< 13 October 15 October >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Created by banned user. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Magic (musician)[edit]

Black Magic (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability criteria. I strongly suspect the article creator, User:Jamzy4, has undeclared conflict of interest as he/she has primarily contributed highly promotional articles about Nigerian musical articles, including this article as well as:

The fact that all these articles have professional-grade photos with a claim to self-authorship is also very strong evidence of undeclared COI. Citobun (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blaze8724 is a yet another sock of the articles creator. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was written by Historical Ben, but for some bizarre reason, his comment was disallowed by a filter. He clearly isn't a magic or astrology spambot. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Ben is yet another sockpuppet of the creator. Struck both sock comments. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for investigating that. But there's still no reason for that specific filter to have blocked this specific comment, so it still ought to be investigated by WP:EF/FP. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Logston[edit]

Anne Logston (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 of this unsourced BLP does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR and I was unable to find significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus defaulting to the article remaining (the nominator and SwisterTwister have not re-commented after the introduction of the sourced reviews). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aquastax[edit]

Aquastax (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)

Concerns with notability FASTILY 07:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 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 a notable school and also the nominator has been uncovered as an account tied to a user of a past advertising-only account (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arabiyya School[edit]

Arabiyya School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article lacks reliable source, not notable and hardly to fix. Historical Ben (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus seems to be keep. I'm not entirely sure I agree, but the consensus is clear enough. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pedals the Bear[edit]

Pedals the 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)

Cute and sad story but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I don't think we'll see much lasting coverage. Pichpich (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting nomination. Contrary to my expectations, it appears that the story does have legs. (bad pun fully intended) Pichpich (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely NOT the "end of the story", as the bear's death has provided the impetus for Democrats in the New Jersey Senate to propose a anti-hunting "Pedals law".[2]--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've neutrally pinged the 3 wikiprojects listed on Talk:Pedals (bear), to help build consensus. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't given a policy-based reason for your vote. We don't have to wait five years to create articles that have already had significant coverage in reliable independent sources.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Wiki Newspeak would be nicely covered by NOTNEWS and Recentism, with a little WP:COAT thrown in, although thankfully much of the last is being edited out. Anmccaff (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else apart from the bill introduced in the New Jersey Senate to end hunting as a direct result of the death?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed bill is far from actual enacted legislation. I would suggest not gazing into that WP:CRYSTALBALL -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admins please close as nom has retracted deletion bid--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why should that matter? It's not as though it were a personal favor. Anmccaff (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per WP:SKCRIT#1, if other editors have expressed a desire to delete, the discussion can't be closed just because the nominator withdrew. clpo13(talk) 06:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that once an AfD has been started, no improvements should be allowed to be made to that article? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My personal philosophy regarding wiki-deletions is not pertinent to the discussion at hand. I was simply pointing out to readers who were ignorant of the article's previous state and who may be swayed toward keeping the article that the reason for the article's current state is due to those who have an agenda of saving it from deletion. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is just IDLI trying to be justified with shortcuts. General notability has been established in the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, those who have argued for deletion in this discussion have used substantial and policy based arguments, while those who have argued for inclusion have used WP:ILIKEIT. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The exact opposite is the case. All those who want to delete have come up with is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism, neither of which apply here, and those who want to keep have pointed out that it easily passes WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just sensationalist yellow journalism and thus fails WP:GNG. As WP:SENSATION says "Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting." This article is of no lasting importance so to say that neither WP:NOTNEWS or WP:RECENTISM apply is wrong. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the bear, not his death. WP:SENSATION applies to the latter. We've provided sources about the bear from 2014 and he's been in the news rather steadily since then. Not remotely yellow journalism. This bear is notable in the same way Grumpy Cat is, though not as famous. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is about the bear alone it then fails WP:GNG and WP:N. The fame of Grumpy Cat is incomparable to the fame of this bear. Grumpy Cat is an American cultural icon with absurd amounts of merchandise whereas Pedals is at most a minor internet sensation, which almost anyone or, indeed, anything can be. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense. Go submit a REVDEL request if you think the first edit was a significant BLP violation. (Original version). The creator of the article used editorialization and clearly had a strong POV when they said Pedals was "brutally murdered" which is not the same as calling the hunter a brutal murderer but the "coward" part was sourced and attributed to an individual's opinion. Both have since been removed since they were inappropriate. This is typical of a new editor (which the user clearly is). But to twist this to be an "attack page" is ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The original version also included speculation the hunter was specifically hunting the bear for years and cast aspersions om his sporting ability; it was clearly an attack page targeted at the hunter. The "coward" part may have been sourced but sourced material can still be defamatory. The "brutally murdered" material was especially egregious as the subject is a non-sentient animal incapable of being murdered. That the editor is new is immaterial as new editors should strive to become intimately familiar with policy and ignorance of policy is not an excuse. -- Millionsandbillions (talk)

Strong Keep - Just that he walked on two legs on a regular basis makes him notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterknighted (talk • contribs)

Keep There was an article about Pedals the Bear in the New York Times and USA Today-that makes him notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that makes him news, and recent news at that. Anmccaff (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RFD, even reliable sources such as the New York Times can succumb to sensationalism. An encyclopedia, if it is to be considered a serious endeavor, must have a higher level of editorial discretion than a newspaper looking to make a buck. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the determination of what is "sensational" is inherently about POV. Clearly editors disagree with you here. @Anmccaff: 2014 isn't "recent". EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
....but 2016 is, very much so, and that was when the article was created, in reaction to a recent event. Let's not foget how this started; it's very hard not to see a certain degree of sensationalism there. Anmccaff (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EvergreenFir, the news-stories about this bear, even the ones from 2014, are clearly tabloid journalism and there is nothing "inherently POV" about pointing that out. Also, how is 2014 not recent, that is only two years ago and the article was only created after the bear was hunted. The article is clearly a result of WP:RECENTISM. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sensationalism is in the eye of the beholder. I see an environmentalism issue here similar to Cecil the Lion. And for the life a wild disabled animal, 2014 isn't recent. This isn't the latest cute water skiing squirrel or some other nonsense meme. This is a local icon whose life resulted in petitions and whose death has prompted legislation. To suggest it's not notable seems absurd. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:42, 21 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Rain (band)[edit]

Fire and Rain (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUS. Timmyshin (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies[edit]

International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason " Ephemeral journal, published for only a short time. Tagged for notability since 2013. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP with reason "challenging prod". PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Social Sciences Citation Index has been around for decades and existed before this journal was even established. My access to the SSCI goes back quite a while and as far as I can see, this journal never was indexed. --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. (I could / should have searched for the SSCI dates, but my point was about index databases in general.) TigraanClick here to contact me 12:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it says something about our respective ages that you call this an "old journal" whereas I thought of it as a "recent failure"... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 18 October 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. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eres (Anahí song)[edit]

Eres (Anahí 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)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC, Unremarkable song. Premios Juventud is not a 'major' music award, so does not confer notability per WP:MUSIC  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be redirected to Inesperado rather than Anahí. Richard3120 (talk) 00:05, 15 October 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 10:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Heller[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brooke Heller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BAND. Aside from iTunes could not locate additional third-party sources to verify the notability of the subject. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:25, 16 October 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. Could even have been speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Beig[edit]

Tony Beig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG, unless being considered a "Rich Kid of Instagram" makes you notable enough for your own BLP. The Daily Mail is the only third-party I could locate with any information on him. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:27, 16 October 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 01:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Townsend[edit]

Zachary Townsend (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 government official. The position, "Chief Technology Officer of the State of California" is not intrinsically notable. The references for notability consist basically of minor notices--and his own minor publications DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:30, 16 October 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 01:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Dravid[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arun Dravid (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 self-sourced vanity page on a unremarkable individual. Sufficient RS coverage cannot be found. Created by Special:Contributions/Karandebuwa with few other contributions. 2015 AfD closed as no consensus due to low participation. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 15 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemala–Honduras football rivalry[edit]

Guatemala–Honduras football rivalry (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't find any reliable sources for this rivalry. The article is nothing more than just a collection of results; see WP:NOTSTATS. Other relevant policies which support the deletion of this article are WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. A nine year old comment from a Honduran football fan on the article's talk page is also quite telling. Spiderone 19:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central America-related deletion discussions.
     (Leaving red link in place; this has potential for a separate delsort page.) North America1000 23:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:25, 14 October 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. Normally, I would find an excuse to go with Kusma's suggestion of a redirect, per WP:ATD, but in this case, this seems like such an unlikely search term, it's pointless as a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1912 German Men's Eight Rowing Team[edit]

1912 German Men's Eight Rowing Team (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)

While the individuals have inherent notability due to having competed at Olympic Games, no inherent notability exists for Olympic teams. Rowing teams can be notable, and 1972 New Zealand eight (article does not exist yet) and 1982 New Zealand eight (notable, but they didn't perform well at the 1984 Summer Olympics) are examples. I cannot see why the 1912 German eight could possibly be considered notable. Fails WP:GNG. Schwede66 19:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easy to reference the article - that is not the problem. The standard reference website is Sports Reference. In 1912, there were four Olympic rowing events, and Germany sent five boats to compete in three of those events; there were two teams that competed in the eights event. The scope of the article that we have covers one of those teams; as such, it's not entirely accurate (it should at least mention that there was another German eights team). I very much doubt that all the 1912 rowing teams taken together would reach the notability threshold. I have just written a summary article for New Zealand rowers at the Summer Olympics (i.e. covering all Olympic appearances) and that certainly meets notability criteria. It is, however, a lot of work. It's also complicated to define the scope for a German equivalent, as the country was split after the second world war, they competed as separate nations, then had a united team for a couple of Olympic Games, then competed as separate nations again, and then the reunification happened. Schwede66 03:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should further note that the German Wikipedia has an article titled de:Deutschland-Achter, which translates as 'German eight'. It's an expression that was formed in 1959 and refers to the representative eights team of Germany, i.e. is not specific to a particular team, but at the time also did not cover East Germany (which makes sense, as in 1959, they were separate countries). That article lists this 1912 team, and that's a much more appropriate way of dealing with it. Schwede66 18:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birth tax[edit]

Birth tax (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 appears to be WP:OR - a neologism - so far mentioned only in one source (the one reference). This topic does not exist, nor does it have widespread usage in the common vernacular or peer reviewed studies. No signifigant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The only available reference appears to be commentary and not a scholarly work. Fails GNG.

I did request to speedy delete this, , but the admin did not think I presented valid criteria for doing so [16]. How about A 7? Steve Quinn (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. And you could have prodded it. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you could have left the speedy tag in place - how about not trying to make decisions for me, and I will do the same for you. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breitbart and similarly intentionally dishonest propaganda trying to accuse Obamacare of being a birth tax (no RSs, no article)
  • Motherjones and a few academic works (granted, ones that wear their politics on their sleeve) arguing that repealing the estate tax is de facto establishing a birth tax (not what this is about, really belongs in Bush tax cuts if anywhere)
  • a passing reference to the repercussions of hypothetically introducing such a tax in Colombia (or other places)
  • references to various kinds of historical birth-related payments to individuals with gov't ties (such as to a state-sponsored midwife or the gov't official who records the birth) as birth taxes
  • economics textbooks vaguely mentioning the idea in passing
This could be notable and I'm open to changing my stance if more sources are found, but at the moment I can't find enough to make a coherent stub out of without some serious WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:33, 16 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Materon[edit]

Cristina Materon (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. Article sourced entirely from the artist's own website – the only vaguely independent source I've found so far is a single line in this article. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I gave it a couple of days while I looked for sources and waited for the editor to improve it, but I don't think either are forthcoming. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rejinsha[edit]

Rejinsha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural AfD nomination, as the CSD tags and PROD tags were removed by IPs (all I would guess are socks of the original editor). The page itself is a pretty obvious CSD A7 deletion case, as it's a vanity page about a non-notable programmer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the event and its context are notable enough for a standalone article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Louis Santos[edit]

Death of Louis Santos (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 event -- any relevance to e.g. Schwarzenegger can be dealt with in alternate articles... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources would be useful for writing about this matter in the proper context, i.e., in articles on Schwarzenegger and/or Villaraigosa. The question is whether we need a separate article. The sources given are not mainly about the death -- they're mainly about the other protagonists. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Think there are enough sources for standalone notability to include the murder, commutation, controversy, change in the law, and early prison release all in one place rather than dividing it up. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Atlantic306. KamelTebaast 17:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gianno Caldwell[edit]

Gianno Caldwell (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)

Minor, run-of-the-mill political consultant. No indication of real notability, impact, or importance, though lots of references to what TV shows he's appeared on. Calton | Talk 17:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eastgate Parkway[edit]

Eastgate Parkway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability in line with WP:GNG; the assertion that this is a "major parkway" fails compared to the reality of what is actually shown on a map. Imzadi 1979 → 17:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops sorry not sure why I'd put park, Amended. –Davey2010Talk 23:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

OC&C Strategy Consultants[edit]

OC&C Strategy Consultants (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 independent in-depth coverage for this business created by an SPA (WP:COI ?). Claims of notability are insignificant: two obscure awards. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:37, 16 October 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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parul Sharma (model)[edit]

Parul Sharma (model) (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 also Case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:BIO1E, She was crowned Peoples Choice Award at the Indian Princess 2015 and I can not find any significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemongirl942: Yeah must be some kind of undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry going on as per this revision and I still don't understand why they changed the contents of old article rather than creating a new one for this model I think because both models have the same name so they took advantage of it to fool NPP's. I have opened an SPI on these accounts please see this and this. GSS (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sock-puppetry and COI is another issue. If you don't understand why page was overridden on already written 'Parul Sharma', maybe because of the same name have caused confusion or the editor didn't wanted to start page under 'Parul Sharma (model)' or 'Parul Sharma (Indian model)' title. Winning an award at national level beauty contest doesn't make biography 'notable'? 1900toni (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by blocked sock
  • Keep Parul Sharma (model) i don't understand why the complainer said that she is not find any singular independent coverage . please search on google "indian princess parul sharma" and then you will find at-least 10 and more articles about it which all are individual and not related to any private promotion . The pageant name is indian Princess . you can check the value of that pageant . it is telecast on zee tv . zee tv is biggest entertainment channel in India . please check Chandni Sharma also . she is the judge of that time in 2015 . it is big pageant which held from last so many years in India . it is the second biggest beauty pageant in India after Miss India .for credibility of that title here is my ref link ref[1] and she is won that title by huge margin.after that various blog and beauty pageant news channel take her interview . hope that Wikipedia , check the all facts and then take the appropriate decision . Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianPageantlCommunity (talk • contribs) GSS (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— IndianPageantlCommunity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

  1. ^ http://thegreatpageantcommunity.com/2015/05/23/indian-princess-2015-parul-sharma-wins-peoples-choice-award/
  • Keep i dont understand why some user say its puppet user . i have interest in Bollywood , pageant , Indian models and fashion industry . it is my hobby . for me its like keep updating me , what is going on with our glamour industry . so thats why i keep checking on every pageant going on . yeah .. first i edit some articles which i have interest and then i edit this . before editing whatever i write , first i investigate about it on Google then i write it . i check all the references and media coverage .so whats wrong in it that if i write or edit in which i have interest and hobby . here is some other proof of about Indian Princess ,Chandni Sharma ,Audrey D'Silva , Parul Sharma (model) . [1] [2] and i do not understand why these all articles came in deletion policy . all these girls are doing super good in her felid and they all come from the second best pageant in India , indian Princess and you can also check Urvashi Rautela , she is the same girl which comes out from Indian Princess. here are some other ref also :- [3] [4]

Thanks IndianPageantlCommunity (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/himachal/community/mandi-girl-reaches-final-of-beauty-contest/86093.html
  2. ^ http://www.wow.com/wiki/Indian_Princess_2015
  3. ^ http://bollywoodhelpline.com/editor-39-s-pick/fashion-beauty/snehapriya-roi-crowned-indian-princess-2015/25909
  4. ^ http://www.indianprincessfashion.com/pastEvent-2015.asp
@1900toni: The above links you provide are not indepentdent to the subject also wow.com is not a WP:RS. GSS (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS-1987: the above links are not cited in my comment. 1900toni (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@1900toni: But this link was added by you which is not independent and it's same as IndianPageantlCommunity cited above. GSS (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS-1987: This one is independent but I think not notable enough as it is blog site. 1900toni (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— 1.39.11.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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. Overall consensus is that the article meets CORDEPH as well as GNG so closing as keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Payoneer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Payoneer (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 was kept in 2011, but think our standards for companies, particularly internet-based companies, are much higher now. The only actually substantial RS is the Inc42article, and it reads like using a minor announcement as an excuse for an advertorial.

It's grown some since 2011--it now has 7,000employees, but that still makres it a rather small company. Most of the awards listed on its wesite are awardsfor "fastest growing". I think it's excellent that companies list them on their web site, because the intrinsic actual meaning of such an award is not yet notable . K.e.coffman helpfully removed the promotionalism , but it is still not notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The "Washington post" article is actually their reprint from telechrunch.com, with telechrunch's 2008 copyright on it. To tell the truth, this really surprised me. I never realized they did this.
I do not consider ET a RS for N, and the article proves it, for in fact is just quoting the company's executive.
Deccan Hreald just the same, quoting another of the company's execs.
NY Post is not a RS for business news or anything else--it's essentially a right wing tabloid.
IBT is the same company exec that the Deccan Herald made a pretense of interviewing DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that The Washington Post published a TechCrunch article demonstrates that The Washington Post considers TechCrunch to be a reliable source. North America1000 02:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is one way of looking at it, but the more obvious interpretation is that the WP makes no attempt to follow proper journalistic standards in its coverage of internet companies. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That the editors of The Washington Post decided that the techcrunch article[17] was suitable for republication in their paper only increases the strength of the WP:RS claim. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of your claim in a previous AFD that a Forbes contributor blog would count as an RS because Forbes wouldn't damage their brand name that way - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about Payoneer. In the unrelated discussion regarding a Forbes source, I also struck the source later on per the discussion there, and made no claim whatsoever of "Forbes wouldn't damage their brand name that way". It's entirely unclear how you came to this conclusion, but you're wrong; nothing of the sort was stated by me. When commenting about other users, please try to present an accurate account of actual matters that occurred. Better yet, please try to focus on the actual topic at hand. North America1000 10:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been significant coverage in many third party independent sources, particularly in top tier media reliable sources, and it certainly measures up to the criteria for WP:CORPDEPTH. The article should be expanded on, and it should not be a marketing piece, but it should be a Wiki articleVeggies 2 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 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 (A7) by GBFan. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle500[edit]

Eagle500 (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)

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: the company ceased operations before production, no notability claimthe company ceased operations before production, no notability claim Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. clear consensus, could have been a G11 DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Letterland[edit]

Letterland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article requires WP:TNT, IMO. There are no independent sources and the entire thing appears to have been written by their marketing department. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:39, 16 October 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. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 06:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parul Sharma (singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Parul Sharma (singer) (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 a minor beauty pageant (Miss India-Canada) titleholder who doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Except for one brief news report about the pageant win in the Hindustan Times, there is literally nothing else in reliable sources to justify this hagiography, which makes this a BLP1E. More importantly, I am pretty certain this is an undisclosed paid editing job and should be deleted per WP:NOTPROMO. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian governments[edit]

Australian governments (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 topic is already covered by the relevant section in Politics of Australia and Government of Australia, it seems there's a lot of duplication of existing information going on. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Simcox[edit]

Grover Simcox (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 is in probable violation of WP:N, WP:IRS, and WP:ONESOURCE. HollandLop (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one source has no information that is in the article. This person is of highly dubious notability.HollandLop (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 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 InterNetNews. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Salz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rich Salz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Sources included are either primary or only discuss the individual in passing. Possible COI editing, undisclosed (see recent history). Another holdout from an earlier age of Wikipedia—notability standards have changed. I could endorse a redirection to InterNetNews, with which he was involved, or something with the history of Usenet, but he has little to no biographical coverage outside of what can be adequately described in those articles. czar 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of heads of government in Australia[edit]

Timeline of heads of government in 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)

This page is unruly and would be hard for normal people to read contravening WP:MANUAL, plus it makes for severe difficulty in trying to add on more elected governments without compromising readability, as this article is already served by other such lists, like List of Prime Ministers of Australia, Premier of Victoria#List of Premiers of Victoria etc. so it can be argued that having separate articles would increase readability of the subject in general, rather than having a cluster of unreadable information. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. I have taken the advice from these users and have realised my error.(non-admin closure) - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian federal elections[edit]

List of Australian federal elections (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 are two articles entirely discussing basically and fundamentally, the same thing, who heads the federal government, so we have to decide, which one is worth keeping? Because if List of Prime Ministers of Australia exists then why does this page, when they both explain the same things? That's why i'm recommending this article for deletion. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a comment, because Australia has a quasi-unified executive and legislative, when we talk about electoral history, we are also generally talking about Leaders of government history, because they are elected along with the legislative and need the confidence of the legislature to govern. I would also like to comment on the fact that most of the polling stats taken from the List of elections page are ripped from the Elections in Australia page, just as a side-note. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, electoral history and leaders of government history are not the same at all. Leaders of the government are elected members of the legislature, but they are not elected as leaders with the legislature but by the legislature, a key difference and an entirely separate vote. I could do without the polling stats on this particular page, though. Frickeg (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Campeau Dr[edit]

Campeau Dr (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)

Fail WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marathi nationalism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marathi nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a hoax.No such nationalist or separatist movement has existed in India. You see none of the sources quoted in the article refer to such movement, which can be called Marathi nationalism or separatism. Slathuri (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your support for deletion is implied by the nomination, so there's no need to bold the word "delete" here. My comment wasn't based on the sources in the article but on those found by the Google Books and Google Scholar searches linked above, many of which are reliable sources specifically discussing Marathi nationalism. Notability may be questionable, but this is certainly not a hoax. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 16 October 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OneVu[edit]

OneVu (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)

high degree of promotions. Coverage on Popular media are just for Investments of Script writing/ Coverage. Similar to larger scale Grofer, Delhivery, and other startup story. it is not notable at all. Till now. Light2021 (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I think the consensus is to keep, provided it is suitably rewritten to clarify the actual notability DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinkle[edit]

Clinkle (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)

high degree of promotions. Coverage on Popular media are just for Investments of Script writing/ Coverage. Similar to larger scale Grofer, Delhivery, and other startup story. Website Link does not even work. Some random company made by few people for fun. It is not notable at all. Light2021 (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A miserably failed startup as per the investors views itself for which this article even exist in Wikipedia. Given website does not even work. Definitely a work of close associate or company itself. Coverage on Tech crunch and others like Business insiders write anything related to any business. Highly questionable coverage. Major media covered as Once in a lifetime coverage any startup can get if they get money from investors. Repetitive coverage lacks the notability standards and definitely not at all encyclopedic. Light2021 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in your nomination and commentary you appear to have the opinion that any startup company is somehow unable to be notable, regardless of source coverage. That's fine, and you're fully entitled to your own personal opinion. However, notability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the age or success of companies. Check out WP:NEWCOMPANY and WP:DEFUNCTS for some examples of this line of reasoning. Also, you use lots of WP:PEACOCK language herein in support of deletion ("miserable failed startup", "website does not even work", similar to other companies, "some random company", etc., but this has no bearing regarding notability per Wikipedia's notability standards. Sorry, but you seem to be judging notability subjectively, like a company that didn't "make it" is therefore unable to be notable as some sort of default. Also, promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing. North America1000 15:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Light2021 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond the financing, the company has struggled to execute on its vision and retain executives. Former Chief Operating Officer Barry McCarthy, a former Netflix executive, stayed on about five months before exiting last March. The Internet, meanwhile, is still littered with evidence of what Clinkle was supposed to be, including an abstract commercial about a “revolution.”
None of this rises to the level of encyclopedia notability; companies are funded and then fail all the time; nothing special or significant about this one in particular. I thus still advocate deletion as (IMO) this page does not add value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think for your queries or initiation for writing an article you can read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Every_snowflake_is_unique and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Duration_of_coverage
and there are others who are there and need to be deleted or rewrite in a proper manner. Your suggestions and ideas are welcome. Light2021 (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and that is exactly the reason for nominations. there are nothing to write for such startup than raising a fund or get coverage by media once in a lifetime. This is not a Press or startup newspaper where we need to write each and every article for such startups. Does not make it Encyclopedic notable. Light2021 (talk) 10:11, 22 October 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. This was no doubt going to end in deletion anyway, as there is no evidence whatever of notability, but we don't need to wait for a week, as the contents were almost entirely copied from other sources, such as http://link.springer.com/journal/41309 & http://www.springer.com/political+science/journal/41309 so it qualifies for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement. (In my opinion it also came close to qualifying for speedy deletion as promotional.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interest Groups & Advocacy[edit]

Interest Groups & Advocacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet the general notability guideline. Google doesn't bring up (from what I see) any references beyond the basic sales listing given in the article. It's likely not promotional enough to speedy delete on those grounds but the intent here seems to give this relatively new journal some attention. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 14 October 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. / Snow Keep - per SK1 - No valid reason has been presented for deletion (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Janowska[edit]

Alina Janowska (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 Context little context No noatability. Timothy Robinson12345 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Obviously I'm WP:INVOLVED but it's clearly snowing here and I think this can be closed. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:09, 14 October 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 deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Day for Organ Donation and Transplantation[edit]

World Day for Organ Donation and Transplantation (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 Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 14 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Albers[edit]

Luke Albers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable college football player. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Army Golf Club[edit]

Army Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable golf course. Most of the references in the article only make passing reference to the course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:26, 14 October 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America1000 00:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Raiders (album)[edit]

The Raiders (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find significant coverage of this album in reliable sources. The listed sources are simply retailers and youtubes, and one for Oricon but only provides a track listing. Who's talking about this album? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC) StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 09:10, 14 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saar Kashyap[edit]

Saar Kashyap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR he has done only 2 uncredited supporting roles in Indian television shows also I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article. GSS (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 09:09, 14 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Beach Sanctuary[edit]

Cat Beach Sanctuary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see how this is notable Jimfbleak (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:37, 15 October 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 (A11) by GBFan. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crafter arena[edit]

Crafter arena (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)

Original research[1], nonexistant genre. Made up term. EndymionDragon (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Robocraft Official Subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Robocraft/comments/57db1v/hey_guys_ive_created_new_gamegenre_wiki_entry/. Retrieved 13 October 2016. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
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 withdrawn. Still profoundly disagree about a need to have a disambig for non-notable items, but do not see any need to keep it here any longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Davis[edit]

Nelson Davis (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 disambig of two items none of which has (and is unlikely to have) an article. I propose to delete it, not to revert back to a redirect. Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep irrelevant whether they will ever have a page entirely about them, there is info on WP about them and we should help readers find it. 2 valid entries per MOS:DABMENTION at time of nomination, but I'm not sure if ways of improving page as it is were looked at WP:BEFORE nomination. I added Nelson H. Davis who has an article and a fictional character which meets MOS:DABMENTION. Now has 4 valid entries and is probably worth an WP:RM about the soldier being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ymblanter, would you consider withdrawing nomination? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work, but I would prefer more opinions. I believe the nomination is valid.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 11:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oren Eizenman[edit]

Oren Eizenman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league;
  • Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant;
He played for the Korean High1 and Japanese Nippon Paper Cranes teams in the Asia League Ice Hockey. The Korean and Japanese Ice hockey Leagues are defunct, and the Asia League Ice Hockey replaced them, which makes it the highest league in those countries. It is also a professional league, he therefore passes point 1. Even if you don't want to consider the AHL as "top professional" for whatever reason, he still passes per point 2, because its the highest league in Japan and Korea.
  • Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship)
He played for several years in the Israeli senior national team at the Ice Hockey World Championships. The Israeli national team is not a top team in the world, but thats not asked for in this criteria.
I think he passes WP:NHOCKEY very clearly, especially because his appearances in the Asia League which is fully professional and the highest tier league in Korea and Japan. Being a main player in the Israeli national team playing at the World Championships for years strengthens the notability argument further. Regarding WP:GNG I could definitely find news about him as he is a main player of the Israeli national team and I would also argue per WP:NEXIST and WP:OFFLINE that there is coverage of him in Korean and Japanese language sources which are probably harder to find (especially since the Nippon Paper Cranes seem to be the strongest team in Japan nationally, as they regularly win the All Japan Ice hockey Championship). Dead Mary (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then the NHOCKEY guideline is entirely misleading and should be rewritten. Was the Asia League ever evaluated if it does pass the presumption that a player in this league is likely to meet the general notability guideline, similar to leagues listed in the linked essay? The AL is the top league for the entirety of East-Asia and not comparable with a "beer league in Nepal". Whats the difference between Eizenman and players like this, this or this? A quick search shows that those guys have 0 reception per GNG at least in the web (only a few routine mentions), but we still assume that they are notable per default, while we delete Eizenman who plays for years in a national team and the highest league in East Asia? I know thats a WP:Other stuff exists comparison but I want to make the argument that NHOCHKEY and the attached league list seems to be very flawed.
The same is for the "played in a national team" criteria. If this line is meant to be "played in a national team which was once one of the 16 best teams in the world" then it should be changed to reflect that. I dont care that much about Eizenman, but I find this SNG very inconsistent. Dead Mary (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you, yourself, wish to vette the player base of the Asia League to gauge whether the overwhelming majority of its players can meet the GNG, no doubt we'd be grateful for the effort. That being said, if you have particular expertise to bear on the subject of gauging the relative strength and notability of ice hockey leagues, feel free to chime in on the talk page at NHOCKEY/LA.

Beyond that, though, you're being quite inconsistent. How do you go from (without, apparently, any attempt to check) assuming that Eizenman must have reliable coverage in Japanese or Korean-language sources -- ice hockey not being a particularly important sport in either nation -- to assuming that your three examples don't, playing in a hockey-mad nation like the Czech Republic? I'd want more than a "quick search," and preferably one by an editor with Czech language skills. Ravenswing 21:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about "what you want", it is about what our guidelines say. And those 3 guys fail WP:GNG by a large margin. I said what I mean, apparently you didnt understand me. When I said those guys have 0 RS coverage I mean it, there is literally zero RS coverage on them, no sources, nothing except a few listings. There is no need to know Czech when there is nothing to translate. Not surprisingly those articles are 1 sentence stubs. So if the coverage of the Czech first ice hockey league is not completely offline in 2016 those guys are clearly not notable and WP:NHOCKEY fails it purpose by all means. The point is those 3 guys are not the only examples, there are a lot of similar one sentence 0 coverage players like those from similar leagues, but apparently WikiProject Ice Hockey don't cares.
Anyway this discussion is meaningless and derailing. As I said before I don't care about Eizenman, I just wanted to point out how flawed WP:NHOCKEY is. The difference between Eizenman and those Czech guys is accessibility to search for WP:GNG RS. The Czech WWW is easily searchable even by a non-Czech speakers as their webpages are wholly crawled by Google and we all use the same writing system. Asian countries have a different writing system and their internet is not as well crawled by Western search engines. Therefore I did argue that the assumption that he fails WP:GNG was prematurely. However since I dont think a Japanese or Korean speaker will chime in and deliver some sources during the next days he indeed fails WP:GNG. Therefore I switch to delete, and call it a day. Dead Mary (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eizenman had a bit of a moment about a decade ago, coverage like this: "Israel’s ice man: Oren Eizenman feels at home playing minor league hockey in Stockton," in JWeekly, [32]. And The Globe and Mail headline: "Hockey tournament a breakaway success in Israel," text, "Oren Eizenman, 24, whom coaches expect to land a spot on a European team if not in the NHL,..." [33]. I suspect that it's the rarity/improbability factor, like a Jamaican bobsled team. But the coverage to pass WP:GNG is there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that same "Jamaican Bobsled" category, I sourced his college career on the team of one of America's great engineering colleges (NOT one of America's major collegiate sports powers) to a book rather charmingly titled Skating Engineers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:15, 16 October 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 per A10 and A11. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Effect of Arabidopsis thaliana SCPL41 Gene on the Expression of Key Genes Involved in Drought Stress[edit]

Creating Effect of Arabidopsis thaliana SCPL41 Gene on the Expression of Key Genes Involved in Drought Stress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTJOURNAL. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:24, 14 October 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Bukavu Mil Mi-8 crash[edit]

2013 Bukavu Mil Mi-8 crash (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)

While tragic accident, many military-related aircraft have crashed in the past. No lasting significance. FiendYT ★ 03:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the majority of events in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the Democratic Republic of the Congo also fail WP:1EVENT.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 15 October 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. MER-C 04:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GetFiveStars[edit]

GetFiveStars (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 satisfy WP:NCORP. The best references about the company is a passing mention in this WSJ article. Other than this, the coverage is limited to quotes by the employees or trivial mentions. In depth coverage about this company doesn't exist, so I am going for a delete.
I should also point out that this is most likely an undisclosed paid editing job. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Li[edit]

Linda Li (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)

Appearance in a few sessions of a TV show is not notability for a plastic surgeon, but rather self-advertising. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:36, 15 October 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. Favonian (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Xavier Fakhouri[edit]

Adnan Xavier Fakhouri (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 student, winner of a minor stock competition. Vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. This article was nominated for deletion as per being an advertisement in nature and as per the company being non-notable. Some users herein have agreed with the notion of the article functioning as an advertisement as a basis for deletion, but some of those users have not addressed whether or not the topic is notable (e.g. "I agree, all COI edits also", "Reads like an advert"). Other users have opined for deletion as per the article being an advert and that the company is not notable. Conversely, some users have stated that the company is notable and that promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Some users also stated that promotional aspects in the article were improved after the article was AfC-accepted (e.g. "Tone has been improved since my acceptance at AFC as well", and "Well researched and improved" appears to possibly be related to this). Another user only addressed notability, but not aspects of promotionalism ("Subject appears to have been covered extensively through RS"). Ultimately, there are myriad opinions here, and there is an overall consensus herein that the article would benefit from copy editing to address promotional tone. However, no consensus for a particular action in relation to article deletion or retention has arisen within this discussion. North America1000 12:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Vision Windows[edit]

American Vision Windows (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)

Advert for non-notable home improvement company Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, all COI edits also. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was an inexperienced editor at that time and didn't know what I was doing. I have learned and my article has already gone through the inclusion process. @Jcc: @Mduvekot: @Joseph2302: I can honestly say that I came to Wikipedia because I thought the Home Living project needed help and while I realize my earlier work was lacking quality, I went ahead and cited multiple academic sources for the latest version of this article and even read the rules of Wikipedia more thoroughly . I am not an advertiser, I'm a nerd who loves company information and I hope to help Wikipedia alot. SWAloha (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is also a notable organization due to the independence of its many reliable sources from academic journals, newspapers, and remodeling publications. Per WP:ORGSIG, WP:ORGIND, and WP:ORGDEPTH. SWAloha (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article clearly does not meet the guidelines as a notable organization because the content of this article is suited more for advertisement purposes of the company itself, being hidden by listing "facts" about a private organization. Furthermore, the company produces no notable or unique product or service which is widely recognized as a "standard" or being considered as a new "standard" for a service or product. You cited WP:ORGSIG too, and from that "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" you have still yet to prove American Vision Windows has, or ever had, significant or demonstrable effects to anything including, but not limited to, their field of business, society, science, or education and this helps to justify the article should be deleted. Rmparten (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The company is the first window company in California to implement a Christian philosophy within its philanthropic-focused company culture. I cited multiple academic sources on the subject. They are also the largest window contractor in the state. SWAloha (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like an advert. ReusGang (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject appears to have been covered extensively through RS QubixQdotta (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:34, 15 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Lee Thomas[edit]

Jesse Lee Thomas (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)

Thomas's one true claim to notability is that he ran for US congress and lost. I actually created this article, and when I did, I was of the belief that such was enough to make a person notable. That may have even been the state of the guidelines when I created the article. However it is now clear that just running for congress is not enough to make someone notable, even as the holder of a major party nomination. I hate to see this article go, but the coverage from the Deseret News mentioning Thomas about 12 years before he ran for congress is just not enough for the article to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.C. Maçek III (writer)[edit]

J.C. Maçek III (writer) (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 film critic. He's written for a few publications, but there's no significant coverage of the critic himself. The sources listed here are just articles he's written or trivial mentions. A search on Google News for "J.C. Maçek III" -site:popmatters.com turns up pretty much nothing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable, has enough sources. Full disclosure, I'm the creator of this article. This subject is a notable film critic with many, many reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, which only allows noteworthy film critics who have written for professional publications like PopMatters to have their work listed on their site. Neptune's Trident (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. North America1000 12:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Government Centennial Model High School, Battagram[edit]

Government Centennial Model High School, Battagram (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 nothing on the page except for an infobox. Zero sources or any indication of substance. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Ben has been blocked as a sock, and to me it looks like the history of AfD comments on this account was intended to create legitimacy before starting disruptive AfDs in other areas. Not striking the !vote since I've been involved in the discussion here, but thought it worth bringing up. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the comment as this is a CU confirmed sock. -- GB fan 10:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TonyBallioni: I completely reject your premise. Has NOTHING to do with this being a Pakistani school. When the page was nominated it was nothing more than an infobox. Even now it is severely lacking. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann, I wasn't questioning the reasons behind your nomination, just noting that we tend to keep US high schools even if they are in horrible shape as Necrothesp has pointed out. The article is stub now that needs expanding. It will probably be harder to do because it is in Pakistan and there is probably less English-language press on high schools, but it should be possible to do. Sorry if anything was read the wrong way! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was how the article looked when it was nominated [37]. It literally was just an info box. I've added multiple independent sources that give it coverage. Given the relatively low bar that we have for secondary schools, I think it should be included based on the rough consensus that secondary schools are notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 21 October 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.
More