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. References have been added, rendering the original nomination obsolete. Feel free to renominate if the references are considered not meeting WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV standards. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sex swing[edit]

Sex swing (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 reliable sources in article, and I couldn't find any save for this short story in GQ. Fails WP:GNG. Everymorning (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Well its quite known device. I will try to look for some reliable sources to add. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I concur with Arthistorian that this device is pretty popular hence nearly a case of obvious. Pwolit iets (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well known and used device within BDSM communities. 1.129.96.230 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on their coverage in WP:Reliable sources. Do see WP:Notability. The above keep arguments are weak. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 10 September 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. Clearly a WP:SNOW situation. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infonautics[edit]

Infonautics (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. Page was recently deleted for being nothing but WP:PROMO. This incarnation isn't much better. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-Seems to have had significant coverage. Sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG. The shape its in now does not reflect what it could be. I would advise the nominator to improve the article instead of tagging for deletion.--Church ^Talk 23:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not promotional now, and also has several third-party sources now. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - do I smell snow? This new version is neutral in tone and is supported by many references from independent reliable sources that signficantly discuss the topic. The nominators description is curious, and would seem to indicate that they neither reviewed the new stub, nor reviewed the new references, but rather were just on autopilot. The nominator may want to take a step back, slow down, and re-evaluate their working methods. I do hope this is not a pattern with them. (ping Zackmann08) -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The nominator needs to be told to reset her or his sights in regard to deletion. There have been too many nominations recently devoid of any rationale based on policies or guidelines. Given the prejudice against us editors who prefer to reveal their IP addresses rather than hide behind a pseudonym it's best if I'm not the one to do that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not in the least promotional so the nomination is fundamentally flawed. Meets WP:GNG. WP:LISTED is also relevant. I declined the nominator's WP:G11 request because I was of the opinion that the page could be fixed by editing, and this version demonstrates that. (Having said that, in the interests of balance, I should say that another admin did delete the page so that was not a universal view). Just Chilling (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember the admin who first deleted this from years ago as one who regularly speedily deleted articles even when such deletion had been validly contested, and it seems that he is going even further now and wheel-warring with other admins. It's bad enough having disruptive deletion nominators who may not realise that they are being disruptive, but why do we continue to put up with disruptive admins who should know better? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- a pioneer in this technology, was at one time WP:LISTED, reasonably sourced and neutral in tone. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Stub with enough coverage to establish notability. the contents are written in a neutral language.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:30, 8 September 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alden Darby[edit]

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

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

Contested prod. Aspiring NFL player who has hung around on practice squads for a few years but has never appeared in a regular season game, thereby failing WP:NGRIDIRON. Has received some local coverage, but in my view not enough to meet WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 21:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only has played on practice squads. The coverage is all just routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep coverage is WP:NOTROUTINE and far beyond basic transaction listings (although there are a lot of those). There are also feature articles and references in multiple sources over many years including his college career that all together pass WP:GNG. Be sure to look past the first page of a google search when researching.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WikiOriginal-9 and Paulmcdonald. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage (i.e., coverage that goes beyond routine) in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His coverage is not routine, there are enough sources to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 10:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade X[edit]

Renegade X (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 for an unreleased fanmade game that has no merit other than to promote itself. It should not have a Wikipedia article for it since it's not important at all. Brend0 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article documents 1 released game, 1 released mod, and 1 upcoming game this is publicly released as a beta which many people do in fact play. There is plenty of merit and importance to the article (though it could use some expansion), especially since it briefly documents both released and actively developed games. Disclaimer that I've sunk thousands of hours into this game as both a player and a developer. --AgentJess (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article clearly provides (and I bet I can identify others) reliable secondary sources treating the work significantly, meaning this topic is notable. Noms argument has no merit in Wikipedia policy. --Izno (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Covered by numerous reliable sources, including [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. This definitely meets notability. Its importance should not be take into consideration when it comes to deleting articles. (There are a lot of useless but notable stuff in the world) AdrianGamer (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think there's room for a merge discussion here, but outright deletion is off the table thanks to the coverage highlighted above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 11 September 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baozilona[edit]

Baozilona (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)

Amateur and local football league. No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, has not played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Must be given a chance to add reliable references as the club has won two league titles. Umair Aj (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of notability given. I could be convinced if some evidence were provided during this discussion, as @Umair Aj: suggests exists. You've got time. That's why these discussions run for a whole week. Smartyllama (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks like a 7-a-side beer league - see http://www.chengdubeer.com/2013/03/chengdu-international-football-league-c-i-f-l/. Nfitz (talk)
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the club hasn't played in their national cup competition. Also fails WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Donut[edit]

Alice Donut (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)

Cannot find anything to suggest notability, fails WP:BAND JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the one who tagged for notability this only-one-reference (and that non-independent) article, I might be expected to !vote delete. The nomination obliged me to complete a more thorough search, however. The results were five newspaper/magazine articles, and a paragraph in a book, all of which I've added to a further reading section in the article. It's enough to pass WP:BAND criterion #1. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't like to say this, but this is a WP:BEFORE failure. Well-known punk band from the late '80s. Shedloads of coverage in paper publications of the time, you can see some of it in GBooks. Still get coverage in GNews. This is not a good nomination - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User Worldbruce edits should alleviate any concerns about this article not being properly sourced. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The first few pages of a Google search on the band name contain enough to make notability obvious. --Michig (talk) 17:43, 6 September 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Joy Of Creation: Reborn[edit]

The Joy Of Creation: Reborn (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 video game. No evidence of (and I'm unable to find) any coverage in RS sufficient to meet either WP:NVG or WP:GNG. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd PRODed this earlier, but it was removed. The game seems to have gotten the attention of a few LPers, but this didn't turn into any sort of coverage that would show notability on Wikipedia per WP:VG/RS. Being covered by LPers doesn't give notability either, regardless of the notability of the people themselves, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and videos of that nature aren't considered to be WP:RS on Wikipedia at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources found to pass WP:NVG. The related article The Joy Of Creation was deleted per WP:CSD#G11 by Jimfbleak, but this does not apply for the article nominated here. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the the article this is a sequel to that game.--67.68.20.73 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shadore[edit]

Shadore (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:GEOLAND per "legal recognition" in particular. A union council is the lowest legally recognized unit in Pakistan. This area is part of Shamdarra, so it is subordinate to a union council. It is also not listed here as a union, but Shamdarra is. Therefore, it should not have a standalone article, and existence alone is not sufficient to merit a redirect. The entirety of the content was created by a later-blocked sock. MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A union council may be the lowest level of government in Pakistan, but that doesn't mean that no smaller units are legally recognised. They are different concepts. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Villages satisfy WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The question is not existence; a village passes if it is legally recognized - I haven't been able to determine that it is. MSJapan (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's an actual population center and the businesses on g-maps identify their addresses in Shadore which means it's a distinct recognized town for post purposes. --Oakshade (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The use in postal addresses is a form of legal recognition. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wax (rapper). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scrublife[edit]

Scrublife (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 assertion of notability, fails WP:NALBUM. MSJapan (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Wax (rapper), per nom. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge - Keep or merge to Wax per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wax (rapper). (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Courage (Wax album)[edit]

Liquid Courage (Wax 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)

Fails WP:NALBUM. NN indie album - all the links are commercial, and this didn't chart. MSJapan (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• *'Keep the existing reference to the review in rapreviews is a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, more sources are needed though and not charting is a negative. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're assigning relative weight in the wrong direction here. I'm not so sure one online RS review offsets both the "major label release" and "charting" criteria for an album, given that it's also the only RS (so there's a general coverage problem, too). Everything else is download links. MSJapan (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed mind to Merge into the artist's page Wax (rapper) as one rs is not enough for WP:GNG, also the article has very little content except for the tracklist Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Wax (rapper) - no evidence of notability, hasn't charted anywhere. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge - Keep or merge to Wax per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:35, 12 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RockSteady Choir[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Original reason I gave in PROD was that there is a failure to cite any references or to even claim notability. I cannot find any WP:RSes to support the group's notability (WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO). The four sources added after PROD do not discuss band or are WP:PRIMARY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. This article is significant as it descibes the existance and success of an inner-city chancel choir in a world of declining church choirs - and why this choir has continued to thrive through this period. There is no attempt at self-promotion. The article attempts to be even-handed and informational through its use of external facts and references to a 'generalized' problem of declining choirs and indeed part of the reason for starting the article was to show ways that other small church choirs can thrive.
2. The article has references (see footnote numbers) to other WikiPedia pages on pertinent details.
3. The RockSteady Choir is a notable example of how this choir is 'bucking the trend' of decline in inner-city church chancel choirs and the information of how it has proceeded to 'reinvent' itself may be of general interest to other choirs facing similar exigencies.

I hope this addresses concerns and will preclude deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs)

• This choir may well be important to some people for the above reasons, but what is required for a Wikipedia article to exist is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as described at WP:GNG. Has anyone unconnected to this choir written and published anything about it? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This choir does not have 'notoriety' in the sense that there are a lot of online published coverage of its activities. However, both the nature and diversity that makes the choir unique and an example to other small church choirs is found in its online presence - even if only in the some 120 video excepts of its performances. The sheer length of its historical existence with continuity to its current iteration as the RockSteady Choir surely has some significance. Again, there is nothing intended in this Wikipedia entry that is intended as self-promotion or based on vested interest - it has been posted because the RockSteady Choir has shown that they can be category breakers by ongoing innovation and change in the latter years of their existence. Their use of old technology (the pipe organ) and new technology - in concert - shows a fresh approach that might be inspirational to other choirs. In fact, the last YouTube Video that was posted shows a mixture of old and new accompaniment technology where the accompanist is using a combination of a Yamaha keyboard mounted atop the pipe organ console - and the pipe organ. Surely these things make the choir and its styles somewhat unique and worthy of an entry in Wikipedia.

Articles have been written about the choir in small 'in-house' church journals and news magazines - however these have not been generally available in digital distribution. Would the lack of 'searchable' coverage online be enough to justify removal of the page? I hope not - as Wikipedia would seem to exemplify the eclecticism of our world - things both great and small. An example of something that doesn't really have a lot of 'online coverage' is the 'nail'. There is a Wikipedia page for this item. nail (fastener) Perhaps the ubiquitous 'nail' speaks for itself, but sometimes things more easily deemed obscure - perhaps such as an inner-city church choir - might be of interest to archivists in the future looking for information on small gospel choirs in churches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that the choir appreciates the editing and changes to the page by Wikipedia editors in the few days of its existence. As the expression goes - "It takes a village...etc" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OSE and stick to providing information to support either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO for the choir. While nails don't have online sources, they have thirteen sources that discuss the term. They're also commonly used. My house would not be standing without a nail, but it would stand without RockSteady Choir. Similarly, if I were to speak to someone about a nail, I don't know of anyone who would not know of what I am speaking. If I call my brother or any of his family members in Southern Ontario, I doubt they would have any clue who the RockSteady Choir are, but they would all know what a nail is. And so if you can find reliable sources that are not published online that discuss the choir, such as academic journals or print media, by all means, supply those as sources. However, in-house content does not qualify as a reliable source and would be excluded from conferring notability on the subject. Concert reviews in The Toronto Star, or the like, would be acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no referable online articles on the choir to which I am aware - as it is an amateur group and concerts and events that it attends and sponsors are not likely to receive published attention in major news outlets or online reviews. It is the uniqueness of the choir that is being touted. I accept your argument about my less than stellar example of a 'nails Wiki' - and even that there might not be much universal effect from the existence of the RockSteady Choir to date - however, the pace of change is slow in the choral world. One thing that makes this group of mostly senior adults from various ethnic backgrounds notable, is in its very existence in a world of more conventionally professional choirs. My supposition is that sometimes the 'little things' get lost in the shuffle. Perhaps if more people knew of the RockSteady Choir - as an example of a progressive church choir - more persons might be persuaded to join choirs in general although the point of creation of the Wikipedia article is not for that purpose - it is merely informational. I submit that the existence of the choir is indeed having an impact on local church choirs, what can be accomplished on a shoestring budget and the perception of church choirs in general - at least in the Toronto area...and if this is true - knowledge of the choir and its composition and style, might prove of more than just curious interest - in the longer term. If you cut off a plant as it is just beginning to grow - surely nothing will ever come of it. If you let the plant thrive for a while, it can produce useful byproducts. The effect of this choir in the larger pool of 'choral' groups is so far small, admittedly - but it is quantifiable even by the measure of 'published performances' on internet. No attempt is being made to advertise this choir for any monetary reasons - it exists as a musical group that somehow carves out a different 'niche' to the rest of the choirs. I submit that this uniqueness is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uniqueness is not a criteria for inclusion though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Katiefelix2015, sources do not have to be online but they do need to be reliable and not trivial. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that Katiefelix2015 does not have RSes. The way I have read her comments, she has self-published sources and trivial comments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I respectfully disagree about the trivial comments and 'self-published' sources? The genesis of the choir is partially related to the area in which the choir's base church is located. A Wikipedia footnote link to this inner-city area (with many early 20th. century churches) St. Clair Avenue had been provided but seems to have been edited out. (It has been changed into an 'online link' see correction after this note) This area is in itself historically significant and as mentioned - the way the RockSteady Choir has survived is because they were able to adapt - where many other church choirs have ceased to exist. The eclectic mix of songs is testament to their flexible and adaptable approach to surviving and indeed thriving. Most choirs that 'survive' end up being 'self-promoting'...This choir seems to do what they love to do (all the while incorporating more modern techniques). It might be also interesting to note that even the internet promotion for their 13th annual 'Choir Concert' last June instructs that no admission charge is made and no tickets are sold. This is hardly a profit-making venture and the Wikipedia page seeks merely to illustrate the uniqueness of the choir, in the context of other gospel choirs (many of whom do operate in a profit-making mode) I see that the references to the somewhat rare 'pipe organ' accompaniment (especially for a 'gospel choir') have remained in the article. But what makes the choir unusual is the broad mix of styles and accompaniments. You can see many examples of this multi-faceted approach to their work in their online videos. I have always appreciated this choir - in fact, have followed it for many, many years...and I think that their presence in the world of 'gospel choirs' is worthy of noting. Lastly, it seems that the lack of 'published' articles or reviews is being used as a major criterion for potential deletion of the page. That strikes me as odd, as Wikipedia has always been a resource that references 'things' both great and small - that have intrinsic interest or value. Perhaps this is not a 'front-line' choir - nor, will it ever be - I don't know - but I respectfully submit again that the choir is unusual enough (constitution, music, ages and backgrounds, home base etc) that it does merit a Wikipedia page. I concur that 'uniqueness alone' doesn't qualify an item for Wikipedia inclusion - but I see this choir as more than just a 'choir' - it seems to be the flower that grows in the crevice of the rock - against all odds. I am of Christian belief myself, and the rarity of having any sort of online presence for belief-based organizations - as opposed to secular ones - is also glaringly obvious if you search the 'net'. Nevertheless, that was not my prime motivation for creating this page - I just mention it as a circumstantial fact that might be of some interest in the overall discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies...the footnote reference to 'St. Clair Avenue' was not deleted as stated above, it was converted into an 'online link'

• Comment -- This seems to be about a church choir that periodically gives public concerts (perhaps one per year). Is that really enough to make it notable? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well, I think the fact that it gives a few public concerts per year - (and I think that there are more than one a year, but not publicized) - is not the point. The uniqueness of this group is, I feel - their ability to change and modify themselves to differing generational needs and pressures - whilst still maintaining a unified and recognizable public face - as the Rocksteady Choir. It is no small feat to maintain headway in a world where 'church choirs' are fading away. I have followed this choir for years (since the early 80's) and seen this gradual metamorphosis - perhaps the notability of the choir lays in their ability to maintain headway where many others have failed? This is a disparate group of persons who, if asked - would probably not say that they are doing anything other than what they love to do - that is, sing. However, If you heard them, you would likely agree that the choir is noteworthy in the unique blend of styles which somewhat defines their existence. This is not a 'world class' choir in the sense of artistic excellence - but to me, it is interesting enough that others might be intrigued by them and find their journey of interest. Certainly, if it were just a church choir that gives periodic concerts - there would be little justification for a Wikipedia page - but they are not just that. They would seem to embody a 'never-give-up' attitude that makes them stand out among the scores of other inner-city church choirs to which I am aware. You know, I love to surf through Wikipedia and discover interesting facts and little-known things...I can imagine landing, by chance, on the Rocksteady Choir page and being intrigued - even if I knew little about choirs. Wikipedia is a treasure trove of such 'hidden gems'. On the other had, how some pages still exist without any protestation at all, is a mystery to me. Like this wonderful page I fell upon: Young Merlin that would seem to refer to a terribly obscure video game from 1994. I don't know...I think the Rocksteady choir is more interesting in even a general sense...but then again...others evidently do not feel this way. Aside from editors stumbling upon pages and deciding that they might or might not have merit - is there a good reason why the Rocksteady choir should NOT have a stable (not pending deletion) listing in Wikipedia? (now that we have discussed whether or not in our opinions it is notorious enough to merit a page) Katiefelix2015 (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC) katie[reply]

Again, uniqueness is not a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO are. And for the record, Young Merlin has five reliable sources for 156 words. That's about one source for every 30 words. Every reference is talking about the subject. Not the kind of computers used to program the game. Not the type of cardboard used in the box (with a reference about how cardboard is recyclable). These are references about the subject. And that's the difference between the two topics: the video game article doesn't ramble and has five sources; this article rambles, and has no sources to support its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was going to recommend this page be trimmed and merged to a section on a new St. Clair Avenue Baptist Church page, but unfortunately I can't find enough coverage for the church to argue that topic would be notable. The church is, however, listed here: St._Clair_Avenue, and so if the creator of this topic wanted to keep any of this information, perhaps they could squeeze some relevant sentences about the choir there. So basically, attempt to redirect/merge, or delete. Yvarta (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - to user Yvarta: I agree that the church itself is not 'notable' (except for its historical nature). The point of the Wikipedia article is to showcase the Rocksteady choir (which does happen to be their chancel choir - but it is not in the connection to the church, that their notability lies - it is in their unique approach.
• Comment - Again, I initially chose this choir as a suitable candidate for Wikipedia due to its innovative and unusual nature (a combination of modern high-tech accompaniment and use of a pipe organ - and the diverse ethnic makeup of the choir (as noted on the Wiki page, although the general 'flavour' of the choir is 'black gospel) there are in its makeup other nationalities and ethnic backgrounds (Canadian aboriginal, Brazilian/Portugese national and others) which is certainly not your 'usual church choir') - and neither is the eclectic mix of styles and influences demonstrated in their performances. I submit that this page contains information that other small to medium choirs might find of use in their own development and thus, is not 'just a page about a church choir'. The information and presentation of the choir on this Wikipedia page could not be inserted on the St. Clair Avenue Baptist Church webpage due to space limitation - and also, some of the detailed information regarding styles and accompaniment would be perhaps a bit to 'arcane' for the church's general page. The information given about the choir on the church's website is basic information only. I have tried to document the special nature of this choir in the Wikipedia after doing a thorough analysis of their techniques and repertoire. Katiefelix2015 (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Katie[reply]
  • Let me tell you one more time: innovation is not a criteria for notability. You have written a lot about what they have done, but you have not supported anything with reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • hello...what do you consider are 'reliable sources'? The would be no reportage on many things of interest if the discussion did not start somewhere. I have based my discourse about this choir on having been at their performances and from the numerous online videos. When Henry Ford started producing his very first vehicles, they were hardly recognizable as 'cars', and yes, nobody cared...but eventually, someone with a prescient view began to document his innovation...and we all know the rest of that story. I am asking you to not be so rigid in your judgement criteria, and try to see what I and others have seen - a choir that is truly different in a groundbreaking way - conventional notoriety being absent. Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. Have you read any of the links provided above? Here they are: WP:GNG (general notability guideline) Henry Ford's Model-T would have met this criteria as they were heavily publicized. If they hadn't, they would not have had an encyclopedia article at that time and they would not have had a Wikipedia article at that time (had Wikipedia existed); WP:MUSICBIO (guidelines for determining the notability of musicians and groups); WP:RS what constitutes a reliable source. Read them. Understand them. Ask questions on the talk pages of those pages as to how they work. This is a discussion about the article. I'm rather tired of you trying to argue your way into an article for this group. I will no longer respond to your questions. Feel free to take it to an admin. I will also remove any further additions you make if they are unreferenced or tangential to the group (we don't care that they use a pipe organ, with an external-looking link to a wikipedia article on pipe organs, or wear pure polyester robes, with an external-looking link to a wikipedia article on polymers, or their music arrangements are printed on recycled paper, with an external-looking link to a wikipedia article on paper production, or anything that you think makes them unique or innovative or any other adjective you care to throw out). We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not a compendium of interesting, unique, innovative, peculiar or curious topics. If you want to help to build an encyclopedia, feel free to follow the rules for creating good articles. If not, I can suggest a few blogging sites that might want your contributions. No offence intended. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • hello...not to make too fine a point - but Henry Ford had three notable business failures before he had any particular notoriety. I would take this to an admin, as I honestly feel that this choir is worthy of note - however, I do not know how to do that. By the way, my reasons to including the pipe organ company, is that this particular organ - in operational form - is now exceedingly rare. For a gospel choir to use such an instrument, especially in combination with an electronic keyboard is more unusual. You make the point that 'unusual/unique' etc. does not make the subject a candidate for Wikipedia entry. Okay, I accept that. I never thought that I would face such opposition in creating a documenting this topic. Perhaps I am missing something, but today - I lost a bit of hope in the future of the net. I suppose I will 'throw in the towel'. Please remove the page and the original 'Rocksteady Choir' page that is archived. I will leave the submitted photos up (in Wikimedia Commons) - unless, they too are deemed to have too little validity for inclusion. - Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I figured I'd do everyone a favour by 'blanking'/erasing the page I created that has not met the standards of Wikipedia. I suppose it is not that simple, as the page seems to be back 'up' again. Perhaps if there was some support for keeping the page up by providing 'reliable references' I would do that, but it seems that my attempt at unbiased journalism for an unworthy topic has been deemed insufficient for Wikipedia inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Katiefelix2015: As mentioned in my message on your talk page, I'm afraid you can't do that. While you could !vote delete here and state that you would prefer your created article to be deleted, since a deletion discussion has been started on the article, now we have to all decide together. Who knows, if people votes to keep your article, your article can still stand. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 08:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Optakeover. While you created the page, at the bottom of every edit page is the following statement: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." In other words, you don't own the article, the Wikipedia community does. The best you can do is remove unreferenced content and associate it with the venerability policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 18 September 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 Wax (rapper). May meet NALBUMs but clearly fails GNG, As noted below the article needs sources which for this album there's a lack of, Nothing to merge (or worth merging anyway) so closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Livin Foul[edit]

Livin Foul (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)

Indie artist, indie album, fails WP:NALBUM. MSJapan (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Barely passes WP:NALBUM by charting in Billboard's Rap Albums chart. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect - chart placing is prima facie notability, but redirecting to discography section of artist page with a ref for the chart placing would preserve the information and work just as well for readers - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not sure why I couldn't get that charting, because I looked, but what's interesting is that the chart placement is there if you look at the link given, but the chart itself for the date only goes to 15. I'm also not 100% sure that the rap chart is uncategorically "charting" - there's some wiggle room with genre charts, based on the fact that reaching #1 on a chart that needs 50K sales to get there is not the same as one where it needs 5000. We've had the same issue with the New Age charts, so I wouldn't rubber stamp it if that's the only thing we have. MSJapan (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a perfectly valid minor chart for the purposes of WP:NMUSIC to establish prima facie notability. But as I noted, we need actual sources, else it'll be just as useful as a chart reference on a discography listing - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - Keep or merge to Wax per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wax (rapper). (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eviction Notice (Wax album)[edit]

Eviction Notice (Wax 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)

Fails WP:NALBUM. I'm not concerning myself with the validity of the sources, because the sources are trivial anyway. The commercial placement might meet NSONG, but that doesn't extend to the album meeting WP:NALBUM; they're independent criteria. MSJapan (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Wax (rapper), per nom. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Wax (rapper), per nom. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - Keep or merge to Wax per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:40, 12 September 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 Wax (rapper). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Cookout Chronicles[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG and WP:NMUSIC. No assertion of notability, either. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Wax (rapper), per nom. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - Keep or merge to Wax per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:41, 12 September 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder (CMS)[edit]

Thunder (CMS) (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 Drupal distribution. The sources in the article, 2 of which are in German, are not reliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I disagree, this distribution is not an obscure topic, since lots of journalists in Germany did report the start of Thunder, and also some international media. I just added another source in English. I don't see why the mentioned sources should not be reliable, since these are both official information and independent media coverage.Juliapradel (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)— Juliapradel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment Content of that reference aside, heise.de is reliable source. Non-English page doesn´t mean not-reliable. Pavlor (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created by (now blocked) Hubert Burda Media (talk), which is name of the company behind Thunder (CMS). Pavlor (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Like Pavlor I think heise.de is a reliable source, too, as well as meedia.de. This article has been created by Hubert Burda Media, but doesn’t sound promotional, but only states facts.Dominik.kipar (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)— Dominik.kipar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment- The Heise article does not appear reliable. Their business services page states that they use content originating with manufacturers and service providers. (see https://business-services.heise.de/ueber-uns.html); the article is very short, and does little to suggest that the product is notable.Dialectric (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is not "Heise business services", but Heise online news. Source for the article is (probably) dpa and its author is Axel Kannenberg - member of ct magazine staff. Pavlor (talk) 15:31, 20 August 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. The (last minute) suggestion to redirect to Miss California USA certainly seems reasonable, but I'm not going to impose that in this close. If anybody wants to go ahead and create the redirect later, no prejudice against that. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Martinez[edit]

Natasha Martinez (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 one line article with one not really reliable source. No substantial coverage. Martinez may one day be notable for something, she is clearly not now. The history of the article is complex. It evidently survived a mass deletion attempt last January or so, but the article history itself only dates back to last month. So I can't figure out if it was unilaterally deleted at some point, or what. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the coverage I see is local to Orange County, such as OC Register or Inland Valley Bulletin. This is a WP:BIO1E situation; the subject is not independently notable. No better sources are listed in the article (in fact it contains no RS at all). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not just a pretty face. Sources include in-depth (which says Martinez is a news anchor, a former Laker girl, dancer, played Princess Jasmine at Disney (ie an actor), etc) and another in-depth and in-depth here and she speaks her mind and gets coverage here. Overall she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I'm not convinced that the above coverage meets GNG. For example, OC Register and Daily Bulletin are extremely local sources. "Princess Jasmine at Disney" -- not sure that this makes her an actress. She gets mentioned in NBC News for being a Latina participating in Trump's pageant. This is still BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Overall, the sources are local, bloggy (?) -- Heavy.com (which is two paragraphs, not in depth), and news relating to the pageant. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Orange County has 3 million residents and the Orange County Register is a daily broadsheet with a quarter million readers, and more on Sunday -- so it's not a local newspaper by any stretch, and clearly qualifies as a reliable source. Being a news anchor is not a BIO1E. And her speaking out on behalf of Latinos nationwide on things like the Trump candidacy simply confirm she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A beauty pageant winner, by itself, isn't much, I think we can agree about that -- but being a model, actor, a TV news host => multiple aspects of her => in-depth sources => meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I do not find the sources to be in depth; being a princess at Disneyland is not an actress; news host is not a notable profession. The title is Miss California but newspapers in other parts of the state did not cover the win. The sources amount to a WP:PSEUDO biography:

...model, beauty pageant winner, and on-air television personality.^[1] She won the Miss California pageant in 2015.^[2] She is a Latina TV on-air host for KDOC-TV in Southern California.^[3][4] Martinez grew up in southern California and played classical piano since the age of nine.^[1] She was a Laker girl, a cheerleader for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team.^[3] She performed in the role of Princess Jasmine at Disneyland.^[4][3] She graduated from Chapman University with a degree in broadcast journalism.^[4] She has raised money for cancer research.^[3] When Miss USA owner and presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke against immigration, Martinez decided against quitting the pageant as a protest.^[5]

Even the coverage in the Trump aftermath does not amount to much since she did not resign in protest. This is wholly unremarkable. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's agree to disagree. News media such as Us Magazine and the Daily Mail and the Orange County Register think she's notable -- which is why they wrote about her. I think TV news host is a notable profession -- and playing Jasmine for thousands of people at Disneyland is acting -- and that southern California is a huge market. For the record, I think it's commendable on her part that she stuck with the pageant, despite the Trump controversy -- sticking to her guns.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would describe the coverage is run-of-the-mill, which WP:MILL cautions against. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for beauty pageant and news host. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a AFD precedent that winning a state beauty pageant does not automatically confer notability. I see no other in-depth coverage of anything else. Her comments on Trump would be the closest other thing, but I don't find them significant because there is not much depth there and even it there were more it would still be WP:BLP1E. Everything else in the article is just routine background info. MB 04:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable pagent, Fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MB. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as simply being a pageant member alone is not at all a basis of actually keeping or substantiating her own independent notability; frankly none of the listed information actually comes close to convincing since there's simply that: being a pageant member. SwisterTwister talk 00:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Winning a state beauty pageant does not automatically confer notability in general, except for the one special case ofthe contests that go to make up Miss America. Contrary to what the article seems to state, she wa not Miss California, but miss California USA, which is part of Miss USA. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have literally no idea why you seem to believe there's any consensus that Miss America contestants are somehow more notable that Miss USA, that's utter nonsense. As for the obvious error you noticed, why not fix it? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upon consideration, redirect to Miss California USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 18 September 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 Curt Schilling Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shonda Schilling[edit]

Shonda Schilling (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'm nominating on behalf of an IP who says "There is nothing that indicates that she is notable. Except that she is married to a famous person, and had cancer, and helps charities, and runs marathons. If any of that is important, it can be in his article I guess. Appreciated"
I have no opinion on the AFD, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick perusal suggests there are many sources with SS's name in the headline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As she doesn't to appear to have enough notability on her own apart from her husband. @Tomwsulcer, I saw those links too however many of those were about the couple and their selling of their house, or an article about her husband that she was referenced in. I wouldn't say that gives here separate notability. (Even though she's from Dundalk, so I have a bias to her of course:)) RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Northamerica ("Shonda 'The Boss' Schilling weighs in on Curt's prospects", and "Curt Schilling’s Wife Rips ESPN Over Network’s Alleged Snub Of Husband" and "Shonda Schilling Running Boston Marathon To Thank Dana Farber ...") - plus, not all the sources are ones that we would consider appropriate. And some is decidedly non-notable "wife of Schilling runs the marathon, etc.). 199.102.168.8 (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems a fine alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.168.8 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Curt Schilling as a plausible search term. She's in the news enough that people have heard of her and might search for her, but not enough to confer notability. Smartyllama (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as I'm not seeing any more notability than your average baseball player's wife. She is a plausible search term though. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:40, 13 September 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 WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax by Bbb23. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Princeley Show[edit]

The Princeley Show (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)

Incomplete unsourced affair that fails WP:GNG. Seems like an hoax. The Banner talk 22:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 5 September 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Channii[edit]

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

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

No significant sources (although sources available on Internet for this article are limited to begin with), no evidence of notability, very little information, poor grammar (including capitalization and punctuation) AnonymousMusician (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands - a classic WP:TOOSOON. Has been featured singer on one single. May well have a career, but we'd need WP:RSes to keep this BLP - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 30 August 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 Nikki Yanofsky. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Love (Nikki Yanofsky song)[edit]

Young Love (Nikki Yanofsky 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)

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Did not chart. MSJapan (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to artist - I would say "redirect to album", but that actually directs here - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Gerard: that's because the album itself was AfD'd a couple of months ago. This is a fourth non-charting single from a non-charting album – redirect to Nikki Yanofsky. Richard3120 (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah. She's notable - had multiple hits - but neither this nor that are amongst them - David Gerard (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Improve referencing or redirect to Nikki Yanofsky. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nikki Yanofsky. As an aside, since the album was deleted at AfD could this have been a non controversial redirect? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's too cruft-prone to do things like this without consensus - I've told one editor six times to stop adding non-existent material to her article. It's literally "she announced a title on her Instagram - gotta go make an article on it." MSJapan (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • yeah, best nail this in place - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nikki Yanofsky. All songs that exist are not automatically appropriate topics for standalone articles just because their existence can be referenced to primary sources like the artist's own social media accounts and/or the song's "buy it" page on iTunes — a song does not qualify for a standalone article until it can be reliably sourced as achieving something (e.g. charting as a Top 40 hit, or winning the Juno or Grammy Award for Single of the Year) that would get it past WP:NSONGS. That's not the case here as of yet, however. Normally the album it comes from would be the preferred redirect for a song title, but even the album is as yet unreleased and as yet unreferenceable to RS coverage, and existed only as a redirect to Yanovsky's BLP until it was retargeted to point here instead (it should also be repointed back to her BLP again.) Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nikki Yanofsky per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nikki Yanofsky. Single did not chart and was not even a heatseeker / bubbilng under at Billboard. No strong tie-in to other media. Album article does not exist either so discography may for the best. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 8 September 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 objections to renomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talei Burns[edit]

Talei Burns (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. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a musician with no particularly strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. Except for one news article in a reliable source, the referencing here is otherwise entirely of the Blogspotty-Youtubey-Facebooky variety, which is not acceptable sourcing -- and one news article isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG by itself. As always, a musician is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists; RS coverage must be present to verify an NMUSIC pass, but nothing here passes NMUSIC and the sourcing isn't solid enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete- as no WP:RS source has in depth coverage. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Korrekt (musician)[edit]

Korrekt (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)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He hasn't been discussed in multiple reliable sources. The Leadership Newspaper source is the only promising source I could find. The subject simply hasn't done enough to warrant a stand-alone inclusion.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable musician who fails GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you are right when you say the article fails WP:GNG but his a notable musician. The subject has being discussed in several newspaper sites and magazines which have not being included. WP:GNG discussed about reliable source editors can help by improving the article. Jamzy4 (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just made a research on Google and found out that the subject has independent source also have been discuss in several newspaper and magazine, issue will be fixed.Jamzy4 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Subject of article has being improve with multiple reliable source like newspaper according to WP:GNG. Editors are free to contribute to the article when discussion is closed. Please note that Wikipedia policy are right and can not change. According to WP:MUSICBIO, it says musician may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:. Subject meets WP:MUSICBIO 1,2, 4,6, 7,8, 10. Jamzy4 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing in mostly reproductions of press releases, as is the one the nominator suggests may be good. Same press release is all over the place [18]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sole keep vote comes from the article creator, a single-purpose account with apparent undeclared conflict of interest, considering the claim to self-authorship for the professional-quality image he/she uploaded of this artist. Citobun (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Actually i suggest this a wrong tag for this article instead a tag should be place on the article saying contributors can help by adding reliable source, According to my understanding on wikipedia is says "Remember all good articles today started with a bad issues".--Jamzy4 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Northern Fury FC season[edit]

2014 Northern Fury FC season (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)

Seasons of a semi-professional club playing in a not fully-professional league. Doesn't pass WP:NSEASONS. Also is not referenced and most of the matches don't have reports linked either. SuperJew (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the following two seasons of same club in the same league, and aren't notable for the same reason, as well as also being almost completely unreferenced:

2013 Northern Fury FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2015 Northern Fury FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2016 Northern Fury FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand why this wasn't brought up months back when I brought up the idea of making the missing articles here (they could have the necessary references added). Subsequently, Northern Fury were initially created as a top level A-League club, making their top flight season articles "notable". As for their articles with them in the second highest tier of Australian football, I think there's enough notability to warrant their season articles being kept, especially without fear of them being relegated further into the abyss of non-notability. - J man708 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Must of gone unnoticed. Also, the discussion regarding starting new season pages for NPL/Youth teams made me think about this one too. No argument that the seasons when they were in the A-League are notable and that is why I didn't bring those seasons up in the deletion nomination. Sorry, but the second highest tier of Australian football is not fully professional, and therefore not notable enough for seasons. --SuperJew (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but believe it or not, subjects can pass GNG while failing their respective field's Wikipedia guidelines. Panos Armenakas and Jake Brimmer for example. You don't have to be such a deletionist about everything... Why not try to fix it, first? - J man708 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as they fail WP:NSEASONS. The club's seasons in the top division are undoubtedly notable, but these are not. It was actually pointed out when this was raised on the taskforce page that these may not meet the required notability standards; I would suggest a better place to ask questions on notability would be the main WT:FOOTY page where more editors will be able to give input. Number 57 08:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there's nothing in WP:NSEASONS that talks about fully professional teams or leagues. On the subject of professionality, is uses the term "professsional" rather than "fully-professional" which is the requirement for players. Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verbatim quote (emphasis added by me): Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements. --SuperJew (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, It doesn't say top fully-professional leagues. Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, how does this meet notability? There are no references apart from WP:ROUTINE, and even those are lacking. --SuperJew (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we used THAT standard, we'd be deleting seasons articles for Premier League teams! It meets WP:NSEASONS. Nfitz (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. They all fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. As Super Jew says, NSEASONS stipulates that individual season article should be only created for teams in "top professional league". NPL QLD is neither "top" nor "professional". 2014 Northern Fury FC season is unreferenced and I can find no sources that are not routine, reliable and in-depth so that the articles pass WP:GNG. The same goes for the other articles. Nfitz's rationale is nothing to do with the articles and more based on perceived inconsistencies in the policies. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Yellow Dingo. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - all fail NSEASONS, club has not been competing in a top professional league. Fenix down (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The league IS professional, and it is a top league, only one-level below fully-profesional. Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - per WP:NSEASONS Spiderone 11:23, 17 September 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Ice[edit]

Isabel Ice (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 PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. No nontrivial biographical content. No independent reliable sourcing. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Moore (2nd nomination) for analysis of why UKAFTA fails PORNBIO standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable pronographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP as an article about a living person with no reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, i'm not optimistic about the fact that this nomination proceeded despite the fact that we are still in flux in regards to criteria for porn-related articles. As such, as it stands, this article is not non-notable. Pwolit iets (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNG is not in a state of flux. There's no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Only the AVN ref is even arguably a reliable source. A biography of a living person that is sourced as paper-thinly as this one kinda demands deletion. David in DC (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And WP:BLP and WP:V, which this topic fails spectactularly, are certainly not in a state of flux. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without reliable sources, and given that UKAFTA has been shown to be pure fiction (see this link [19]), the the subject fails GNG and therefore BLP.Steve Quinn (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTADIRECTORY; the article contains no bio data. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)÷[reply]
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. WP:PORNBIO is explicitly clear: Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. Well, she has won an AVN award[20] — the question is whether this award counts. Because the award is "Best Sex Scene in a Foreign-Shot Production" and includes a number of other performers, this award appears to be both scene- and ensemble-related. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Parker[edit]

Jonathan Parker (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) 08:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: some sources show up, but I don't think those sources aren't suffiencent. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:10, 5 September 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. If he does get called up, then this can be recreated. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sabourin[edit]

Scott Sabourin (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) 08:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article on a marginal minor-leaguer created, as part of a pattern of routine and knowing defiance of notability standards resulting in several hundred AfDs/CSDs/PRODs, by an editor since community banned from new article creation. Has never met NHOCKEY, no evidence of meeting the GNG beyond routine sports reporting explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 11:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after start of 2016-17 NHL season confirms that the multi-year NHL prospect does not move up from junior hockey league.Canuckle (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck This Jam[edit]

Fuck This Jam (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 appear to pass WP:GNG Lewis Hulbert (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are zero reliable sources in this article. All primary sources. Non notable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Montanabw^(talk) 04:00, 7 September 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. The delete arguments that Bing does not meet the WP:GNG and that the industry award does not fall under WP:PORNBIO (and even if it does, would not trump GNG) are more convincing.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carmella Bing[edit]

Carmella Bing (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 PORNBIO and the GNG. No nontrivial biographical content. No reliable sourcing for biographical content. No independent reliable sourcing. Prior AFD did not reach consensus on whether the UKAFTA awards meet the "well-known and significant industry award standard" of PORNBIO; it has since become clear that they do not because: 1) it was not an industry award, but a personal moneymaking project of one individual and a production company he was associated; the industry group which supposedly sponsored it denies any connection to the awards [21]; 2) the award was "pay-for-play", with even an award winner acknowledging that "it seemed that all it took to win awards was a few phone calls to the right people and an advance payment for a full table at the event";[22] and 3) the awards were notoriously given to unrelased videos [23][24], and even to non-existent/never-released videos (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Brooks (actress) (2nd nomination). This is a BLP with no verifiable content concerning the article subject and her work, and that alone compels deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. No evidence that she even meets Pornbio. I will also point out that I have doubts that the IAFD source that is so widely used in this article is a WP:RS since the database is "maintained by a volunteer staff of editors" and the site solicits contribution from readers. Meters (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Movie Database (IMDB), Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD), and Adult Film Database (AFD) are not reliable sources - they are not independent and lack any kind of editorial integrity needed to qualify as reliable sources WP:RS. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- there is some coverage here and here and a mention in Cosmopolitan and a write-up in a Spanish publication.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Update 575+ pageviews a day means there's a huge fan base here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Some coverage"? Local news reports of a misdemeanor meth-related conviction that is so minor it was scheduled to be expunged from her criminal record in 90 days so long as she complied with what are, in effect, probation conditions? That clearly has nothing to do with notability and under BLP policy doesn't belong in the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was a normal non-celeb civilian with a meth charge, yes, it would be a non-issue -- but celebrities doing drugs is a big deal in the world of pop culture, which is the world we all swim in, including Wikipedia. It's how things are. Like it or not, a porn star's meth romp causes huge media attention, which spells, in Wikipedia, n-o-t-a-b-i-l-i-t-y.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know better than this, Tom. Brief pieces in a local newsweekly aren't huge media attention; and this kind of mini-coverage wouldn't establish notability in any other context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - won of award, meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 06:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Im not optimistic about deleting articles when (as it currently stands) we are still in flux as our understanding of criteria for articles such as this one. Therefore, at least for now, this article is not non-notable. Pwolit iets (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our understanding of WP:GNG and WP:RS is not in flux. David in DC (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When active, she has been one of the most well-known performers. That's why I'm pretty sure that the article only needs to be improved. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an argument to delete without prejudice to recreating, not an argument to keep. A poorly sourced BLP should be deleted immediately. David in DC (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A Wikipedia article must be based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources, per WP:GNG. This article, on the other hand, is based primarily on IAFD, which, for the reasons stated by Meters is not a reliable source, per WP:RS. There's also one reference that purports to source a nomination for a major industry award, which I guess is meant to bring this under the SNG for WP:PORNBIO. However, as the nominator points out, this ain't anything like the kind of award contemplated by PORNBIO. Plus, an SNG cannot trump GNG.
  As far as press coverage of a porn star's "meth romp" conferring notability as that term is defined on WP, that may be true in a mechanistic way. It generates a lot of press, some of which may be press that qualifies as reliable sources. Nonetheless, not everything that's in the press belongs in Wikipedia. WP:NOT has a specific clause about WP:NOTGOSSIP.
  And as for the number of daily pageviews meaning anything at all in our AfD analysis, I disagree, strongly. I'm guessing that there's a public appetite for a great many things that don't belong here. If we're gonna make decisions based on pageviews, we're gonna add a whole lotta crap and delete a whole lot of important, notable, well-sourced info. !Voting is evil but not anywhere as evil as letting the lowest common denominator determine what goes in our encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you're less likely to consider a reliable trusted tertiary source such as Boobpedia?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Or that you might not heed the words of a serious critic who wrote her art is the result of her understanding and compassion for the world about her, and a staggering depth and incredible empathy which flows from some secret place within the unique parameters of her soul.?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the I can edit boobpedia. So it seems not to be a WP:RS. The Bing Dynasty appears to be a blog devoted to Ms. Bing. So that's not a WP:RS either. The quote you've provided comes from The Bing Dynasty and does not attribute the quote to anyone. Does the quote also appear in some reliable source? If so, does the reliable source identify the serious critic? Whoever the serious critic is, they sure do seem enamored of Ms. Bing. Thanks for the links. David in DC (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I was at the Museum of Modern Art, did I see an exhibition devoted to the Bing Dynasty, featuring her staggering depth ... from some secret place within; or was it about the Ming Dynasty; Bing, Ming, can't recall.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article quality in itself is irrelevant and does not trump guidelines. she is in fact an award winning porn actress. sources verifies. covers WP:GNG. Article quality can be fixed, and size of the article is really irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rubbish. Not any "award" establishes notability. The article has no reliable sources covering this person in any depth; a single entry on a mile-long list of award nominations doesn't cut it, nor do entries in directories of user-contributed content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO. The current article contains two lines of biographical information and appears to exist solely to promoted Ms Bing's web site, which I'm sure she uses for commercial purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent reliable sources. No encylopedic content, and unlikely every to be. Includes innuendo, and invited further. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 that he fails our notability guidelines for politicians, soldiers, and does coverage of him during the 2011 airport lawsuit is not sufficient to satisfy the general notability guideline.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stanton (Politician)[edit]

Paul Stanton (Politician) (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)

Political candidate with no reliable third party sources indicating notability. Fails WP:POLITICIAN: unelected politicians are generally not regarded as notable merely for standing as candidates but must have reliable sources independent of their candidacy. Tassedethe (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For consideration of Mr. Stanton being a notable CANDIDATE, I submit that he is the first Libertarian senatorial candidate to participate in a state-wide primary. True, that isn't independant of his candidacy, but it is historical significant. PaulNeb86 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• So would I be correct in saying that I only need to find independent sources indicating that he's a notable candidate? --TheRealAlecHolbeck (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In general political candidates need sourcing to show notability that does not arise from their candidacy i.e. they would be notable even without standing as a candidate. Sources related to the election (candidate profiles, political reporting etc.) are not usually enough to confer notability. But there can be exceptions... Tassedethe (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Stanton will be in the polls, if he performs well enough to make the Florida Senate debate would that be an acceptable exception? --TheRealAlecHolbeck (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN (and WP:POLOUTCOMES) don't suggest that making a debate would make someone automatically notable. A decision would be made on the quality of sources, and by the discussion here. Tassedethe (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. A Libertarian candidate for the US Senate w/ less than 3K votes in the party's primary isn't going to get much coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage doesn't hold a match to inclusion in the polls, and I think the simple fact that he is the first third party Senate candidate from Florida in about 100 years makes him notable, especially if he qualifies for debates. The debate criteria is 9%, and if he makes that in the first three polls I think he should stay, as it would mean he would very likely perform well in the Senate election. --TheRealAlecHolbeck (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no significant, in-depth, reliable third-party coverage indicating notability. Neutrality^talk 04:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An as yet unelected candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just for winning his primary, or even for getting into the debates — if you cannot demonstrate and source credible proof that they were already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of their candidacy (e.g. preexisting notability as an actor, a sports figure, a musician, a writer, a holder of a different notable office, etc.), then they have to win the election, not merely run in it, to collect notability because of the election itself. And for added bonus, this is written like a campaign brochure, not an encyclopedia article, and even incumbent officeholders don't get to keep that kind of article. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section about Mr. Stanton's notable airport lawsuit that determined a federal law banning the distribution of the Constitution in airports and defined airports as not public. --Alec Holbeck 00:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealAlecHolbeck (talk • contribs)

• Delete, not notable in military service, fails "Soldier" and at this point, not notable as a politician so fails GNG. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SOLDIER; insufficient coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added several sources and tried to make the tone more neutral. Stanton was in the news in 2011 for his TSA protest and lawsuit, and again this year for running for Senate and winning the Libertarian primary. Galaxiaad (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on polling in the upper single digits in the third largest state's US Senate election, he's notable enough. The airport lawsuit was not notable, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puppets Magic Studio[edit]

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

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

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

Contested prod, rationale was "No indication that this may meet WP:GNG either here or in Google." Launchballer 16:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The page now has neutral, non-bias citations which gives a fair overview of the page. Removed conflicting citations and now there are reliable, neutral citations to confirm informationRumartguy (talk) 16:40 pm, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah - to unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and blogs. Read WP:RS.--Launchballer 16:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'unreliable sources' have now been removed (wiki and blogs) and replaced with reliable sources Rumartguy (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE" template above. None of the four references in the article mention "Puppets Magic Show".--Launchballer 16:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could not find any RS. Forget notability, I could not even find RS for insignificant mentions. Lourdes 17:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Added the official company information from reliable online source Rumartguy (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is some official information present. Umair Aj (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The new company information citation RS verifies puppets magic studio is a legal entity Rumartguy (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, terrible sourcing and an author who doesn't seem to understand WP:RS. There is one third-party RS in the whole article (Evening Standard) and it doesn't even mention the article subject - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ORG in particular WP:CORPDEPTH. MarnetteD|Talk 19:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is more than one third party RS, the award (TMT news website) and there is official information present as noted above.Beeproductionuk (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC) — Beeproductionuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Further citation has been added from the portfolio of 'andrewjamesspooner.com' which independently cites puppets magic studio as creating the puppet for the music video listed and thus is an independent WP:RS Rumartguy (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a third party, but you clearly still haven't actually read WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG VViking_TalkEdits 21:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Further citation added sourcing the puppets used in the television show 'tonight at the london palladium'. This evidence is backed up by the broadcast tv show itself, where 'puppets magic studio' received an on-screen credit each week Rumartguy (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puppets Magic Studio is not even mentioned in your latest addition (and never mind it's from the tabloid Daily Star, which is not a credible source for notability) - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The official video of Format B:Chunky has been added which cites puppets magic studio as the designer of the character in its description. Rumartguy (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• May I request you to please first read WP:Verifiability, WP:RS and WP:ORG? The more you add unreliable & primary sources, the more time is lost of diligent editors in trying to assess the source. If you need any help in understanding how Wikipedia functions, please don't hesitate to ask, but please stop continuously adding absolutely valueless sources to the article. Please just ask for help and it will be provided (but before that, read up on the links I have suggested). Lourdes 19:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 nomination withdrawn due to an edit conflict. Another user was restoring the redirects at the same time as I was typing this nomination, so they're all back to redirects again anyway. I'll pursue the request for protecting the redirects through a different channel accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CBPO-FM[edit]

CBPO-FM (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)

Radio stations which are not independently notable per WP:NMEDIA. In a few isolated places, such as provincial or national parks with limited or no conventional radio service, Weatheradio Canada operates transmitters on the conventional AM or FM bands so that campers or tourists don't have to buy special weatheradio receivers -- but (a) these stations are exempt from CRTC licensing as of 2007, meaning that their current operational status is unverifiable, and (b) they do not originate their own standalone programming, but simply repeat programming from a centralized parent service -- and were redirected to Weatheradio Canada accordingly. However, on several occasions now an anonymous IP has arbitrarily reverted my redirects without providing any explanation or engaging in any discussion to suggest why separate articles would be warranted. Accordingly, these need to be either deleted, or converted back to protected redirects to prevent future reversions -- I'd prefer the latter, but as I've been directly involved in the dispute I can't personally impose the latter without consensus. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 5 September 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Maoshan[edit]

Liu Maoshan (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)

Appears to be self-promotional (with the text appearing to be taken from promotional Web pages), and while I am not well-versed in this area, the person does not jump out at me as being notable. Delete unless shown otherwise. --Nlu (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable painted. Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Problem, I see with this article that it's written with highly promotional tone. There are some actual facts, that may maintain notability claim. Article mentions he has works in museum's permanent collections, which is pass per WP:ARTIST, but I couldn't find any confirmation for this online. Also, these articles in Russian [25] and [26] claim he is a vice chairman of Chinese Association of Painters, which is a quite a position. So, there may be some notability in this case, but unless we have sources that confirm it, can't pass it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - violates WP:BLP as completely lacking any reliable and independent sources. Leadership in an artists's guild, closed shop, collective, or labor union does not confer notability automatically; he's a glorified shop steward. There is zero evidence any of his work appears in any major museum or art gallery anywhere in the Western world, that is, the purported subject of his art! (No, Russia, is not part of the West as far as that genre of art is concerned.) Bearian (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Céleste[edit]

Oliver Céleste (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 meeting notability guidelines as per WP:MUSICBIO. Lack of references. Rizhopper (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 14:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing on Google/Google News to suggest news coverage and nothing in the article appears to pass the MUSICBIO threshold. A Train^talk 15:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has released through a major record label as California Records is part of Sony Music so has a claim to pass WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) agree that more references are needed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on @Atlantic306:'s argument: WP:NMUSIC says "has released two or more albums on a major record label" -- it seems like Mr Celeste has released one album on California Records, and said label doesn't appear to be part of Sony Music. In fact, the label doesn't seem to turn up on Google at all. What am I missing here? A Train^talk 16:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Apologies for wrong spelling as it is Calitonia records, will check its part of Sony Music later Atlantic306 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306: I haven't checked properly, but I think there might be some sleight-of-hand in that statement – I think it might refer to Céleste releasing his videos through VEVO, which is owned by Sony. Richard3120 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you may be right as am not finding anything about Catilonia records, have emailed sonymusic uk asking them about Catilonia and whether Celeste is one of Sony's artists Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simply put, the article lacks references to back up any claim. Re: the Keep vote: Although awaiting user Atlantic306 research, my hunch is that the little-known Catalonia Record’s connection to Sony is that they are a customer of Sony’s digitial distribution services, rather than being an actual part of Sony Music. I think all of us who have spent time on musician related AfD have come across pages that feature an independent label under a larger label’s umbrella and mistake that for some kind or noteworthy connection only to discover the small label pays the larger label for a service, and in doing so claims “to be part of …(fill in the blank).” I could be wrong in this instance, but even so the 2 release criteria for WP:NMUSIC has yet to be met. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nowiny Kryszkowskie[edit]

Nowiny Kryszkowskie (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)

Places defined solely for the purpose of taking a census are not notable per WP:GEOLAND Tylr00 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes you think that this is a place defined solely for the purpose of taking a census? It appears on maps, as can be seen by clicking on the coordinates and following through, and maps have nothing to do with censuses. 14:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.222.157 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". No reason to believe that the place is defined solely for the purpose of taking a census. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:GEOLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Per WP:GEOLAND. Clearly satisfies it. Smartyllama (talk) 14:59, 8 September 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 material should be kept. Discussions for mergers can be done on a relevant talk page.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wand of Orcus[edit]

Wand of Orcus (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 almost an entirely in-universe article about a topic that fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep one of the clearly notable elements unique to D&D, it is mentioned in the 'For Dummies' book [27], and is even cited as an example in a U.S. Patent from a non-TSR/Wizards gaming entity [28]. Still working on more under alternative names. Note that these sources are in addition to the hundreds of times this item is mentioned in TSR/Wizards game material itself. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Both are utterly trivial singular name-drops without any further context. How would you even expect to work those into an article? It's not just criteria of "the topic is mentioned in reliable sources" that has to be fulfilled. It's "the topic has significant coverage in reliable sources." TTN (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, for a purely fictional element of a game, any mention is evidence of significant real-world impact. The significant coverage is in insufficiently-independent RS'es, such as other derivative primary sources (e.g., Novels). Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what exactly supports that view? You have no reasonable means of using either of those sources in the article without them being irrelevant fluff to bolster sources. The sentence "The Wand of Orcus is mentioned in Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition For Dummies." is trivial, same with the other. There is no context to their usage in the sources, so it has no place in the article. You'd have a case for using the first one in Orcus' article because it at least has the context of citing it as an extremely memorable character and the "most monstrous evil." It's still a pretty bad source if that's the only thing the article can have going for it, but it's something. TTN (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are a ton of primary and self-published sources out there that are useful for improving the article, but not for establishing notability of the topic in the first place. I can bring up a ton of them if you want, but I don't see how that will help a policy-driven discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Further sources including the wand being a separately described component of some miniatures (some are separate, non-TSR/WotC products) of the fictional demon lord [29], [30]. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability exceeds merging to any one article. bd2412 T 19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons). I respectfully disagree with Jclemens's assessment that "for a purely fictional element of a game, any mention is evidence of significant real-world impact". The mentions listed above do not meet the definition of non-trivial which is part of the general notability guideline, and I am unsure why we should hold fictional items to a lower standard. These mentions are good evidence that the Wand warrants a mention on Wikipedia, and we have Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons), List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, and the likes of The Throne of Bloodstone for that. I do not understand BD2412's claims, and neither of the other users who supported keeping the article provided an argument. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean that in the greater fictional universe of Dungeons & Dragons, the Wand of Orcus is occasionally used by characters other than Orcus, and discussion of it therefore includes material that is arguably beyond the scope of the Orcus article. Also, the material on the item is substantial enough that it would make the Orcus article bloated to merge it all in. bd2412 T 20:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not disagree with you, but what you say doesn't say much in favour of keeping the article. Merging this content to the article on Orcus (or a list) does not preclude mention of the Wand elsewhere, and if there's too much here for the article on Orcus, perhaps some of it should be trimmed. In any case, none of what you say deals with the main issue here, which is the apparent lack of significant coverage in third-party sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everything in the article is sourced and relevant to the topic. Trimming, therefore, would mean removing accurate, sourced information from the encyclopedia purely for the expedience of saving space in the target article. Dividing up the article between multiple other articles would mean that readers interested in this topic specifically (over 500 in the last month) would need to hop across multiple pages and search for mentions on them in order to get the complete picture. What would you "trim" from this article to make it fit neatly into the existing Orcus article? bd2412 T 04:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • That works under the assumption that all of the content is necessary to understand the topic. With articles on fiction, there needs to be a certain amount of weight put towards the plot summaries in the articles, else you end up with one hundred paragraphs on plot alone. It needs to be properly balanced with the real world information in the article to provide proper context without going overboard. As there is no real world information in this article, you can easily remove most of the content in this article while keeping the core concepts understandable. TTN (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I broadly agree. I could write pages and pages about fictional characters in universes I care about all sourced to primary material; the fact that there's too much to comfortably merge elsewhere would not be a good argument against merging the article elsewhere if the topic did not an article of its own. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Prickett[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER, nor does he seem to have WP:SIGCOV; the sources seem to point to trivia or one-off items rather than anything that would truly assert notability. MSJapan (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - subject lacks significant coverage per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 08:07, 4 September 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.