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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Mirzayev[edit]

Murad Mirzayev (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)

Clearly fails WP:SOLDIER, nothing of notability detailed in the article, subject was of no military or public note, died in no unusual or notable circumstances, and was just one of the several hundred soldiers killed during the 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes; his death is not even worthy of a mention on the main article. The article itself seems to be a bad faith creation made in response to the existence of the Kyaram Sloyan article. The creator of the Murad Mirzayev article has stated in an AfD that the Sloyan article should be deleted [1] yet (after making that opinion) created this article, despite its subject's lack of notability compared to the events detailed in the Sloyan one. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator made a mistake claiming that Mirzayev fails WP:SOLDIER. Actually, he is notable according to this rule, because he was awarded his nation's highest award for valour. Murad Mirzayev is a National Hero of Azerbaijan that is the highest award of Azerbaijan. Comparison with article about Sloyan is unacceptable according to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sloyan is not notable as military person. He was just a soldier whose death is used in propaganda against Azerbaijan. But Mirzayev is notable as military person due to his award of National Hero of Azerbaijan. --Interfase (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not such a rule. WP:Soldier just assumes that " individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour". It looks like Mirzayev is the exception as he has no sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. OptimusView (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to make Murad Mirzayev an exception. There are enough verifiable independent, reliable sources about Murad Mirzayev covered his biography. If you don't agree with them because of your personal opinion it is not a problem of Wikipedia.--Interfase (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Azerbaijan is a Family dictatorship and the award was due to propagandist purposes. The Mirzayev has no notability, it is even unknown, for what he was awarded. we have only few Azeri propagandist sources on him. no neutral reliable sources about Mirzayev. OptimusView (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend to ignore such arguments due to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. If you don't like Azerbaijan (that is republic btw, not dictatorship as you think) and its heroes it's your problem, not Wikipeida's that has clear rule that military people awarded their nation's highest award for valour are notable. For what directly he was awarded cannot make an effect on his notability. It's discussion about the content. --Interfase (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just my personal opinion but a fact [2]. Azerbaijan is also not a democracy [3]. Compare with North Korea. OptimusView (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't discuss the issues around human rights in Azerbaijan. As a fact Azerbaijan is republic and exactly as a republic Azerbaijan is member of United Nations. That is fact. The accusations on violation of democracy in some country cannot make an affect on the notability of that country's people. --Interfase (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it is a dictatorship it affects on awarding. A hero in a dictatorship is not the same a hero in a democratic country. Per WP:Soldier, "individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." No even one independent reliable source writes about Mirzayev. That's all! OptimusView (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what you quoted, is "in general". Secondly, there are enough verifiable independent (Azerbaijan press not depends on Mirzayev), reliable sources about Murad Mirzayev covered his biography. There presence in article is enough to have an article about the hero. And I cannot agree with the opinion that a hero in Azerbaijan cannot be notable because some issues about democracy. Try to change a guide, because in this link I see National Hero of Azerbaijan, which means that they are notable for Wikipedia. --Interfase (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "National Hero of Azerbaijan" is not notable, it is a propaganda award not connected to actual military valor. The article does not even detail how or when or where this individual died or what actions he did to deserve any award. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We know that he died during April 2016 clashes in Nagorno Karabakh. That is enough. Details are the topic of another discussion and their absence (for now) cannot be a reason for deletion. As a fact in Wikipedia National Heroes of Azerbaijan are notable. You may agree with this or not. You may call this "propaganda award" but it is personal and not reliable opinion of Wikipedia user that should be ignored. As I see this nomination is typical example of Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Users who want to delete the article are known for their pro-Armenian edits in Wikipedia and they don't want to see here an article about National Heroes of Azerbaijan because of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. But such behavior is against our rules and not acceptable. --Interfase (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He won his country's highest military honor and the references in the article say so, and therefore meets WP:SOLDIER. We do not limit our coverage of notable soldiers only to those who fought for liberal western democracies. We have plenty of biographies of soldiers from countries widely considered by many to be dictatorships. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete(Removing vote on the basis that Sloyan article was kept with no consensus.) : I am using the same rational as the one on the article about Sloyan. Also, notability should be earned by more than the importance a head of state give to one of his personals. Azerbaijan main export is its culture, and there are Azerbaijani artists more notable because of earned popularity (not standing on a head of state given importance) but no such coverage. While this qualifies in paper to WP:Soldiers, it sure does not in spirit. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't speak about artists, but military people. If they earned their state's highest award it means that they did something very notable for their state and nation, for its defence. That's why we make tham notable for Wikipedia, espessialy those who are officialy heroes. That's why Murad Mitzayev is notable. --Interfase (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What did "officially heroic" Mirzayev do that was "very notable for their state and nation"? Wikipedia should not be a propaganda outlet for Azerbaijan - the status of military awards when deciding on notability should be based on common sense and real military valor or achievement, they should not be hijacked by dictatorships who hand them out for purely propaganda purposes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he received his nation's highest award it means that he did something special during the clashes that was a reason for his awarding. Detalis as I said is a topic of another discussion about the improvement of the article. The absense of the details, which may even be classified information, are not a reason for such nomination. If you don't like this award also could not be a reason. --Interfase (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While WP:Soldier to access notability is used, what is missed, is that policies like these in real life, are not static they change to correspond in letter to what they were intended for but will never be able to fully word (limitations of axiomic systems [4], and to prevent people from exploiting weaknesses often without such intentions). In spirit this article plainly fails the very principles which motivates to even develop something such as WP:Soldier. The same rational should be used to delete this article as those here [5], for another article from your opponents, which you voted to delete. You rightly claimed in Sloyan case that he did not receive the highest honour to meet WP:Soldier, what if the Armenian president grants it? Do you see where I am going? What if it is later uncovered that Alyiev granted such honours to fabricate a notability in response to Sloyan coverage in the media (he, afteral, received this honour the same day Saloyan article was created on Wikipedia)? It is obvious that members of the community will have no choice but to do what computer scientists do, by patching policies (same way software are updated) to prevent such cases. The hierarchic tree if added on pages like WP:Soldier, would be such a patch. Since his entire notability is ensured by one single honour received for yet obscure reasons, and nothing higher in the hierarchic feeds it (above categories), it (notability) will starve. This is different than Azerbaijani artists notability which is won by popular acclaim and not standing on one man decisions. Would be a nice thing to see both sides changing their vote to have both articles deleted. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If the other fellow named Sloyan receives his country's highest military honor, then of course, I will support keeping an article about him. This is not a game of nationalistic tit-for-tat, and I wish that these two countries would stop their futile battling. But until then, we should accept biographies of the soldiers on either side who are granted their country's highest military honors. As for artists of any nationality, we have a notability guideline for them, which should be applied in an even-handed fashion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Futile battling". How condescending of you. It will be worth a week's ban to call you a cretin. This issue has nothing to do with "sides" as you claim. We have many articles on Wikipedia about individuals who fought for, and received honors from, regimes that most would consider abominations. That is not this AfD issue - those individuals have details about what they did to receive their awards, they will have a proper military biography, the awards they got had military justification. There is nothing here like that. No details about what Mirzayev did, no detail even on why, how, where, or when he died. There is no suggestion he was doing anything covert that required his actions to be kept secret. All he did was die - not an insignificant thing, but no more significant that that of the several hundred others who also died in the same short conflict. Using the award issue as a way to keep this article is an abuse of the guidance, and I think an abuse of all the genuine acts of military valor that resulted in genuine awards. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We know what Mirzayev did. He distinguished himself in the battle to protect the territorial integrity of his country and protect the civilian population of neighbouring districts. It is for this medal of National Hero is awarded. If we don't know any special details it is not a reason for deletion. The details may even be classified information. Why we should know this. This arguments could be significant if we nominate this article for Featured article. For now the fact about awarding him with his state's highest wawrd is enough to call Mirzayev notable. You maynot like him and his award, but it is Wikipedia and it may contain information that you don't like and cannot accept. --Interfase (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Interfase, I was wondering if you were also replying me. I am not questioning the factuality of what you wrote, never actually did. What I wrote, I also found it from an article titled: The rules are principles:The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. They are not intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances. They must be understood in context, using some sense and discretion. [6] I strongly suggest you read the rest of the article. The underlying principles assessing notability (like I mentioned above) are here discarded by simply using wp:soldier. Also WP:FATRAT might be helpful in this situation. I do understand your frustration, because neither article would logically qualify. Notability will justify something being said in a main article, but this alone does not justify either of them to have their articles standalone because of what was raised here. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER.Abbatai 21:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a recipient of Azerbaijan's highest award for valour, just I would support keeping an article about a recipient of Armenia's highest award for valour, or North Korea's or (at the risk of invoking Godwin's law) Nazi Germany's. And in none of those cases would I expect any sources from outside the soldier's home country. It's tiresomely obvious that nationalist tit-for-tat games are being played here, and I would expect any protestations to the contrary to fall on deaf ears among neutral editors. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perhaps as I nearly closed this since it's a week, article is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Optimus.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:10, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Shurey[edit]

Jay Shurey (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)

PROD removed from page's creator. Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why has a page been created about me, I want no reference of myself on Wikipedia now or in the future. remove all references. JayShurey (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GET RID OF THIS NOW! I EXPECT IT GONE BY THE END OF THE DAY. END OF DISCUSSION!!! JayShurey (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Jay, the quickest way to get this deleted would be for User:TomJohnson107, who I suspect might be someone you know, to request speedy deletion as the author of this article, by putting ((db-author)) at the top of it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User:JayShurey, I was only trying to help as I saw you were a producer the 'Young Hunters' film. No offence meant. TomJohnson107 (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Please make sure my name doesn't appear on any article at all and a block is put in place so my name can't be added at all. I don't want to have to wait again for an article to be deleted! JayShurey (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:JayShurey I dont think Wiki can do such a 'block' as you request, all new submissions have to go through the same process, User:Meatsgains correct me if I'm wrong? TomJohnson107 (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this can be done by an administrator and is known as "creation protection". As both(?) of you, Jay and Tom, are in agreement here then maybe this will be done. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:43, 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 23:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Fujita[edit]

Osamu Fujita (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 coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Fujita meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Those prior discussions were all from September 2006 absent one from November 2005 and one was closed on a bad-faith nomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination) was also in 2006 and has remained deleted for close to a decade. It's been a decade and consensus can change. Here, I think that there must be more evidence of notability beyond what the group's local consensus has determined. In a decade, there's been literally nothing on any of those pages more than permanent stubs about a 2-3 year period of their lives based entirely on primary sources with no independence to the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best as still questionable for notably better, the current article is simply not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 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) 13:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Forsythe[edit]

Aaron Forsythe (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 coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of secondary source coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best as everything here is still questionable for notably better, the information is still all questionable for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 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. Consensus states that this should not be on Wikipedia; if anyone wants the information that will be deleted. please contact me. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parvum opus[edit]

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

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

A dicdef for a fairly obscure and little used latinismus. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wiktionary, as suggested in the article. I could find no coverage beyond a few usage examples. But if Strunk and White use it, that seems enough for Wiktionary. There is a Parvum Opus company, but it appears to not be notable, either. --Mark viking (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki also as this is not yet convincing for its own notable Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki - No evidence of notability to warrant an article however shoving it to WT is better than deleting forever where it'd probably be forgotten. –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that this is an ephemeral bit of Latin trivia. I don't have a particular opinion either way as to wanting to put the information somewhere off of Wikipedia, though I should note that I'm not opposed to the idea. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:05, 20 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 23:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Prettiots[edit]

The Prettiots (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)

NN indie band. The only sources were commercial links and a "namedrop" ref that didn't make sense (because said person is never mentioned). There's interview coverage in the Guardian prior to their debut album, but frankly, the article is a rambling mess and adds no information of real value to the article. MSJapan (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: In absence of any additional sourcing, not sure we have established notability, though the Guardian interview is why I am willing to reconsider this !vote if someone cares enough to improve the article and demonstrate notability. Montanabw^(talk) 18:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete instead as I managed to find a few several news links at News, but nothing noticeably convincing of a better article, there's simply nothing available for better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 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. J04n(talk page) 15:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erand Hoxha (actor)[edit]

Erand Hoxha (actor) (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 beyond IMDb, does not appear to meet any criteria of WP:NACTOR with what looks like only two named roles in non-notable films.

Some dubious news-search sources appear to link an actor of this name with Fast & Furious 8, appearing as "Racer", but this isn't mentioned in IMDb or this article. McGeddon (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all for the convincing notability. I myself encountered this at NPP and planned to nominate. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Just wanted to point out this edit, with an apparent legal threat in the edit summary, possibly by the subject of the article. I have warned, but think they may have misunderstood what 'orphan' meant in this context. 220 of ^Borg 06:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, autobiography of non-notable person who misunderstands how Wikipedia operates. Huon (talk) 01:00, 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 Keep due to the lack of calls for deletions beyond the nominator and thanks to the extraordinary work of Megalibrarygirl in bringing the article up to grade through professional editing and sourcing. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lines[edit]

Jennifer Lines (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 subject is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. There hasn't been enough evidence to justify their notability and likely won't be enough content for this page to ever reach such a level, even with the addition of more sources. NikolaiHo 21:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia criteria for entertainers includes "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" as a criteria. Per the article, the subject has starred in multiple notable stage productions. How does this not meet the notability requirement? Dbarefoot (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the article content, it states that "She has starred in productions at the Arts Club Theatre, Bard on the Beach, Vancouver Playhouse and the Belfry Theatre,..." all of which are simply theatres or organizations. It doesn't once mention a specific show which she was involved in, which is because none were notable enough to be on Wikipedia either. The organizations aforementioned are relatively small scale local enterprises, so none of their productions are considered notable per Wikipedia's policies. So no, she has not been in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, or at least the article doesn't state it. Well, after doing some Google querying, I didn't find any notable results either. NikolaiHo 23:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article's content doesn't always determine notability. In this case, it's a lot harder to source stage actors. I've started putting together her body of work and added critical receptions to her performance. She passes as WP:NACTOR, #1, as she has had several major roles in different productions. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a considerable body of work to her article which illustrates that she has major roles in several different important plays. Many times, she is the female lead. I've also added critical receptions to her work (all of which were positive so far). Please take a look at the article. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be more convinced by the arguments for notability if it could be shown that Lines had performed in major roles in major productions in more than one city. Vancouver is an important regional centre, and by all accounts that I have heard a lovely place, but in theatre terms it's not New York or London, where a stage actor can make a notable career without performing elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In the form in which this existed before Megalibrarygirl took it on, I would have agreed with the deletion. But now it's quite solid, and cites a range of reliable newspaper sources not limited to Vancouver alone — in fact, the referencing even gets all the way over to Toronto and Ottawa a couple of times, which is fairly rare for a Vancouver-based stage actress. I'll grant that Vancouver's not NYC or London in terms of theatre, but it's not Palookaville either — it's on the same High-Beta tier of theatre notability as Toronto and Chicago. Certainly not every working stage actor in Vancouver would get a free pass over WP:NACTOR just for working, but that's true of working stage actors in London and NYC too (they aren't all Audra McDonald, after all) — and when it comes to stage acting, having to move around from one city to another to take roles wherever you can get 'em actually tends to work against notability rather than bolstering it as 86 suggests, because the less established actors are the ones who tend to have to move around on the "touring production of Anne of Green Gables" circuit, while the ones who are already making good coin at home tend to stay put. But at any rate, when there's this much sourcing, and you can bring Jessies into it, then that does put her above the waterline. Keep, and barnstar to Megalibrarygirl. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 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 Speedy Keep as nomination was withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) --Non-Dropframe _talk 02:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Coates[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO for lack of "significant coverage". Two sources, one of which may not even be about the subject (it's behind a paywall) does not fulfill this requirement. Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be plenty of coverage ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). The article could definitely benefit from addition of more sources but the subject herself seems to pass WP:GNG. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Silly under-researched nom - the first page of ghits has interviews with Esquire, the Nation Review, something we can't read on the WSJ & other significant coverage. Please don't waste everyone's time, Yoninah! You are supposed to look beyond what the article itself has before launching an AFD. And in this case you don't need to look far. You could have added plenty of sources in the time it has taken you to do this. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And so could you. I am withdrawing this AFD, but I will not pass it for DYK in the shape it's in. Yoninah (talk) 12:40, 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 redirect to Ladies' Code, preferable to deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee So-jung[edit]

Lee So-jung (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)

Singer with questionable notability. I am finding some pages that have the same name, but not sure if it is the same person (on another note-I think this has been afd before under another name, but not 100% sure) Wgolf (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't believe she has enough independent notability, per WP:BAND and WP:ENT. Her only individual activities are reaching the Top 8 in The Voice of Korea and a 2-episode appearance on King of Mask Singer. (I don't think this page has ever been created before.) Random86 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete should have been PRODed as a BLP with no sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have the linguistic ability to investigate independent notability myself, but if this is not kept as a separate article then it should certainly be redirected to Ladies' Code, so I don't see the need for a deletion discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ladies' Code. There is hardly any solo-coverage about her. (One of the best is this). Every single source mentions her in the context of the band Ladies' Code. Considering that notability is not inherited, redirecting is the best option as of now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect as still questionable for own article and keeping it available is vulnerable to restarting again, I'm not confident this is going to be acceptable anytime soon thus Delete altogether. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ladies' Code: Per discussion by IP User 86.17.222.157. Tibbydibby (talk) 01:33, 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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Meritorious Deeds[edit]

Ten Meritorious Deeds (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)

Just another obscure Buddhist schema VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following the policy reason for delete. The phrase appears in several books I've easily found, which suggests to me it is notable as per the WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It most probably deserves an article as it does have good notability, yet, the page needs some serious edits to make it up to par with the standards. NikolaiHo 21:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and request expert attention Nobody would try to delete Seven virtues - Though I admit the latter had more impact in general. There appeared to be plenty of references to go around, which would appear to make it a fairly notable part of Buddhism theology. Also the article definitely needed some cleanup and maybe a good lot more references. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 02:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Google Books search automatically linked by the nomination process appears, prima facie, to find several independent reliable sources with significant coverage, so we really need a better reason for deletion than "just another obscure Buddhist schema". I would note that it would be helpful, as Buddhism is a very diverse religion, if the article could explain which branch(es) of Buddhism accept this concept. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously a notable article, as this list of books mention this subject. However, tag the stub article: these references may need to be added. —Prhartcom♥ 05:08, 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 redirect to List of Naruto characters#Sarada Uchiha. Sockpuppet comments discounted (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 00:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarada Uchiha[edit]

Sarada Uchiha (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 redirect by article creator, White-Black-Kitten. The subject has not received significant coverage by reliable, third party sources, thereby does not pass WP:NOTE. The article does not even cite a single third party source, but is derived entirely on primary source. It is also nothing more than a plot summary and provides no real world context or commentary, which violates WP:NOTPLOT. —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --—Farix (t | c) 20:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Naruto characters#Sarada Uchiha Non-notable character to warrant a separate article. That she is listed in List of Naruto characters with a decent paragraph is sufficient. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per AngusWOOF and Farix; non-notable fictional character. Opencooper (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; this character was important enough to have an entire sequel for herself and is the daughter of two of the main characters. Also, the article needs, indeed, some improvement, but this is why we're here - to help. --Onyx-Soul (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Onyx-Soul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been confirmed as a sockpuppetet of White-Black-Kitten. -—Farix (t | c) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Sadly the article fails WP:Notability Onyx, However, the manga doesn't count Onyx but instead the use of third party. In some years, if the Boruto manga is reviewed and Sarada is variously referenced in some of them I would gladly help to make it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep => Sarada is actually a notable character and, considering that smaller characters such as Shikamaru or Lee do have Wikipedia pages, she should have one, too. Unlike Shikamaru and Lee, she was the protagonist of an entire story and still is one of the main characters of a movie and of another series (the Boruto one). --Loladin9 (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Loladin9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been confirmed as a sockpuppetet of White-Black-Kitten. -—Farix (t | c) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fictional characters aren't considered notable based on their importance in the work of fiction, but based on the real world relevance which can be cited through reliable, third-party sources. If you actually look at the articles on Shikamaru Nara or Rock Lee, you will see that their notability is backed up by such source and their articles aren't mere plot summaries. But this article doesn't have a single one and is nothing but a plot summary. —Farix (t | c) 22:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This obviously is a new article and yes, it, indeed, does need improvements. But this is what Wikipedia is for. We are all here to help and contribute to articles in order to make them better. And I think the starting of this particular page is quite promising. --Loladin9 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not promising, it's just a very long plot summary. That doesn't make for a good article.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Sephy, the problem with a long plot is that it can to the point that unless you have seen the show you will not understand it. Keep the plot simple for starters, and let the reader have their own experience with the character. In order for potential to be at hand, you need to provide some sources that show how this character has been received outside of the fan-base. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I could help improve this article by adding several facts regarding Sarada's creation and conception. All of them are supported by Masashi Kishimoto's interviews. All I need to do is find the links to those particular interviews. --00ForeverMore00 (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — 00ForeverMore00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been confirmed as a sockpuppetet of White-Black-Kitten. -—Farix (t | c) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creation from WP:reliable sources to add realworld information is good but what is more important is creating a reception section to pass WP:Notability.Tintor2 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Too soon. Article notability is not determined by fans views on notability or importance but coverage in reliable third party sources. There is certainly coverage about the character, but there isn't sufficient commentary by accepted experts. As the article stands it is just excessive plot summary.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I encourage the creator to look at Sakura Haruno, or Gaara then at the "Reception" sections. This is what this article needs that it doesn't have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin I this is made into a redirect it may need to be protected, Naruto does have a large fan-base. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it has a slight chance of having some decent notability, should it be moved to Draft? That will give folks a chance to work on it until it meets standards. This means finding some decent sources that talk about the character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't mind that as a redirect either way will preserve the article's history. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a lot of interviews regarding Sarada and, thus, a lot of information about her could be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chokolane (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC) — Chokolane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been confirmed as a sockpuppetet of White-Black-Kitten. -—Farix (t | c) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What interviews? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Masashi Kishimoto has given several interviews about Sarada Uchiha, which could be very useful for the Creation field. For example, there is an interview in which he stated that he had intially wanted to make Sarada just like a girl version of Sasuke, but had then thought that she would have been too scary like this, so he had eventually decided to add some of Sakura's elements to her, too. There is also another interview in which he stated that he had decided to add glasses to Sarada's design in order to make her look intellectual. He also stated that he aimed to make Sarada look pretty even when she has her glasses on. The links to the sources for these interviews could easily be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chokolane (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC) — Chokolane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You didn't answer the question. What interviews and where are they published? But they are still not third-party sources, which an article like this requires to meet Wikipedia's baseline for inclusion. —Farix (t | c) 12:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Did someone open a sock drawer? —Farix (t | c) 04:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone could have linked this to a forum hence the need for protection once this AfD is closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I'm semi involved here - I assisted initially in attempting to copyedit and improve the article, and attempted to find some sources. I believe we would be hard pressed to find enough reliable third party sources to warrant a standalone article, but would urge the editors to consider improving/adding to List of Naruto characters -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Checkuser note:. Many of the accounts here are  Confirmed sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/White-Black-Kitten.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've went ahead and struck the !votes of all but the first sock. —Farix (t | c) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Lock at best, as there's nothing suggesting its own article and keeping it available is vulnerable to restarting. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 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 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Street Pharmacy[edit]

Street Pharmacy (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)

Advertorially-toned article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no reliable source coverage to support it. Right across the board the sourcing here is to primary sources and YouTube videos that cannot assist notability at all, with the exception of a small smattering of local newspaper coverage in their own hometown. Being non-winning contestants in a music competition series is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, and nothing else here is strong enough to grant them a presumption of notability in the absence of better sourcing than this. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform where a band automatically gets to keep an article just because they exist -- real reliable source coverage, supporting a credible claim of notability, must be present. And on a ProQuest search, I found just two WP:ROUTINE local concert listings for them, with no evidence of enough substantive coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article fails WP:BAND. The reliable sources are local sources only. The non-local ones are self-promotional or non-reliable sources. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I've found nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 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 Speedy delete under A7, and quite possibly other criteria as well. Hut 8.5 21:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandyland[edit]

Mandyland (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)

It doesn't seem like it belongs in an encyclopedia. Peter Sam Fan 18:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as WP:BELONG is not a valid argument. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:G11 and WP:A7, article is just a mindless essay by the article's author about themselves. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to me to be a pretty clear WP:A7 with no real indication of why it should be considered notable. I note that Mandy Cat Kitana has also been speedied recently. JMWt (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A7. I find no claim of significance, just a very creative (if not somewhat odd) way of writing an autobiography. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - It's copyvio of http://www.mandyland.com/about.html, just as Mandy Cat Kitana was. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Glad to see the speedy tag on it. It is written horribly and doesn't meet notability anyways. NikolaiHo 21:18, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Greenwood[edit]

Matt Greenwood (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)

Actor, has had two more minor roles since the first AfD discussion in 2010, fails the basic notability guideline for people and is not notable under the additional criteria for entertainers. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NACTOR. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as noticeably not all convincing of solid independent notability as an article. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 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 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Thosar[edit]

Akash Thosar (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. Actor who has had only one role so far. He falls under too soon as of now, now maybe he will get bigger, but for now this is a delete. (or a redirect to the film) Wgolf (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NACTOR. SanAnMan (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The one role that this actor is known for is as a leading actor in a film that is breaking box office records, so his notability can't be dismissed as easily as suggested by the previous contributors here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clearly too soon should a better article be available, there's simply nothing here convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NACTOR specifies significant roles in multiple notable films which Thosar does not have, yet. --bonadea contributions talk 08:16, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G5 see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dao2k JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Trace (actor)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Yung Trace (actor) (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)

(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)

Not a notable person. Yung Trace has been salted, which is why this page is under the title that it is. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yung_Trace_(Rap_artist) closed 9 months ago as a speedy delete because it was made by a banned user. JDDJS (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources take time to find but I know this artist is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:41DF:1D64:9CB1:4198 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has been awarded in by a high running awards company which makes him important to public — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:F56E:C94A:798B:D010 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:F56E:C94A:798B:D010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above vote may be a case of duplicate voting. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:MUSBIO, not WP:GNG-worthy. All sources are WP:PRIMARY as well. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable local artist/ actor Seasider91 (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep their are sources on the actor he has been mentioned on articles before, I just need to find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:F56E:C94A:798B:D010 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  One !volt per user, please. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? @User:Uncle Milty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:F56E:C94A:798B:D010 (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reason not obvious?. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Userfy Might get Yung Lean notable very soon, but can't say he's garnered any significant coverage for an article to be made editorEهեইдအ😎 23:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a single independent and reliable source is available to prove notability. Fails WP:GNG easily. Add to that the attempts at multiple voting here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he's won a notable award at first place the Street Rap KT Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:7496:F52:C2B7:66AB (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  — 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:7496:F52:C2B7:66AB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Please understand that !voting "keep" multiple times from dynamic IPs is not going to save this article. This is not a vote. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes General notability guideline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:74D9:B1A2:E781:5C39 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:74D9:B1A2:E781:5C39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: The IP addresses in this AFD thread appear to be single-purpose contributors. This IP removed the AFD template from the article before voting here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There's only been one user who's been constantly trying to get articles created about this person, constantly circumnavigating the salt process with varied name changes. Every page has been deleted and salted so far. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dao2k/Archive for the details. IMO,  Looks like a duck to me. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I would normally make some effort to find independent reliable sources and otherwise check notability, but I won't bother here because of the obvious promotion that's going on. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:44, 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. Consensus states that this should not be on Wikipedia; if anyone wants the information that will be deleted. please contact me. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pastoralia[edit]

Pastoralia (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 should be on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Kabahaly (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wiktionary, assuming they want it, otherwise delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. While the term exists and is used I think any content you could put in this article would be better placed in other articles about Christian ministers. There is a book by this title which might be notable. Hut 8.5 21:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Trasnwiki as not convincing for a Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 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 Procedural close. Already Speedy Deleted at 15:56 on 10 May 2016 by RHaworth (talk · contribs): (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Ivans[edit]

Elaine Ivans (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)

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Sher Ali Khan Mazari[edit]

Sardar Sher Ali Khan Mazari (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 can see no assertion of notability nor can I locate any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm struggling to find any sources that aren't clearly mirrors of this article, and the article itself doesn't claim that he has held any sort of elected office, so he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. At most I'd suggest a mention in the article about his father, who is much more prominent. Hut 8.5 21:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article claims that he's a prominent political figure, but fails to contain or source any content about what would make him a prominent political figure — such as holding a specific political office that would clear the WP:NPOL bar, or being a political organizer or activist who's covered by the media widely enough to satisfy WP:GNG. As always, a Wikipedia article is not kept just because the subject is claimed to have unsubstantiated prominence or notability — an article lives or dies on the volume and quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to support their prominence or notability. But all the way back to its original creation, this has never had more sourcing or substance to it than it does now. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I suspect that the subject's name is not actually "Sardar Sher Ali Khan Mazari" but is in fact some subset of that. If people creating articles want others to be able to find reliable sources then a good starting point would be not to surround the subject's name with honorifics that get in the way of searching. This problem seems to be especially apparent in articles about South Asian subjects. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 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 redirect to Rock Hill, Missouri. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel DiPlacido[edit]

Daniel DiPlacido (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 politician. DiPlacido's role as mayor of Rock Hill, Missouri, a town of ~4,600 people, and his lack of coverage that goes beyond the ordinary for the mayor of such a small town, do not merit inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge content about blight-area develpment to article on Rock Hill, Missouri. That article would probably be helped by an explanation of what form of city government Rock Hill has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete instead and only mention however needed at community article, I'm not seeing how we should actually keep this open to restarting as I'm questionable whether he could ever have his own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO AusLondonder (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Small-town mayors do not get automatic inclusion rights per WP:NPOL. A person at this level of office can get a Wikipedia article if they previously or subsequently held a more notable office, or if you can reliably source them as more notable than the norm for some substantive reason — but three pieces of purely local media coverage that verify his existence, but fail to be substantively about him, is not what it takes. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 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. J04n(talk page) 15:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eleasha chew[edit]

Eleasha chew (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 mostly a gossip page about the subject made by her high school friends. The only claim Chew has to any notability is that she was admitted to Harvard University, which is apparently rare among Malaysians. But the fact that her local press was impressed by her accomplishment does not make her globally notable. Her other "accomplishments" amount to being a somewhat talented teen who appeared in her school's talent show and released some youtube videos. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This article is written mostly tongue in cheek, with sentences such as "Eleasha was also democratically elected as TCSH’s Prom Queen in 2013, extending her peaceful rule from little rodent colonies and mammal kingdoms to the larger student population as a whole." The article is filled with links to YouTube videos with no actual connection to the subject but which are apparently intended to portray ideas mentioned in the article humorously. Rather than wasting time removing all those links, I think we would be better off deleting the article altogether. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Not remotely notable. I tried to speedy in the first instance and triggered an apparent international kerfuffle by a bunch of SPAs. Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:14, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Knabenbauer[edit]

Jared Knabenbauer (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)

Declined PROD. Article's creator noted when declining the PROD that "it is next to impossible to provide more third-party sources" meaning that I'm not alone in not being able to find any third-party sources. There's not a single third-party reliable source that is independent of the subject in the article. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Aoidh (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the real need for third party sources when all sources included are Verified/Legitimate information? Jared Knabenbauer is a highly recognized Internet personality. I believe he deserves to have a place on "The Free Encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Tempest (talk • contribs) 19:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:N for a detailed answer, WP:WHYN specifically. Wikipedia is not a not a collection of indiscriminate information, third-party sources show that the content is notable and that there should be an article on the topic. - Aoidh (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability, article not convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) An extended mention in GameRevolution and a YouTube licensing controversy, but otherwise only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 08:48, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bear[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. No actual evidence of be a professor at Humber College. The college has no listing for him. reddogsix (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing convincing of an applicable notability, WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Notifying DGG for professors analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly not notable. Beginning academic, who has written a thesis , two journal articles, one report and some newspaper columns. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Diamond Australia[edit]

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

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

fails WP:GNG. has only run once, non notable winners and the only sources provided are its own website LibStar (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these contests are a dime a dozen and pretty much irrrelevent with even the big ones getting little coverage these days. Legacypac (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as noticeably newly started, nothing else or otherwise imaginable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 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 redirect to Promotional model.  Sandstein  16:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Race queen[edit]

Race queen (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 only one reference in the whole article. The topic doesn't even qualify for WP:NOT Coderzombie (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought that there would be some better sources than the ones in the article available, but if there are I can't find them between the Urban dictionary definitions and the pornography. I'm not sure which part of WP:NOT the nominator thinks the article breaks, but it doesn't seem to be notable... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Promotional model where race queens are mentioned. A search shows that his is a real profession that modeling agencies advertise for and that the practice of having race queens is controversial. But I haven't been able to find any in depth RS about race queens or race models in particular. A race queen is a type of promotional model, and Promotional model mentions the topic with what seems like due weight for that article. Because this is a plausible search term, a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as this seems sufficiently connected. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 15:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Milea[edit]

Cristian Milea (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 kickboxer, does not meet WP:KICK or WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable kickboxer who fails WP:NKICK and has no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:NKICK. The article's only listed reference gives me a 404 error. My search did not turn up significant independent coverage to support a claim of meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:56, 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. J04n(talk page) 15:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lost European countries in the 20th century[edit]

The lost European countries in the 20th century (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)

Essentially an essay. TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:NOTESSAY. This reads more like a discussion of personal opinions the topic rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. OtterAM (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it is an essay, and not even a good one (its text is very badly written and mostly unsourced - based on its amateurish content I don't even think Wikipedia has been used as a source). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as essay and unencyclopedic. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A repetitious essay that fails to understand succession of states at all, and it is almost impossible to read. Despite the possibility of good faith editing, and a genuine effort used to write it, moving to draft space would accomplish nothing. This is sadly not a notable topic. Ceosad (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete its an essay. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Ceosad. The fact that the article claims that Nazi Germany was a new country and was merely "theoretically announced as a looser" at the conclusion of World War II says it all about the totally amateur and unreliable nature of its content. This article is also surplus to the Former countries in Europe after 1815 article, and various other articles in Category:Lists of former countries. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I was going to look into this further, but the fact that the article contains the word "looser" when it means "loser" makes it unbearable for me to do so. Why is it that this intensely annoyingly ignorant spelling has gained such traction on the Internet? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:06, 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. Nakon 18:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eggel (Egg Bagel)[edit]

Eggel (Egg Bagel) (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 every sandwich or portmanteau word merits a WP article; in fact few do. This is no exception.TheLongTone (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Completely made up with no reliable sources even http://www.urbandictionary.com/ (which is not considered a reliable source) doesn't even have an entry for this. Besides Wikipedia is not a Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide. - Pmedema (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Interesting idea, but the topic has received no (very little) coverage in reliable sources. Epic WP:N fail. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I modified my !vote per the keep !vote below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I too thought the term was made up, but gNewspaper searches revealed mentions from 2007 in the Toledo Blade; from 1985 in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune; an advertisement from 18 April 1980 in the Observer-Reporter; and, from the Schectady Gazette of 14 July 1989. I wavered over posting this as a "weak keep" because these mentions are local newspaper restaurant reviews, one ad and/or even stretching toward "advertorials." But the timespan suggests this is a long-enduring dish and these examples of secondary source coverage seem to be sufficiently significant, taken as a whole, to establish notabililty per WP:GNG.Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel you are reaching for something that is still ultimately a WP:DICDEF and not suitable for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge to list of sandwiches?TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nore: The inclusion criterion for that list article is "notable" sandwiches, so I doubt that would be a stable result. --joe decker^talk 00:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah V[edit]

Hannah V (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 evidence of notability. "References" are a list of this person's credits, rather than anything that implies notability either per WP:MUSICBIO or the GNG. All biographical material in this article apart from this list of works is unreferenced. LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have the same issues as LukeSurl - chiefly that there are no independent sources to establish notability, merely a list of things they have worked on. Pupsbunch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I'm not finding anything better. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy First[edit]

Democracy First (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 minor political party. Ran one candidate, the party leader, in the 2014 local elections, who finished last with 2% of the vote. The same candidate stood in the 2016 Assembly elections, finishing last with 0.3%. Coverage is local, mainly focusing on the creation of the party and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Valenciano (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as rather newly started and there's nothing suggesting better for applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louden Swain (band)[edit]

Louden Swain (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)

I sppedied tis a long time ago, but the speedy was declined on the grounds that a song by the band features in a major movie release. Actually that seems like a claim of notability for the song rather than the band: note that pretty well all the references are self-published, you tube or Amazon. Additionally the lead singer Rob Benedict has a biog (he acts). I really don't think this article is necessary...I've just given it a feew edits; one thing was removing gross overlinking to the singers biog, the kind of crapola that makes me think a snecking publicist has been involved.TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Furthering nom's comments, the article is severely unreferenced and contains extreme puffery. I could find no coverage attesting to its notability apart from a few scant mentions about the actor and his role in Supernatural. Band clearly fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NOEFFORT, WP:POTENTIAL Speedy was declined for a reason. Caspera y (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Caspera y (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was declined for a reason that does not stand up under scrutiny. The information about a single song can be included in the singer's biog. Essentially this band is a vanity project.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am, incidentally, a tad suspicious of new editors who throw around wiki jargon in the way that Caspera y does. Even if they are ludicrously off-beam. It's obvious that this article has been overgroomed by some drone probably doing so for moolah; the article will not get acquire new content because there is seemingly nothing about these dull rawk merchants, probably because they are terminally dull. Any possible improvement lies in the area of ruthlesslessly eradicating spam and fluff.TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I am new and this is the first page I stumbled upon with delete notice. I figured this is small enough article for my first try. Jargons are specifically listed in the list of Wikipedia deletion guide to use in these discussions, I just followed their rules. I was not aware or had no intention of being offensive for using them. I see the point that a single song may be a better representation of the article than the band based on the previous version of the page. However now there are some new citations (that I haven't yet reviewed), which brings to my original point of no effort/potential on the article. It was mentioned that the page was "overgroomed" as "vanity project", but the impression from history was that not much effort was made to clean up or bring it up to standard. Comment about "the article will not acquire new content" is pure speculation. So I guess now it's up to the administrator to judge if the article warrants deletion. I will most likely not follow up on this further. Thank you for your time. Caspera y (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches have found links at Books and News but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bluewater (company)[edit]

Bluewater (company) (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:CORPDEPTH. Current sourcing includes 2 links to the company's own website, the announcement of a non-notable award, and a press release. Most likely since that is about all that is out there on this company. Due to the commonality of the name it was difficult to research, but adding "water purifier" to the search returned very little. There's a piece in a trade magazine, but it is unattributed, and reads like a press release. Other than that you have a press release, and some trivial mentions. That's it. I would have prodded it, but there was no point, as the article's creator continues to remove the notability tag I added when I reviewed the page, without any additional notability sources, so the prod was sure to be contested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of notability, per nom's arguments and own research. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as certainly nothing for the applicable notability, I nearly NPP reviewed this myself and I would've considered PROD as another path to deletion too. Fortunately it seems there's a consensus for delete so far. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crater, Mendocino County, California[edit]

Crater, Mendocino County, California (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 evidence that this is or has been a populated place; no evidence for notability. The county website at http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/ has no mention of it. PamD 12:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: while hesitant to delete place names generally, this one certainly seems to be too obscure to carry on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be any indication this place actually exists, even. If we cannot prove this place exists, it shouldn't have an article. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The GNIS entry for this place (the first reference) describes it as a locale; locales are officially defined as a "place at which there is or was human activity", and while this occasionally can mean a community, we'd need references to back that up since it's more likely to mean something else. The only other reference we have suggests that this place was some sort of stop or waypoint along a railroad, though it's unclear from the source whether it was a station or something else. (Our article on the railroad suggests it's the site of a horseshoe curve, though it's unsourced; this source suggests it was a station.) I can't find any other sources about this place, and "possible location of a closed railway station" isn't enough evidence to show this place was a community at any point. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the GNIS (Geographic names information system) definition for "locale" says "Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places..." (My emphasis.) That does not appear to support the statement that "this occasionally can mean a community". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While that is true, I've seen enough misclassifications to know that definition's not always accurate in practice (e.g. places listed as locales when they were marked as communities on state highway maps and had an active post office). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps at best, still questionable for own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITDM[edit]

ITDM (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 organization, inadequately sourced. Draft:Integrated Talent Development Mission is already in draft space in AFC (and has been declined). This submission to mainspace looks like an effort to try two different routes into mainspace at the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, this is a blatant attempt to game the system. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any significant coverage in reliable independent sources to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The two existing sources have only a passing mention. It should probably also be salted as this is the four time the page has been recreated. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the coverage of the non-profit is minimal in substance. See e.g. this, this, this and this; these are the major hits returned by an WP:INDAFD search, but they are not actually about ITDM. Highbeam gives this, but again it really only offers a passing mention of ITDM. Given that I didn't find any substantive coverage of ITDM using other search tools, I believe the subject fails WP:ORG. /wiae /tlk 15:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a somewhat newly founded group with no signs of the needed notability. I myself saw this at NPP and watchlisted with plans to nominate. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete searches did not turn up the kind of in-depth coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't fit WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have suspended the AFC review of Draft:Integrated Talent Development Mission pending the outcome of this AFD, it is basically the same article. Would a decision to delete here also extend to the Draftspace copy? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In my opinion, no, this AFD does not apply to the draft, because GNG does not apply to the draft. I agree with suspending or declining review of the draft, because GNG does apply to accepting the draft, and the two are the same (which is a gaming of the system). That is, if this article is deleted, it does not imply that the draft should be MFD'd, but it does mean that the draft should not be accepted unless it can be made much better than the subject article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this process ends in deletion of the article, the draft would be subject to speedy deletion in terms of "G4: Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Author has already been asked whether they have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This organization is insufficiently notable, judging by the lack of media coverage. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:14, 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 23:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Flood[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Order of Australia Medal (the lowest class of the Order of Australia) is awarded to hundreds (averaging "around 450") of people each year, and does not guarantee notability. Flood's work does not appear to have received any coverage in independent sources. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG. 5 results for "Jenny Flood" on Google News. All are mentions and not about her. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Has anyone notified the creator and asked them to expand the article a bit? Montanabw^(talk) 18:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator hasn't edited since August 2014, and the article itself was created ten years ago. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing else imaginably better for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 15:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khurmi (surname)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia currently doesn't have a single article about a person bearing this name, the sources are mirrors of the previous PROD etc and are unreliable. It appears possibly to be yet another non-notable clan of a larger caste group but even this is not verifiable using reliable sources. Basically, as per the previous PROD, this is "just another surname". Sitush (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unable to find any mention in reliable sources. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. utcursch | talk 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete WP:NOT CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:26, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 15:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 254[edit]

London Buses route 254 (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)

Another bus route with zero evidence of notability. Jeni ^(talk) 10:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This route has over 11 million journeys a year. That makes it in the top 20 bus routes in London. There are currently over 130 London bus route articles. Doesn't make sense to delete this one. --Kafuffle (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Jeni ^(talk) 10:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not every bus service in the world needs an article ...., As I've repeatedly said anyone wanting to know times or map should either visit the operators website or pick up a timetable ..... –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just another run-of-the-mill non-notable route. Fails WP:N.Charles (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Sometime ago we undertook a general massacre of bus route articles. Did this one get missed or has some one started planting another crop of them? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Imzadi 1979 → 10:42, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route W7[edit]

London Buses route W7 (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)

Another bus route with zero evidence of notability. Jeni ^(talk) 10:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bus route with over 5 million journeys per year. Subject of a large local campaign to move it's start. The Argus, Haringey Tottenham Journal. Subject of other news stories BBC, and features 1 --Kafuffle (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is all trivial coverage! Jeni ^(talk) 10:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just another suburban route of no encyclopedic interest. None of the sources shown actually discuss the overall route. Notability is not inherited from a bus stop.Charles (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Charlesdrakew - Not every bus service in the world needs an article ...., As I've repeatedly said anyone wanting to know times or map should either visit the operators website or pick up a timetable ..... –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Sometime ago we undertook a general massacre of bus route articles. Did this one get missed or has some one started planting another crop of them? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The person that initiated said massacre didn't touch the London examples sadly, there are quite a few left. Jeni ^(talk) 15:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Imzadi 1979 → 10:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Lots of info, not enough sources.(Ajf773 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

• Whilst Redirect is plausible not every single service number in London needs to be redirected and very few people would be searching for the actual number anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW Delete as nothing at all better for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 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 redirect to Prism (Katy Perry album). MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It Takes Two (Katy Perry song)[edit]

It Takes Two (Katy Perry 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 page was previously part of a bundled AfD nomination of several Perry songs which finished without consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary Lovers). Regardless, taking this apge as single entity, I fail to see how a song that only reached #180 in the UK and #141 in South Korea and received, as the article says, "mixed reviews" (and that's charitable) can possibly be regarded as notable. Emeraude (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:MUSIC CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Prism (Katy Perry album). None of the sourcing here is specifically about this song, only passing mentions in sources about the parent album. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no quality independent coverage available; mentions in album reviews simply aren't enough to warrant a separate article per WP:NSONGS. It's not likely to gain much (if any) more attention than it already has at this point, which was rather little to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete altogether perhaps, simply best known for the album itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 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. J04n(talk page) 18:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ERONET[edit]

ERONET (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 company. No reliable sources I could find to improve this article or establish notability. Xaxing (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches only found a few links, nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What searches "only found a few links" and "nothing convincing"? Certainly not the news and books searches spoon-fed above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Inadequate sources, wrong language. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• When you wrote that there were several sentences in the article in the right language. The fact that there were some more sentences in the wrong language doesn't create any sort of anti-notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. FFS, it's a major mobile provider in a European country. It originated as a subsidiary of Hrvatski Telekom, and since 2009 it's listed on Sarajevo Stock Exchange and owned 51% by the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina [14]. It's main sponsor of the Sarajevo Film Festival [15], it got involved in a financial controversy in 2014 [16]. It has 679 hits on Google News [17], which should have been the first point of reference for the nominator or any of the commenters above. I'm disappointed by the level of ignorance on display here: if you don't know the language and don't know how to search, how about not commenting on an AfD? No such user (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources in English are lacking, although some exist. However, sources don't have to be in English and there are plenty of foreign-language sources. Just based on machine translations the sources from Google News seem to satisfy notability requirements. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the google news search confirms notability. It meets WP:GNG, has some sources, but the google news search clinches it for me, it's notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the consensus among commenters making valid arguments that existed before this was relisted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article needs serious work but this is a notable company with plenty reliable sources. DeVerm (talk) 02:14, 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 delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelli Smith[edit]

Kelli Smith (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:NFOOTBALL Joeykai (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As she has not played in WP:FPL Seasider91 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NFOOTBALL may or may not be a credible guideline for men's football (and I would argue that it's not), but for women's football it is certainly not. What does the professional (or otherwise) status of other players in other teams of a league possibly have to do with the notability of one particular player? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The WP:NFOOTBALL policy concerns the notability of association football players regardless of age, race or gender, when creating an article on Wikipedia the guidelines for notability have to be met otherwise any Tom, Dick or Harry could have a Wikipedia article made about them and that would take up a lot of space Seasider91 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is precisely that players are being judged by a one-size-fits-all guideline that is not appropriate for all of them. A guideline that works well for male players in England in the modern era, for whom the boundaries between the professional, semi-professional and amateur levels of the game are pretty clearly defined, is being applied to female players and to male players in countries where there is not such a clear-cut distinction. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki Football's WP:FPL list gives us a pretty decent idea which leagues around the world are professional in both the men's and women's games. Unfortunately Kelli Smith has not played in the top league in America. If she had she would be notable. Seasider91 (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:32, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Sittauer[edit]

Annie Sittauer (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:NFOOTBALL Joeykai (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As she has not played in WP:FPL Seasider91 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:32, 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 speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per WP:G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IRIS (Annual Management and Cultural Fest)[edit]

IRIS (Annual Management and Cultural Fest) (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 wiki links, not stylish article. In my opinion, this is a test page. ... Lhealt _(talk) 14:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't seem like a test page, which usually consist of "testing" of "trying to create a page" or something similar, but it does seem like someone promoting an event they are associated with and unless they can provide RS this should be deleted on those grounds. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No wiki links and a lack of style is not really a grounds for deletion; AFD is not cleanup. Notability, promotion, etc. are what ought to be considered. GAB^Hello! 14:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you propose?--... Lhealt _(talk) 14:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Lhealt[reply]

If you believe it fails Wp:GNG, that would be a good rationale. Are there sufficient, independent and in-depth reliable sources covering the subject? I'll start looking. I mean, I'm not saying "keep," even if I do disagree with the rationale. GAB^Hello! 14:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. Do as you continue. Because I do not know much everything perfectly with the deletion. Thanks.--... Lhealt _(talk) 15:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Lhealt[reply]