverage because there are just so many of them and relatively few places that will review them. Most mainstream publications only review works if they get a huge fan following, are the focus of a lot of controversy, and/or are written by someone very well known. (Think The Purpose Driven Life, Real Marriage, and Joel Osteen, respectively.) I understand that self-published books are unlikely to gain coverage, but Wikipedia can't really make up the difference and there has to be coverage in the here and now. Now a good outlet might be to look into adding your book to some of the Wikias out there like this one, since they don't have as many requirements as Wikipedia does for coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not even good enough for use as a reference on WP, let alone a dedicated article. It's a pity that there is no speedy deletion criterion which covers this. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:NB CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- If this came from a reputable academic publisher, I might have voted to keep it. However the article appears to be little more than an ADVERT for a rather NN book. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WorldCat finds no records of this book. LadyofShalott 21:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: One quick note for Skyerise: being self-published does not automatically mean that a book is non-notable. It just makes it extremely unlikely that it would be, so try to avoid using this as your only rationale for deletion. The reason for this is that once in a blue moon we have things like the Silo series that gain attention despite being self-published, enough to where they even got a traditional publishing gig. It's rare, but it does happen. I'm not saying that you can't say that the book is self-published in the deletion rationale, but make sure to put down something like the book has received no coverage. This makes it easier in the long run because it makes it easier to understand how the book fails NBOOK for any newbies coming into the discussion and if anyone wanted to argue the point later on down the line. (I've seen people argue after an AfD was closed, because the deletion argument really only stated that the book was self-published.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 11 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 merge to Gnome deities. Of note is that List of gnome deities redirects to Gnome deities. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaerdal Ironhand[edit]

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

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

This character does not have any third party sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of gnome deities; list of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities likely only has space for the name, whereas this has space for some discussion. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of gnome deities. He's mentioned there, but it's only a single line. The content is sourced to primary sources; that's enough to validate a merge, but it's not enough to establish notability. I don't see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A Google Books search reveals nothing better than novels and game books. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of gnome deities per NinjaRobotPirate.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:47, 14 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  07:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vipul Narigara[edit]

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

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

As the subject appears to have played at the semi-pro but not highest level per [5], he appears to fail WP:NCRICKET. Happy to be corrected if anyone more knowledgeable than myself about Indian cricket wishes to differ. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as questionable for the applicable notability, the article certainly also contains nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 15 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 11:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Direct (musician)[edit]

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

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

Non notable arist. More views does not equal notable. Nothing I can find that gets this above WP:GNG --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably as notable as other artists on Monstercat, whom have wikipedia pages. --albion97 ^(Talk) 19:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Notability has a special meaning on Wikipedia! Check out WP:N and WP:GNG - most notably, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - Your article links no significant coverage in any reliable source. Only links to Direct's music (and an interview, which can't be used to establish notability). For Wikipedia to have an article, it needs third party sources about the person in question! --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply nothing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 15 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Leight[edit]

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

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

Non-notable new age artist. None of the presented sources mention her in the printed text (the audio sample may). Apart from that, I could not find any sources. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to the page, Angelica Leight is not an artist at all, but a fictional character of an artist that is the alleged author of a fake parody website. Her persona is not seen anywhere outside the website, so she is a non-notable fictional character. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per findings of Passengerpigeon. No wonder nothing I searched for exists. This is a hoax in disquise. Fylbecatulous talk 03:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this page, this is not a "hoax in disguise". The character is a satiric artwork and is performed by the creator, Lynden Stone. I have amended the page to reflect this including deleting the category "Australian women artists" and including the category "Fictional Australian people". I have also added the link to the crosseXions catalogue essay by curator Beth Jackson where Angelica Leight is mentioned on page 3. Angelica Leight is also mentioned by Beth Jackson in the radio interview (link provided). Gusaroo (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Gusaroo[reply]

As amended, the article is even worse. Even Lynden Stone appears not to be notable either. No Google hits except Facebook, LinkedIn, their personal webpage and whatever the MIT Press Journal is (that you have to register and sign in to access). The article makes a mockery of encyclopedic content.This should have been speedily deleted... Fylbecatulous talk 13:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's nothing for any applicable notability here, article is not convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 15 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. Whether or not the page is moved can be decided elsewhere. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scranton General Strike[edit]

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

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

This is a term found almost exclusively on...wikipedia. The article is based on an obscure, POV-ridden source. This is properly part of the 1877 railroad strike article. POV fork. Anmccaff (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To expand: the title is a phrase found just about exclusively on Wikipedia itself, in this article. Both scholarship and contemporary accounts saw this as part of the'77 Railroad Strike.

Next, the subject is treated adequately, fairly completely and honestly in the Railroad Strikes of 1877 piece. This duplicates better work, and is a POV fork.

The most important problem is the first. Wiki shouldn't show ideas that don't have sources outside Wikipedia itself, and this is clear WP:OR. The term just isn't used elsewhere much. Anmccaff (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You'll have to make your case about POV but I don't think there's a WP:NUKEANDPAVE argument here for deletion. I agree this event hasn't been discussed separately from the other strikes of the time but there's perhaps too much material to merge it all back into the main article. This article needs work but I'm not sure deletion is the answer here. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and RM. The name is ORish, but "Great Railroad Strike of 1877 in Scranton", while a less pretty name, might be notable. This might be a valid subarticle, and I don't see why it shouldn't be kept. This should be at WP:RM rather then here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I think on it more, I suspect that is wrong, too, in a sense: the Scranton troubles really weren't about the railroad strike, except as it facilitated problems between some of the mine operators and some of the miners. A better article might be on labor problems in Scranton, taken over time. Either way, the title is OR. Not a single cite brought in used it except as a descriptive, and the violence, the actual subject of the article, began after the strike became particular to steel and mining. For this article as it stands The Lackawanna Avenue Riot would be a better title.Anmccaff (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep: Four of the five sources are specific to Scranton, which establishes the notability of the event in itself. There is clearly enough material to justify a standalone article. There are no valid reasons for deletion; and whatever concerns may exist about the best title, AfD is not cleanup. --RexxS (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two are not specific to Scranton, and the ways that the other three are are directly opposed to this article.

• the first NYT piece explicitly states that the wider strike was make by workers who were well paid, and intimidated others into participating. It also states that, contrary to the implications of the article, the Scranton mayor was assaulted, and that force against the mob was justified. The entire article stands against the wiki piece it is being mendaciously used to support.
• The final Times cite refutes the article almost completely, and points out that the claims the article advances were found to be civil and criminal libel. No support there. Anmccaff (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These seem a lot like arguments for changing the content of the article (perfectly fine), and not necessarily for whether it is notable. TimothyJosephWood 15:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the riot and shooting, which occurred -after the strike began breaking, i.e., when it was no longer, in any sense, general, this incident is a part of the '77 Railroad strikes as much as any other, and should be covered there. Anmccaff (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect whichever is needed, as this seems convincing enough to at least keep somewhere. Asking DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. sufficient sources for notability , as also with many of the other railroad strikes of that year: they each are appropriate for a separate article. What the name of this article should be can be discussed separately. . I note that the judgements of the 19th century NYT on the meirts of the strike is a POV statement; that they covered it shows notability , but their conclusion should not be used out of historical context. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is notable enough and well sourced. And yes a historical marker prepared by a historical site is a genuine RS --the text is what matters and it's good. Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new full-length scholarly monograph on the labor history of Scranton, that gives heavy emphasis to this strike. Azzarelli, Margo L.; Marnie Azzarelli (2016). Labor Unrest in Scranton. Arcadia Publishing. Portions the book are online at Amazon.com. That should lay to rest fears that the strike Is poorly documented or little-known. Rjensen (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man. No one raised the notion that the strike was poorly documented or little known, just that the documentation generally does not fit the wider strike itself as separately notable. The Lackawanna Avenue Riot is the notable part of the article, and the railroad strike had already ended in Scranton then, and workers were returning to other places as well. The violence this article centers on happened after, and perhaps because the widespread strike had broken. If this deserves a separate existence, it should focus on, and be named for, the part that is separately noteworthy. Anmccaff (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and this is not a trivial point, Arcadia Publishing has very little scholarly oversight. Some of their work is excellent, some horrendous, but it is all near to self-published by local authors, and heavily driven by copyright-free illustrations, in the way Dover Press is dependent on dead authors. Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Northamerica1000 or anyone else, can we close this and be done with it? Consensus seems almost unanimous for keep. The original inspiration per my comment on OP's talk was that the author suggested deletion and that it be merged with the larger article. The article has clearly now grown to a point where merger seems unlikely, and is sourced to the point where WP:NOTE failure is a snowball. Discussion continues on the the talk to improve the article, as it should. There is no reason to keep this AfD open. TimothyJosephWood 12:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is a suggestion to take it to RM not yet discussed, that would be precipitous. Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this AfD does not preempt taking the issue to RM.TimothyJosephWood 17:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Railroad Strike(s) of 1877 was a broad movement, this is legitimate coverage of a specific local aspect of that movement, in my estimation. If there is POV in the piece it can be addressed via the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 02:16, 18 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav Spahović[edit]

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

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

Non-notable mixed martial arts fighter. Does not meet WP:NMMA. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NMMA with no top tier fights and fails GNG with no significant coverage. The article's only source is a link to his fight record at sherdog.Mdtemp (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As an MMA fighter he's won about half his fights while not even competing in second tier promotions. No top tier fights means he's failed to meet WP:NMMA. My search found no significant independent coverage, at least in English, and the article's only reference is marked as a dead link. Papaursa (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 15 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 Chris Barfoot. MBisanz ^talk 11:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo American Pictures[edit]

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

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

CSD declined due to an assertion of notability. Not seeing it. I don't believe that this company is notable. Fails GNG IMO - not finding any RS. Gbawden (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all suggesting the needed notability improvements, nothing for independence. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Redirect Since it would definitely not overwhelm, I suggest it be mentioned at Chris Barfoot, and this article redirected there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chris Barfoot as a valid search term. Does not meet WP:N, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 16 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 11:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Özcan Özdemir[edit]

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

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

This is a more or less orphaned article about a very minor person in the Turkish (and maybe international) film industry. It is referenced to nothing but IMDB where his acting credits are all for for bit parts like "Truck driver (uncredited)" and most recently "Soldier (uncredited)". This is no good when it comes to establishing notability. IMDB also gives him three credits as a lighting technician, which is also no good. There is nothing to suggest that he has won awards or who written the book when it comes to lighting films.

There is no corresponding article in Turkish Wikipedia. The author seems to be interested in only this one person and shares a name with him, albeit spelled very slightly differently. This raises suspicion of autobiography and vanity.

Key points: Not notable and not verifiable due to no RS references. DanielRigal (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing for an imaginably better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infographics UK Ltd[edit]

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

FireWatch (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Software company with no assertion of notability, reads like an advertisement. The article creator is a new user with a surprisingly firm grasp of reference formatting and article organization and his/her only contributions are to this page and its product FireWatch (software). Now, I'm not saying it's paid editing and/or self-promotion, but I think WP:DUCK applies. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Adding FireWatch (software) to AFD since it suffers from all the same problems. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rewrite if notable, but it doesn't seem to be. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like an ad, no indication of notability. We're not the yellow pages, after all. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing convincing for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 15 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bagz Ogam[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC with no secondary sources: just a blog, a personal site, a malformed link to the Kenyan hip hop Wikipedia article and a Daily Nation profile of Willy Paul which does not appear to mention Ogam anywhere. Ogam may meet WP:NMUSIC for having won a significant award, but all I can find for the mentioned East Music Award is a dead Facebook page. McGeddon (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Appears to be same entry which was already 4x deleted before (+ title protected against recriation on 07.05.2016). --Gunnex (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional article on a non-notable subject. (It also seems likely that it was created by a block-evading sockpuppet, in which case it would qualify for speedy deletion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as questionable, nothing convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 15 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 11:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Knott[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fails WP:NHOCKEY, true, but the nomination does not address whether he fails WP:GNG. And he may not. I was able to find a few quick articles on him. [6] [7]. This may not be enough, but given that he was a high drat pick, there may be more relevant coverage from his junior days as well, which I haven't had time to search for yet. Rlendog (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Tribune article is worthless, but the other one could serve as a the cornerstone of a GNG challenge.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the Tribune article is worthless. It is an article primarily about Knott in a major newspaper. I also found an article about Knott in a less prestigious (but I think still relaiable) source here.
• Fails WP:NHOCKEY. I was unaware that WP:HOCKEY respected WP:GNG. Any high draft pick probably passes WP:GNG if you are willing to do the digging.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all high draft choices pass WP:GNG. We expect that first rounders do, and so they are included as presuming notability under WP:NHOCKEY. A number of high 2nd rounders do, consistent with the fact that they were often considered as possible first round picks and may get additional coverage for being their team's first or 2nd pick. But once you get below the top half of the 2nd round it seems to be pretty infrequent. Of course there are a few players below that who have significant coverage - maybe they were a star in juniors but deemed too slow or small to be worth a #1 or high #2 pick, or maybe there is something else that generates extra coverage, but only a handful of such players if that seem to have such coverage each year. Rlendog (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still questionable for better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. The sources shown by Rlendog are articles about a local teams draft pick which is typically considered routine coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those aren't routine because most draftees (except first rounders) typically do not get full articles even in the local papers. They get more like a sentence or two saying that the team selected so and so in the Xth round, maybe adding what junior or amateur team they played for or some other piece of color. But that said, I still don't know that those articles are sufficient. Rlendog (talk) 13:12, 16 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Foote[edit]

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

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

Non-notable former reality TV show contestant, fails WP:GNG. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NMUSIC: she made the Australian charts with "Underneath the Radar". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you had information that this person was notable under another name, why didn't you add it when you removed the PROD? IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 8 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 01:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Constance[edit]

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

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

Non-notable. References are trivial or self-published, TheLongTone (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete its WP:TOOSOON, more productions needed before an article Atlantic306 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - short film producers are run of the mill common. I don't see how this person stands above the crowd. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person is presently not sufficiently notable. --Dcirovic (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, and an autobiography. Peter Sam Fan 13:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly the author is the article/subject. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  14:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @Gareth Griffith-Jones, Dcirovic, Bearian, Dthomsen8, Atlantic306, SwisterTwister, and TheLongTone: See the article again and my talk page. Peter Sam Fan 18:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Any reasons to change my opinion or the opinions of others should be stated here, not elsewhere.DThomsen8 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw the page history and the result, which is to make the page even worse by what appears to be COI editing by the subject herself. Wikipedia is not a web host or resume bulletin board -- it is a private charity -- so you can't use us to publicize yourself. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 13 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 11:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5cero6[edit]

5cero6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BAND. Could only find two news articles, both in Spanish [8] [9]. Has music video clips on youtube. Not a notable band and no significant coverage. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources in English, just Wikipedia mirrors. They appear to exist, but coverage seems limited and local. Article has been unsourced and orphaned since creation. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I basically also only found the Nacion link, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 15 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 11:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HESFES[edit]

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

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

I've attempted to copyedit and track down some reliable sources, but have unfortunately come to the conclusion this article does not pass WP:GNG -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the coverage in the Daily Mail is trivial, and no google news hits. PhilKnight (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Nom. Clubjustin (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (copied from this AfD's talk page) I disagree with the proposed deletion -The Daily Mail source has been removed and other reliable sources have been added to the HESFES page editing, including : Juno Magazine^[1],Ed Yourself-The home education consultancy^[2] and other Home Education publications^[3].Pamelajefferson (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 11/05/16[reply]
• Comment I have copied the above keep !vote from this AfD's talk page (diff) @Pamelajefferson: please place any further discussion here, thank you -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 15 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. J04n(talk page) 12:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Button Gwinnett (band)[edit]

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

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

The band, their sole album, their sole single, and their record label have no external references online (other than those using this article as a base). The only two sources used in the article are two out-of-print music compendiums. The article includes a purported cover of the album, which was modified from https://www.flickr.com/photos/52844469@N05/4898777348. Martey (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since notability is not temporary, the fact that the available sources are out of print has no bearing on these proceedings. However...I have a copy of the Martin Strong discography right here in front of me, and Button Gwinnett doesn't even have an entry in the book. I'd feel more comfortable if someone had the opportunity to check on the Larkin reference (it's not readily available at my local library), but we may have a hoax on our hands. Chubbles (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentDelete: If it couldn't be found by a search engine, then it probably does not exist. Search only returned a 18th century statesman and something with a computer game. However, do note that infobox including album art are added by another editor 3 days after the last edit by article creator. I'm going to request a CheckUser here. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 15:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And request sent. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 15:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much would be coming that way - Pending more evidence pointing towards notability, I'd say if it couldn't be found by several good search engines, it probably does not exist. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 02:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any online sources apart from [10], which is a very passing mention on the obituary of someone not mentioned in the article. I can't find anything for the quoted record label either. I think that even if the refs given are valid, they are not quite enough to assert notability. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 15:45, 8 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. Two sources have been found, but voters have strong arguments why these do not raise up to notability, and the arguments were not answered.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Openride[edit]

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

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

The article is orphaned, I think it does not meet the notability guidelines, has no citations, and its external links are dead Uniphil~enwiki (talk) 04:51, 20 April 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 April 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I did find these: [11][12]. GAB^Hello! 21:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Delete - one article in Wired isn't enough to establish notability. Sorry about that. GAB^Hello! 15:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: GAB, the first link you included is actually not about the OpenRide software project from the German tech institute, but a completely unrelated startup in California that has also taken the name OpenRide. Uniphil~enwiki (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has atleast 2 reliable third-party sources last time I checked. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 11:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Added. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 11:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as has some sources such as

1. http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2016/04/18/sacramentostartup-wants-to-be-airbnb-of-carpooling.html
2. http://www.gizmag.com/openride-mobile-service-organizes-carpooling-on-go/12823/
3. http://www.wired.com/2009/09/hitchhiking-phone/

Not sure how good of a source the second link is, though. I'm on the fence for this one. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThePlatypusofDoom, as said above, your first source you mentioned is for a different project altogether. Nordic Dragon 09:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple independent sources. The Gizmag source states at the bottom that it is 'via Fraunhofer Institute', suggesting it is just a rehash of a press release. This leaves only the wired.com article as significant RS coverage, on its own insufficient to establish notability. The 'official site' is now a deadlink, suggesting that the project has been abandoned and no additional sources are likely to emerge.Dialectric (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The German project appears to have gotten a flash-in-the-pan bit of interest that quickly died, and it appears to be defunct. Information about them is completely swamped by the more notable and still ongoing American project by the same name, to the point where it looks as if the unrelated U.S. company has bought the original web address used by the German project. I agree that this present article should be deleted. Whether or not the American firm needs its own page or own section in some current page is a separate matter. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches did not turn up any additional coverage other than what has already been discussed. I agree with Dialectric's assessment of the one source being a rehashed PR. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 21 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 Real-time locating system. Will leave the history intact in case anyone wishes to merge any information. J04n(talk page) 12:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Locating engine[edit]

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

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

Still can't see a single source for the topic (a quick look for refs was bogged down by automotive engines) - article is more of a cut down personal essay. Merge request gone stale (merge editor is presumably the creator with a new account). While AfD isn't cleanup, the merge/deletion of this set of essays around the topic Real-time locating system has happened to the others. WP:TNT seems most appropriate. The original concerns and findings in the first AfD are still valid, 8 years on. Widefox; talk 11:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google Scholar shows valid uses of phrase "locating engine" (in roughly the sense of which the article speaks), e.g.:
  1. Son, Sanghyun, et al. "Design and implementation of a real time locating systems over IEEE 802.15. 4a radio for port logistics." Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG), 2010 Seventh International Conference on. IEEE, 2010. Online
  2. Lee, Hyun-Soo, et al. "RFID-based real-time locating system for construction safety management." Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 26.3 (2011): 366-377. Online
  3. Caceres, Mauricio, Francesco Sottile, and Maurizio A. Spirito. "WLAN-based real time vehicle locating system." Vehicular Technology Conference, 2009. VTC Spring 2009. IEEE 69th. IEEE, 2009. PDF
  4. De Paz, Juan F., et al. "Mitigation of the ground reflection effect in real-time locating systems based on wireless sensor networks by using artificial neural networks." Knowledge and information systems 34.1 (2013): 193-217. PDF
  5. Lai, Chin-Feng, et al. "OSGi-based services architecture for cyber-physical home control systems." Computer Communications 34.2 (2011): 184-191. Online
  6. Zhang, Yunzhou, et al. "Research of portable Information Terminal Based on MIPS processor and Windows CE." Advanced Computer Control, 2009. ICACC'09. International Conference on. IEEE, 2009. Online
  7. Jang, Hyunsung, et al. "Robustness of distributed RTLS for dense large-scale environments." 2010 Seventh International Conference on Information Technology. IEEE, 2010. Online
  8. Kim, Hakyong. "Performance comparison of asynchronous ranging algorithms." Global Telecommunications Conference, 2009. GLOBECOM 2009. IEEE. IEEE, 2009. Online

SJK (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at those indicates the topic as Real-time locating system. My suspicion is that considering WP:NEO we don't have sources on the term, the topic being RTLS, and this article doesn't follow WP:SPINOUT and isn't in itself notable. Widefox; talk 08:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with RTLS as this is part of it and the RTLS article does not have this yet. As the core of what makes RTLS work, it should fit there nicely. DeVerm (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Real-time locating system and possibly merge if editors think any content is worht keeping. Seems to be the same topic, or a non-notable subset.  Sandstein  07:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect at best. SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 16 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 00:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puget Sound Diving Locations[edit]

Puget Sound Diving Locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTTRAVEL. Might be moved back to its previous sandbox location to salvage some stuff, but the subject itself would be something more suited for WikiTravel/Voyage/whatever-it-is-called-nowadays. HyperGaruda (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep for now. I note that the author last worked on this article less than 10 days before the deletion nomination. It appears to have potential to be a reasonable article if fleshed out, albeit maybe with some refocusing, and at the very least this information could be merged to some other article such as Recreation in Western Washington or something like that. Jclemens (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now at best as this is basically a travel guide. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We are not a travel guide.  Sandstein  16:33, 18 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 01:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Peru[edit]

Ambassador of Iceland to Peru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

there is no point of having an article for non resident ambassadors. And there is no evidence these ambassadors did anything significant in Peru LibStar (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unneeded Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still currently questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Bharatiya29 14:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- another contentless microstub in the endless "Ambassador of Country A to Country B" cookie-cutter series. Are we going to have 40,000 of these for every possible combination of the 200 nations of the world. These "articles" are an exercise in combinatorics, not encyclopedia building. Useless. Reyk _YO! 20:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- ...also, why was this relisted a second time? Consensus was clear already. Reyk _YO! 20:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I performed the second relist because the delete !vote stating "Unneeded" is ambiguous, and could refer to any Wikipedia content. The !vote was not policy or guideline based. AfD discussions are based upon consensus relative to the strengths of arguments per policies and guidelines; it is not a vote count. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 16 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KBS historical drama[edit]

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

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

This list was copied from List of programs broadcast by Korean Broadcasting System#KBS1 Saturday-Sunday dramas (21:45). I don't think a spinoff article is needed at this time. Random86 (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggesting the applicable independent notability for its own article, clearly unsourced. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unjustified content fork. Perhaps a category may be worth consideration for the dramas with an article. — ξ^xplicit 03:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. There is no need for a content fork at this moment. For grouping historical dramas, the Template:KBS Historical Drama already exists. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:22, 14 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 further comments after two relistings. Nonetheless, the lack of independent sourcing is an issue that has not been resolved. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Synaptop[edit]

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

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

Lack of high-quality sources for this company/product indicates a lack of notability. Search on Google Books and Google Scholar return no relevant results. Search on Google News bring back a handful of hits, but none from highly respected sources. SJK (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, good point. But the reason that Google lacks content is that our content is protected behind a strict paywall. Articles are published in Flash and are not Google-searchable.

The Globe and Mail is Canada's largest newspaper so I think it is a reasonable source to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodbentley (talk • contribs) 17:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have thousands of news articles in our archives and publish dozens, six times a week.

We sell all content for $30 per month to 9,700 customers.

Thanks,

Woodbentley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodbentley (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Woodbentley:. If you believe there are independent, reliable sources sufficient to establish the notability of the company per Wikipedia's guidelines on company notability, please let us know what they are. Note that information published by the company itself (e.g. company website, press releases) is insufficient to establish notability. Looking at the sources currently on the page, I see:

1. "Synaptop: A virtual OS to share apps and web browsing with friends".
2. "Synaptop on Dragons' Den".
3. "Synaptop's beta encourages "collaboration on the Cloud"".
4. "Synaptop launches theatre app to let you watch movies with friends online in real-time".
5. "Synaptop: Developers".

References (2) and (5) are self-published, so can't be used to establish notability. That leaves us with references (1), (3) and (4), which are from thenextweb.com, marsdd.com, and techvibes.com. Of the three, only The Next Web appears well-known enough to have a Wikipedia article; but still, the article contains no information usable to establish its reliability (e.g. if any of its staff have won, e.g. journalism awards, that has gone unnoticed, nor is there any indication they have any special expertise e.g. relevant academic positions; it is not associated with or sponsored by any respected institution such as a professional association such as the IEEE, etc.) None of these are well-known or highly respected sources – they are not major newspapers, they are not peer-reviewed journals, etc. Given that, I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to establish this company/products notability. If you have better quality sources than those currently in the article, please share the details. You mention the Globe and Mail – I think that is a respected enough newspaper that a detailed article on this company in it would support notability (although I think we'd want more than just one newspaper) – but beyond asserting it covers this company you haven't provided any citations or quotes to demonstrate it actually does. SJK (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Referance (2) could easily be replaced with a different source that is not self published, as it's a reference to Dragon's Den. I've updated the referance to CBC's website, which gives the same information. 76.9.216.84 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dragons' Den (Canadian TV series) is a reality TV show. I don't think appearing in a reality TV show counts for much in establishing notability. (It's not the evening news.) SJK (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best for now as there's nothing suggesting better for the applicable notability and the notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. If there were a consensus not to have an article, the result would probably be a merge/redirect to the album. Whether that should be done can be done on the article talkpage, so there is no need for the AFD to remain open. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from the album Giving You the Best That I Got[edit]

Just Because (Anita Baker song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This song hit the charts at the time of its release. However, that's all it happened, or so it did. I read that a demo was tried by another artist, but the information would be too short to help the article hold on any longer. I added information to the parent article, Giving You the Best That I Got (album).

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons as above:

• Lead Me Into Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nonetheless, I've not found a demo attempt on the nearest above song. George Ho (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No reason for such articles to be deleted. Redirects will suffice but I am indifferent to whether these are redirected or kept. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as there's contents but it's still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just Because (Anita Baker song). As indicated in the article, this song was a top 20 hit on the Billboard Hot 100 pop chart and a #1 hit on the R&B chart. Because of the latter, it received coverage in The Billboard Book of Number One Rhythm & Blues Hits. I have no opinion as to Lead Me Into Love except that it would be preferable to redirect it rather than delete it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: Even when it was a moderate hit in its days, the "Just Because" page would still be too small to hold such valuable information, like charts and production. Also, the page fails to meet WP:NSONGS standards. --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "too small" to hold such valuable information. If you mean that the article doesn't contain enough content to justify being kept as a separate article, I have already mentioned a book above which, I understand, contains additional information about this recording which could be included in the article. If you mean something else, I'm not sure what that is. I've also added another source to the article as well. Regarding WP:NSONGS, "Just Because" apparently has at least one "non-trivial published work" which can be cited; it was ranked on national or significant music or sales charts; and it was part of an album that won a Grammy for Best R&B Vocal Performance, Female for 1989 (the title track, "Giving You the Best That I Got", had won the same award for 1988). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: Would adding info based on that source help make the article stronger much? Compare this to Giving You the Best That I Got (album), which is also small. George Ho (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly wouldn't hurt. I haven't seen the book itself (although I am familiar with its format), nor is enough text visible on Google Books to use it here. But the book is owned by numerous libraries (some of which are in the city where I live), so it should be possible to access it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 9 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are U Capable[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, without any independent third party notability. The song did not chart, did not win any significant awards, and has not been independently recorded by several artists. Information about the song can be easily conveyed in the page about the parent album. The article should be deleted and redirected to the page on the parent album. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions
• Delete as nothing suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NSONGS as indicated by nominator. Content of article already entirely covered by article on parent album. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 02:02, 9 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna Wright[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NACTOR Actress with a career of minor roles. Her only role of any note was a minor role in a soap opera. Interestingly, IMDB can't determine the number of episodes, but it looks like a low number. After the unsourced material is removed, it's nothing but a filmography. No evidence of significant coverage by third parties Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. No evidence of anything more than just a handful of guest tv roles over a relatively short period of time; a recurring stint on a single soap; and a part in a straight-to-video movie. Also, article was created by inactive SPA, who knocked it out over 3 days, then promptly split. Nice, short, acting career; but really nothing that meets notability. X4n6 (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all for solid independent notability improvements, for either WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment seems to be 7 episodes in Passions soap opera. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't found a RS for the number, but even if it is 7, out of 2,200+ episodes......Niteshift36 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I added one source, but I'm not seeing notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, somewhat regretfully – Wright's only notable credit was her 3 years on Passions. Nothing else suggests meeting WP:NACTOR, and she looks to have retired from acting post-Passions. So there's simply not enough notability here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:22, 13 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Samoali[edit]

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

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

Not finding sources to even verify this. Seems to have been made up. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Attempt at searching for "Pakistani chicken sandwich" turned up these^[4][5]. Does not look or sound like the same thing as the image in article depicted. Probably not made up, but generic food that did not make media with what's probably a local name. Fails WP:GNG regardless. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 10:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Takeaway (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I too cannot find anything to even verify its existence, non notable local delicacy Seasider91 (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - likely a hoax and NN. Eyesnore 13:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Dcirovic (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also find no reliable sources and few sources of any kind. Appears non-notable. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I don't think it's a bad-faith article, and certainly not a clear-cut hoax, and I'd like to see the page creator, Asad mayo, make their case for it. But with what we know at the present time, there is no reason to keep this article. Ibadibam (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete and I would've frankly pursued that G3. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 13 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 have considered the sources that JWNoctis put forward. The first one is just a mention of her participating in a protest. The two others are more substantial, but not sufficient to override what is an otherwise clear consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Hobbs[edit]

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

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

No claim to notability besides a political candidacy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would say these references^[1][2][3] cited in article are from reliable independent secondary sources, and albeit individually do not amount to significant coverage, they do demonstrate a degree of notability combined. Thus keep, per WP:BASIC. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 10:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As always, candidates for office are not eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a compelling claim of preexisting notability for something prior to their candidacy, then they have to win the seat, not just run for it, to earn an article on the basis of the election itself. So I'd be willing to reconsider this if a lot more substance and sourcing could be piled onto her work as a consultant and/or an economist — but the sourcing that's present here now simply doesn't cut it. Of the seven footnotes here, two are just unnecessary reduplications of two of the other five, two are primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, two just confirm her existence while not being about her in the manner necessary to support notability, and the one remaining reference that actually does count toward a WP:GNG claim is covering her specifically in the context of her candidacy. All of which means that this is not the volume or quality of sourcing it takes to support a credible claim of preexisting notability for anything besides the candidacy itself. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after July 2 if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Candidates for political office are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not American, therefore of no interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.155.208 (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with it, no. You might want to check where the nominator lives, just for starters. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best for now, nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy in creator's userspace. If she wins, she's notable; no sense making the creator do the work twice. Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not impossible, but are not likely either. This is definitely not a case of "this person will be elected anyway so why delete in an election campaign". The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:10, 17 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 is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Deegan[edit]

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

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

Actually solid PROD material but I'll AfD if it gets removed, nothing at all actually convincing of notability here and my searches found nothing better also. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was tipped off that the subject may be notable since she is the author of the play Daisy Pulls It Off. I have found sources for her biographical information and some of her credits. Since she shares the same name as an Irish YA author, it's a bit difficult sorting through the information to the get the correct writer. Passes GNG at least (see the additions I made to the article), and I would argue that as the author of Daisy which ran for 3 years at the West End and continues to be produced on stage in various venues (including being produced by Andrew Lloyd Weber) and is written about in many RS as satisfying WP:CREATIVE #3 or 4c as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the author of a very well-known work, satisfying WP:CREATIVE. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the above AusLondonder (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This author satisfies notability criteria. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:28, 16 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cañita (brand)[edit]

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

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

Seems like solid PROD material but I'll AfD instead as precautions, my searches frankly found nothing at all that I had to search if this actually existed and it has, I found their own websites and a few several press releases. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]