< 17 April	19 April >

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. Unfortunately, no amount of editing can create notability - only extensive coverage in secondary, reliable sources can do that, and these have not been produced. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Home Service Club[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))

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

Company that has only trivial coverage in reliable sources, and the first page of Google being your standard yelp reviews and BBB complaints. PROMO article that fails GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia, so hopefully I'm doing this correctly. I based this wikipedia article off of one of a similar company called American Home Shield. I was wondering what makes that page more relevant than this one? What would make the Home Service page relevant like the one I based it off of? MattMicJay (talk) 10 April 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to look in-depth at that article now, but a quick Google News search for it seems to turn up a lot more sources (though many of them also appear to be PR, so the article still might not meet our inclusion guidelines). Wikipedia bases its inclusion criteria on notability and discourages promotionalism. This company does not have publications in reliable sources that are normally required for inclusion. Other articles existing is not in itself a reason to keep one article, because there are many more articles created than their are reviewers to check them. Sometimes articles that don't meet our guidelines slip through the cracks for years. The question at this discussion is if the company in question has enough sources to be included at Wikipedia. from my research, it doesn't appear to. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your help on this. I'll look at the GNG guidlines you mentioned. What type of sources would be considered more reliable? If I could find more reliable sources that show notability I assume the page wouldn't be taken down? Hoping to better learn how to make proper Wikipedia additions through this process. MattMicJay (talk) 10 April 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw that American Home Shield was mentioned in this discussion. I tried to do a quick Google search and I found some sites who compare and contrast the two companies. Here are some links link 1, link 2, and link 3. Since American Home Shield is notable enough to have a wiki and these sites are comparing the two, it makes me think that the Home Service Club is at least as notable as American Home Shield. 15:01, 12 April 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminateyourself (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The industry awards are not in themselves of encyclopaedic notability; the given references indicate no more than a company going about its business, and I am not finding better than online reviews which are not reliable 3rd party sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. (Regarding the repeated mentions of "American Home Shield" above: each page has to be considered on its own merits and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a worthwhile argument here.) AllyD (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even WP:GNG pass. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So it's been awhile since I looked at this page and to be honest, I'm not seeing anything particularly helpful for what I could do to make the page better for those who think it should be deleted. I've looked over the WP:GNG and, if I'm reading it correctly, these are the standards by which wikipedia determines notability, significant coverage, reliable, sources, independent sources, presumed notability. None of the comments thus far have explained to me why this Home Service Club specifically breaks these rules. It's been outlined that they have won several awards and honors but some users don't think those are notable enough and I'm not sure I understand why. Would that not qualify the company as having significant coverage and independent sources talking about it as described by the GNG? Also, I'd assume that this would also be considered reliable coverage? As for the issue of presumed notability, I assumed that a company with 21,000 fans on Facebook would have qualified. Now, I understand that it looks like some disagree about the notability of the company but no one has helped me realize what exactly would make the company notable. What is it I should be looking for? As far as I can tell from the GNG, this may not be a big company but it seems notable enough to me. I really don't see anything about the page that goes against the notability guide lines. I'd like to do what's necessary to improve the page's qualify in the eyes of other users, because it was the first one I've ever written, but, aside from mentioning the other sources mentioned in this argument I'm not sure what I'd have to do or look for to specifically satisfy those who are saying the page doesn't qualify. I'd appreciate some constructive feedback as to what I should be looking for because right now because I'm not seeing anything that stands out as a glaring issue. MattMicJay (talk) 23 April 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 23 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footballers Physical[edit]

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

Non-notable porn film. There was apparently some controversy about a section of the film, but none of the sources - apart from a blog - actually reference that issue in relation to this film. One of a number of articles pushing CFNMtv - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Prober. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL8, utterly fails the notability guideline for films. Sam Sailor 20:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wholly unremarkable & part of a walled garden around CFNMtv created by Special:Contributions/Evagirl1991. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Utterly fails NFILM and the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable film. A porn film that may be legally obscene is not exceptional, especially when reliable sources have nothing to say about it. No supported claim of notability per WP:NFILM. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaskham Khatril[edit]

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

Article about a group of people who do not appear to meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Prober[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. None of the sources provided are about the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footballers Physical. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor 19:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is another article which mentions Doctor Prober from CFNMtv, https://lookalike2017.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/3d-lookalikes-and-celebgate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evagirl1991 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evagirl1991, may I suggest that you take another look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? Mduvekot (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only claim of notability is the extremeness of the porn. No reliable source coverage at all to support that claim or any substantial article content. No real claim for WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above !votes. No legitimate assertion of notability, no reliable sourcing suitable for a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:35, 25 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Push development[edit]

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

This is a non-encyclopedic essay, not an encyclopedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An essay, original research and synthesis from the few sources cited, with no sources to support the core of the article: explaining what push development is (if it is at all a prevailing concept rather than one writer's notion—and a Google search indicates that it isn't a prevailing concept, at least not under the name "push development"). It makes arguments and pronouncements. Not a neutral reference article. Largoplazo (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poor new user who does not understand WIkipedia guidelines. We should REALLY NOW FINALLY discourage brand new users from creating new articles when they start, since they will get discouraged like this. W Nowicki (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an example of what Wikipedia is not. TopCipher (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The existence of this article in this state is likely to scare away anyone wanting to improve it. PriceDL (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Not only can I find no evidence anywhere of the existence of anything called "Terreformerms", but searches for various combinations of other elements of the article (such as the channels in which it is supposed to air, the names of the creators of the series, the work on which it is supposed to be based) also failed to turn up anything at all. Either it is a hoax or it is something made up by the creator of the article, and in either case it qualifies for speedy deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terreformerms (season 1)[edit]

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

Article over a season of a non-notable TV show with no Wikipedia article that doesn't air until late 2017. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I would have PRODed it; fails GNG by a mile. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 21:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:29, 18 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Whitley (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does seem to be an issue with articles on ice hockey players. There is nothing notable about this person, unfortunately. MartinJones (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Lépine (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of many sub-stub non-notable EIHL player pages made by this user. Yosemiter (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:37, 25 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Davies (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom; utterly unremarkable semi-pro hockey player, and honestly this could be a G7 for failure to assert a claim of notability. Ravenswing 23:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of many sub-stub non-notable EIHL player pages made by this user. Yosemiter (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mustakas[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. This is a resume posted to Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 USAF Blackhawk Crash[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and possibly fails WP:NEVENT. bojo | talk 20:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is a mess at this point and most of the few uncited details contradict aviation media reports. That ref gives enough information say that the crash is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL (common military aircraft crash with no lasting effects beyond the death of one person) and thus no more notable than a car accident that results in one death and thus not notable enough for an article. If it turns out to be a notable accident for some reason, a new article can be created then. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've added the incident to the list of military aircraft accidents, so it's not like we're losing the information entirely (though obviously it has the potential to be expanded as new info comes to light). Primefac (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone stub; in the end, trivia and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If kept, the title needs to be changed. The only source indicates this was an Army helicopter, not an Air Force bird. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable operational hazard of military aviation!!--Petebutt (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but not notable military accident. WP:NOTNEWS applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunate, but minor, non-notable event for a military aircraft and does not warrant a stand alone article. Better covered in the aircraft article, other article, or just not at all. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Mason[edit]

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

Only sources are interviews and a blank Allmusic listing. Not independently notable. No reliable sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepth sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves (Play)[edit]

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

Can't find any sources to assert notability. bojo | talk 20:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source I can find is this review for the La times. Not sure that is enough to establish notability. That said, it sounds like an interesting play!

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/14/entertainment/la-et-cm-wolves-celebration-20130312

Mark E (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:37, 22 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Cuomo[edit]

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

I started to clean up this badly written article, which appears to be an autobiography, before noting that quite a lot of the claims made in the article are not actually supported by the sources cited. Looking for alternative sources to re-write the article with, I'm unsure if the subject is actually notable. Yes, he gets mentioned or quoted quite a lot in technology news reports, but the depth of coverage is not really there - or not that I'm finding. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallmarks of promotional editing include uncited bio details like the subject's birth date, weak references mentioning their name but not critically examining their personal contributions, and extraneous self-cited projects and philanthropy. This has all of the above including for all I can tell, a garage band. Per DGG's maxim for cases like this, clear promotion plus borderline notability lead to a conclusion to delete it. Let's not waste any more volunteer time helping get this CV published here.- Bri (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tend to consider IBM fellows as likely to be notable., though we do not have articles on many of them, especially the more recent--see IBM Fellow, but the article is indeed hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, delete, fails simplest of WP standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca Buccellati[edit]

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

Subject does not seem to meet notability standards as there are extremely few external resources that cover this. Geo ^talk 20:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, delete. Not there yet. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irshad Khan Chagharzai[edit]

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

Doesn't pass Wikipedia:POLITICIAN criteria. Saqib (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Holding a position within a political party's staff is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself. It would be enough if he could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG for that work, but it's in no way a claim that entitles him to an article regardless of its sourceability. But of the references here, one is a primary source and the other two are glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that isn't about him, so none of them assist in demonstrating his notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable political party staff.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thorndike Proctor[edit]

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable. Notability not conferred by being the son of a victim of the Salem witch trials. Quis separabit? 19:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V and WP:NOR - I find mention of him in antiquarian and genealogical sources, but not of the non-family details of his life, such as the urging of reparations (I see he is on a list of individuals who received reparations, but drawing conclusions from that is OR) and the purchase of Groton Farm. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Clearly NN. The son of a person probably falsely accused of witchcraft is not thereby notable: NOTINHERITED. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:39, 25 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Coffee[edit]

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

I declined the CSD G11 nomination on the basis that the article isn't a blatant advertisement. There's some media attention but given that the company is a brand new startup, it seems unlikely to be notable. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks reliable sources, possibly because it is too new. The media sources look remarkably similar, as though they were all quoting from or paraphrasing the same press release. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete launch PR is not evidence of notability also WP:NOTPROMO. SmartSE (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vinai Prakash[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO entirely. Heavily dependent on primary sources. RoCo^(talk) 18:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:58, 18 April 2017 (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 Windsor, Berkshire#Education. Withdrawn by nom. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St Edward's Royal Free Ecumenical Middle School[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article gives no indication of importance, and a cursory search shows a lack of significant coverage to confer notability. Originally prodded by DGG (talk · contribs). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windsor,_Berkshire#Education. Adam9007 (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is right, and I should have done it in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:03, 18 April 2017 (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 Recurring characters of Neighbours#R. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 17:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rebecchi[edit]

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

No sources found for establishing notability for this fictional character, as tagged since August 2008. The archived source in the article does not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main Neighbours article Seasider91 (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Recurring characters of Neighbours#R, which would be appropriate I think, since the character is actually mentioned there. I was about to attempt to tidy this article up, but a redirect would probably be better for now. - JuneGloom07 Talk 19:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Recurring characters of Neighbours#R per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Installers for Linux Gamers[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Linux Installers for Linux Gamers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Not the subject of significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Only sources are either unreliable, primary sources, or passing mentions, with no depth of content for us to do justice to the subject. And there are no worthwhile merge targets. czar 17:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar 17:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I brought this to the attention of WP:VG, and I couldn't find enough reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find any mentions of this software in high quality reliable sources (searched Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar). SJK (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 17:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Murray[edit]

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

Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Subject does not yet meet WP:NACTOR, and off-wiki correspondence indicates undisclosed paid editing by management company. Only sources are IMDb and a gossip website. Miniapolis 17:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major role in a CW show; WP:N is met for me easily. Apply a dose of WP:SOFIXIT upon the paid editing issues, and Deadline.com is not what I would call a 'gossip site' (they report casting news all the time). Nate • (chatter) 18:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ashleigh is getting press for her role on a major television show. Tom • (chatter) 22:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not as enthusiastic as the above, she just about meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in Deidra & Laney Rob a Train and Riverdale (2017 TV series). And she has a bunch of media coverage (movie news websites, teen mags, etc), as you'd expect for someone playing a well-known character in a heavily hyped new tv show. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for Monday[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2017 (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. Also salting as the article has now been deleted six times. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gatena[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been through ~~three~~ four AFDs resulting in "Keep", "No Consensus", "Delete", and "Delete". No rationale has been given for its re-creation that I can find. The article in its current form appears to me to be substantially the same to the original article(s) that were deleted. The article was nominated for Speedy Deletion (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) and it was contested. There seems to be multiple issues with the article as it now stands, including potential promotion issues and general lack of notability. Paul McDonald (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: 1st AfD: the result was keep, no consensus to delete; 2nd AfD: no consensus (two weeks later); 3rd AfD was delete. The speedy delete was contested because that move was procedurally flawed, the article as it now stands substantially differs from the prior versions, just as the reviewer found. --JumpLike23 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional correction there have been four AFD discussions that I can find, not three. I was confused with the order. Here is what I have found so far:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gatena Closed Keep 14 December 2008
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gatena (2nd nomination) Closed No Consensus 26 December 2008
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gatena (3rd nomination) Closed Delete 14 February 2009
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Richard Gatena Closed Delete 9 March 2014

If there are more discussions, please post them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this articles qualifies under the GNG standard, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." For example, Gatena is listed by Forbes magazine as a famous entrepreneur family, another publication lists him as an up and coming business person in LA. He has also received attention for founding companies and leading companies.

For football, he played for USC, which is a Division I team "the highest amateur level" for American football, for the Rose Bowl winning team and he is mentioned in other sources for his college career. Thus, he arguably qualifies the athlete standards. Moreover, while he was a FBS DI player pursuing a grad degree, he founded a company that ultimately got him recognized, see above.

Many previous opinions of users found him notable for college football career alone. The coverage he has received for the business career clearly establishes notability. --JumpLike23 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it should be clearly noted that the last Afd (3rd) was in 2009 - when he was 23. He is now 31. While it was a delete back then (mostly based on his athlete career) - there were differing opinions. However I do believe the coverage since then (2009-2017) hasn't been enough after a quick source check.Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the clarification above, the last AfD was actually in 2014. Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as a businessman or a football player. I am also concerned with the recreation of this article (twice) after two prior AfDs resulted in "Delete" conclusions. The sources cited in the article, and those I was able to find, do not satisfy the WP:GNG standard of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete back in 2008 Wikipedia had much lower inclusion criteria. Today with our more stringent inclusion criteria Gatena does not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT Not notable College football player, (just playing for USC doesn't inherently make someone notable and I am unconvinced about Notability in his business career.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Kingz Records[edit]

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

Article has no references outside of Soul Kingz own website and iTunes. The "notable" artists on the label all have articles created by the same person who made this article, FrankKoch, and they all base their notability on one thing: a claim of having a single song chart on the German Urban Charts with the only evidence being a facebook post from one of the artists themselves (MNSSH). This appears to be a slow moving attempt to promote a label and its artists. Justeditingtoday (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My news and web searches have found nothing. Even if the artists were notable notability is not inherited. AusLondonder (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AkayCentric[edit]

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

After removal of 31 inappropriate links (blogs, streaming sites, download sites, twitter, tumblr, "news" sites that just reproduced word for word the same text) there is almost nothing that counts as reliable in-depth secondary coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Domdeparis (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. A Google search of him doesn't show in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Asomiya[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NBOOK. I can't seem to find any references to it in google searches. bojo | talk 15:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOOK, GNG. Lourdes 15:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Margalob (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RoCo^(talk) 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:41, 25 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Ruiz III[edit]

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

Article on failed political candidate fails NPOL. While there are limited RS they directly related to his past elections. No other notability. Has several self-published e-books. DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but this as written is not building a credible case that he would get over our notability standards for any of his other work — all of that stuff is referenced entirely to primary sources, except for one irrelevant newspaper citation that's here only to support the birth and death dates of another tangentially-connected person while failing to even mention Ruiz at all. The reliable sources here are entirely in the context of his candidacy itself — but that's just routine local election coverage of the type that every candidate in any election could always show, and does not demonstrate that his candidacy meets the rarefied standard necessary to be considered more notable than the norm. Furthermore, the article was created by a user named "NRIII", meaning it's an WP:AUTOBIO — and even if he were notable enough for an article, the path to getting one does not pass through writing it himself. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cites on GS are minuscule. Too small to pass WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opal Enterprises Inc[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Run of the mill home renovation business. Media citations are limited to local coverage and advertorials. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable company going about its business. Wikipedia is not a sales brochure either. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails every reasonable test for notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Williamson[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a beauty pageant winner, with no evidence of the depth of reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:GNG for it. Of the six sources here, two are small community weeklies that don't count toward GNG, two are university student media outlets that don't count toward GNG, and the only two that are actually worth anything at all, because they're actually in real major market daily newspapers, both just glancingly namecheck her existence in the process of failing to be about her. As always, the mere holding of a beauty pageant title is not an automatic freebie that entitles a person to keep an article that's referenced this badly -- she has to be the subject of enough genuinely substantive media coverage to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Miniatures[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and advertorially slanted article about a band, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC for anything -- even the claims of touring don't get a band an inclusion freebie in the absence of actual sourcing that shows the tour was the subject of media coverage, and the only other claims here are the "success" of a single which is completely unquantified, and that they "began to come into their own" with a full-length album. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability that passes NMUSIC, must be present for an article on here to become earned, but nothing here meets either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. What little assertion it makes of notability is both unsourced and, as far as I can tell, unverifiable. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 14:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:35, 18 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectic Northeast[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect to Tanushree Hazarika: This article appears to have been created by a representative of the magazine, and does not make it clear whether the magazine meets the notability criteria. No independent coverage in reliable sources to support WP:GNG and no indication of passing WP:NMEDIA. Article recreated using different title after the speedy-deletion of a version (Eclectic Northeast Magazine) which was blatant advertising. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This magazine is quite notable and is similar in circulatin and content to The Northeast Today, in fact the page of Eclectic Northeast Magazine was not so much advertising as The Northeast Today. It is suspected that people against the magazine are asking for its deletion. This page should be up and more links. Kangla Online, the leading newspaper of a state in Assam : Manipur, has a source on Eclectic - <ref>http://kanglaonline.com/2015/11/eclectic-northeast-celebrates-its-9th-anniversary/ . Even Chief minister of Assam, Mary Kom released the magazine http://www.manipur.org/news/2012/11/19/chief-minister-of-assam-shri-tarun-gogoi-and-olympic-champion-m-c-mary-kom-releases-eclectic-northeast-magazine/ Northeast India has a huge but neglected population. Mainstream media doesn't cover this are so much and deletion of an important magazine entry from wikipedia from the region should not be allowed. There is no reference of blatant advertising like as in The Northeast today. Notability: The above picture shows that a 15 year reigning Chief Minister of a state, his son and also an Olympic Silver Medalist is launching the magazine and still it is being considered Non-Notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravjaina (talk • contribs) 08:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Gauravjaina (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

kanglaonline.com is a press release about subject celebrating its 9th anniversary and press release are not considered independent. I don't see if manipur.org is a reliable source. Your comment at SPI ManaliJain88 confirmed that you know the author (ManaliJain88) personally and as per the selection of your articles it looks like you and ManaliJain88 have conflict of interest in this and other articles. As per our policies at what Wikipedia is not you should not use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 14:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THE ARTICLE

The article "Eclectic Northeast" has been edited to give it more referenced links rather than random ones.The article should not be deleted because the magazine is a well deserved magazine of the region. There is a need for such magazine to keep people aware of the issues of their own region. So, people should know about the magazine to know about the region. There might not be many notable references to the article but there are a few of them which are notable enough to support the article. ManaliJain88 (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Manali JainManaliJain88 (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: ManaliJain88 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. This isn't a criticism of the magazine, or how "good" it is. It's just not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Ifnord (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after expanding the sources listed it is seen that all are reliable references. I think it should not be deleted. I has no material to promote the subject, is a news magazine. You may look at other magazine articles and see that there are many many magazine articles with the same or similar significance level with that one. Thanks. --Egeymi (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a good argument at AfD, Articles should be judged on their own merits: there are other articles like this one, and each of them can be challenged on its own and deleted so just because other stuff exists doesn't necessarily mean that this article should exist as well. It also to be noted that the article was recreated to promote the subject by a user with conflict of intrest and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and as per our general notability guideline The topic must received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I don't see any for this magazine. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits. The sources provided don't seem to demonstrate enough notability to meet our criteria. The magazine exists - which is good as far as it goes - but that doesn't mean it's notable. Though it's a concern, I don't think the article could be kept even absent concerns about COI. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 18 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Productions[edit]

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

I've been hard-pressed to find any reliable, independent sources to show notability. A google search only seems to bring up their own pages or unrelated results. Page also created by probable WP:COI user. bojo | talk 13:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Original contributor has been blocked for COI violations. bojo | talk 14:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG L3X1 (distant write) 02:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, fails GNG. Dlohcierekim 20:30, 25 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-marriage movement[edit]

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

Content (POV) fork. Content on the topic of ‘’opposition to same-sex marriage’’ is appropriate for various articles, such as Same-sex marriage, LGBT rights opposition, and Societal attitudes toward homosexuality, and separate article with a neutral title might even be appropriate. However, the Irredeemably non-neutral wording of this article makes the possibility of a merge or page move unfeasible. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 13:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 13:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Undesirable content fork that depends almost entirely on WP:SYNTH. The subject purports to be a movement, but the content is a hodge podge of material that could be covered in the articles listed by Rivertorch.- Mr X 13:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rivertorch. Title doesn't even makes sense; would be more honest to call it the "anti-same-sex-marriage movement". Funcrunch (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LGBT rights opposition. The title is a likely search term, so that article would provide the appropriate context for someone looking for it. Diego (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose redirect. Title violates NPOV and is unclear, since same-sex marriage supporters might also call themselves the "pro-marriage" movement. This term is not used by enough reliable sources to merit inclusion on Wikipedia.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not valid arguments to avoid having the redirect. Relevant policy (WP:RNEUTRAL) says that "Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. "

The concern at hand is guiding readers to neutrally written information, even if the term they use is not neutral by our criteria. Matter of fact is that no same-sex marriage supporters call themselves "the pro-marriage movement", yet we have sources like New York Times, Salon or Business Insider using the term as referring to groups opposing it. Diego (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose redirect. I don't think it's teeeeeechnically a content fork of an existing article since we don't actually have an article on anti-marriage activism (we have LGBT rights opposition and a subsection on opposition in Same-sex marriage in the United States, afaict) but that's nonetheless clearly the intent. If WP wants to spin out a separate article on anti-marriage activism it will need to be done in compliance with policy.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A title like "Traditional marriage movement" I'd actually have little to no objection to, assuming the content did not violate NPOV. That AfD was seven years ago, when same-sex marriage was legal in fewer countries than it is today. Funcrunch (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that would be a new article. This one, I fear, cannot be salvaged. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 03:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would still object to the title "traditional marriage movement" because monogamous opposite-sex marriage is still not traditional in all cultures. Many cultures included polygamy and concubines, for example, in their marriage traditions. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but if enough reliable sources are using that term to refer to people that support "one man + one woman" style marriages, then we could include it, at least as a redirect for searching purposes. Funcrunch (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would be happy with a re-branding "Traditional Marriage Movement". As for content. Could easily be expanded upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymnodist.2004 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already covered at Same-sex marriage#Opposition and LGBT rights opposition. This is a non-neutral WP:POVFORK evidenced by sentences such as "Coopers Beer was persecuted for releasing a video in which both sides of the argument were presented" and "Kim Davis, who was jailed in the United States in 2015 for adhering to her own religious belief". AusLondonder (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with AusLondonder's arguments. SJK (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this article being "non-neutral"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymnodist.2004 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title and content are wholly at odds with WP:NPOV. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 13:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content is factual statement. Perhaps the title is not ideal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymnodist.2004 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the title. The entire body of the article (one section, three paragraphs) consists of demonstrable falsehoods, deeply biased statements, and cherry-picked examples of recent events in a futile attempt to prop up the non-NPOV lead section. This article cannot be salvaged. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 11:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Galiyara[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:WEB. Alexa rank 4,059,058 and falling. Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient notability since those sources were only primary and no secondary sources are present. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NWEB. Content primarily promotional. RoCo^(talk) 18:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to show that it is notable. - Pmedema (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Baldermann[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing nomination on behalf of Mpen320 (talk · contribs), whose rationale was posted on the talk page and is included verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article continues to fail to meet notability criteria described here. Mpen320 talk to me 14:28 Central Time, April 17, 2017.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New Lenox is not large enough that being its mayor would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, but the depth and breadth of sourcing here is not sufficient to get him past the "who have received significant press coverage" condition in NPOL #2: it's virtually all local coverage, of the type that every mayor of every place could always routinely expect to receive, and neither expands beyond the purely local nor covers him in the context of anything substantive enough to deem his mayoralty a topic of special interest. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Académie Mohammed VI de football[edit]

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

MbahBotak (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability Seasider91 (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - academies are not inherently notable; this appears to fail GNG Spiderone 09:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SSK Talent M.A.T. Plzeň[edit]

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

remarkable MbahBotak (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per g12.(non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarmal rajput[edit]

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

A set of unsourced assertions with a color scheme to make the eyes bleed. It would require a fundamental rewrite to make it appropriate for Wikipedia (WP:TNT) Kleuske (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio and probably a dozen other things. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:40, 18 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Cher[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician and writer, with no particularly strong claim of notability under either WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR and no reliable source coverage about her in media to support it -- the only "references" here are a YouTube video and the self-published website of a literary magazine that published some of her writing, so these are not reliable or independent sources. As always, neither writers nor musicians are guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they happen to exist -- reliable source coverage in media, properly supporting a credible claim of notability, has to be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete we can not have an article basically built entirely on the subjects own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional independent media sources found and added. Individual has professional credits in her industry. (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.148.19 (talk) [reply]

No, you haven't added any new reliable sources; you've added blogs. And having "professional credits in her industry" is not, in and of itself, a free pass over Wikipedia's inclusion criteria either — every single person in her industry always has professional credits in the industry, because they wouldn't be in the industry if they didn't. Our notability criteria are passed by being the subject of real coverage in real media (i.e. not blogs) which verifies one or more specific accomplishments (i.e. awards, verifiable chart success, etc.) that pass a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Indian English network television schedule[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Niche schedule for sure; we don't usually do network grids for cable networks because they can change from night to night rather easily. Nate • (chatter) 13:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously hoax this article.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please be careful dropping WP:HOAX; I don't doubt that this is an actual schedule for these networks, I just feel it's too niche for a schedule article as none of these are over-the-air broadcasters. Nate • (chatter) 03:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; we're not a TV guide here Spiderone 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Speedy delete'. Deleted as WP:CSD#G3 by Primefac. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 17:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Munawa International School & College[edit]

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

Appears to be a made-up institution. Article author also created Munawa International University, which is just a copy of the introduction of the article North South University. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable at best. There is zero coverage in reliable sources about this school. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:04, 18 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico "Domenick" Amato[edit]

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

Non-notable producer from a non-notable show. No coverage, only thing I can find are some linkedin profiles and iMDb which indicates that he seriously fails WP:GNG and pretty much any other criteria. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in independent reliable sources not found. IMDb is not a reliable source. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neural parallel language[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced and likely coi article that appears to lack notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, sourced only to web sites like GitHub used by the project itself. Calling it a solution is generally a give-away that it is promotion. W Nowicki (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SQLDetective[edit]

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

No evidence this product is sufficiently notable for an article. The article doesn't cite any sources other than the vendor's own web site. I searched for reliable sources (Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar), the only thing I could find was a passing mention: Christian Antognini (14 June 2014). Troubleshooting Oracle Performance. Apress. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-4302-5759-2. In addition to the manual method covered in the previous section, it's also possible to use one of the graphical interfaces available in third party products. Such an interface is provided by the major players such as PL/SQL Developer (Allround Automations), SQLDetective (Conquest Software Solutions), Toad and SQL Navigator (Dell), or Rapid SQL (Embarcadero). All these tools can be used to profile the code, usually by clicking a check box or button before running a test or by simply analyzing the content of the output tables. Maybe that is enough for this to be briefly mentioned in an existing article, but it doesn't seem to be enough coverage to justify an independent article on this product. SJK (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is just a cut-n-paste of a data sheet, not even in English prose. Clearly the company would need to be notable as a whole (together with all the "products") before each product is spun off. Searches do not find much mention - it might just be two kids and a web site? W Nowicki (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up download sites but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA who has added info on several Conquest Software Solutions products, so likely promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SQLDetective is a development and administration tool for Oracle databases. It's used by many developers and DBAs around the world. This article provides a brief description about its features for prospects and users. BTW: PL/SQL Developer you mentioned above has the similar article but it's not nominated for deletion. Please explain. Scott tiger 2002 (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott tiger 2002: For Wikipedia, the number of users doesn't matter, it is substantial coverage in reliable sources that counts. Is this software discussed (not just once, but multiple times and in detail) in the trade press (whether online or offline), in academic papers, in books published by respected publishers, etc. This software doesn't seem to meet that standard, since searching for those sorts of sources only found the brief mention I gave above. As far as PL/SQL Developer goes, that is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument – if you think the subject of that article doesn't meet the notability criteria, then the answer is to nominate that article for deletion, not to refrain from deleting this one. I think that article is at the very least borderline, and could be a candidate for deletion, although on the other hand I find significantly more Google Books mentions of that product than of this one, so it may be that that other article (even if only just) passes the bar whereas this article fails to meet it. SJK (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MJ5[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Former proposed merge with India's Dancing Superstar not possible because target has been deleted. PROD tag removed by Atlantic306 with reason not an uncontroversial deletion as approved at AFC as per talkpage Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nimoy Sunset Pie[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the criteria for a website. Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete coverage is trivial. Plantdrew (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notable references. RoCo^(talk) 18:37, 18 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Webkul[edit]

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

Clearly promotional article with few non-trivial, independent sources. Most are press releases, company summaries, sources published by the company itself, or interview transcripts. Independent sources listed essentially repeat press release claims, making them no better at establishing notability. Appable (talk | contributions) 07:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are not independent, the article looks like spam and I can't find anything useful/reliable/independent that could be added. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hina Khan (Pakistan)[edit]

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

One single threat from the Taliban (who threaten everyone and anyone) is not grounds for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Perhaps the material can be retained soemhow in another article? I am not sure even about that. So dose not pass GNG. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she may at some point become notable, but she is not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject received press coverage but she's notable for only one event so doesn't pass the WP's notability criteria. --Saqib (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omani Americans[edit]

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

Non-notable ethnic group. No reliable or significant coverage. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What an odd little article, which attests to its own non-notability: "It is certain that Oman has a very small diaspora" -- apparently because of the wonderfulness of staying in Oman. That's fine. No reason at all to have an article though, that I can find. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Sails pretty close to the wind of WP:G11 as an advert for Oman... Cordless Larry (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, recreated as RFD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 18. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 10:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zambian Americans[edit]

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

Non-notable ethnic group. No reliable or significant coverage. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY - or in other words, the usual start up spam. Few business-as-usual/startup-gets funding in sites like Techcrunch that tend to publish a new entry each time someone sneezes in a start-up. The short (rotted: archive) entry for million of users is dubious, I wouldn't be surprised if this is based on non-verifiable press release. No significance in the wider world. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete precisely per nom. We are getting too much corporate spam lately. RoCo^(talk) 18:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lately? Article created in 2008. 96.127.244.11 (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- By "lately" I meant nowadays. The statement does not refer to this article. RoCo^(talk) 05:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you gave and the nom's arguments are about recent spammy articles. this one is 9 years old.96.127.244.11 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that the nom referred to it as "start up spam". But then, how old must an organisation be to escape the "start up" label? I don't think there's a clear cut limit for the term. And coming to my statement, it's not particularly about this article, and is just a general observation from my part. RoCo^(talk) 08:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some kids opened a web site for two years, like all sorts of others that come and go. Does not matter if it is a "start up" or not, or who long ago the article was created, it needs to be noticed for more than once or twice for just existing to meet notability levels. W Nowicki (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Bruno Jasiulewicz[edit]

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

I put this up as a PROD and it was contested, so here we are. Completely unsourced BLP fails WP:BLP with respect to the lack of references, and also fails WP:SOLDIER with respect to notability. Generating notability under WP:SOLDIER requires that military members who seek to show notability by winning the second-highest honor (here, the Navy Cross) must be awarded it multiple times. This individual was awarded it once. Of course, there may be other claims to notability, but I was unable to find any credible sources suggesting further reasons why this person has achieved encyclopedic notability. The only references to this person in third-party sources I can find are passing references to somebody of the same name and approximate age in police reports for various petty offenses: [1] and [2]. If those are even the same person, they don't create notability nor are the adequate references to support this otherwise unreferenced BLP. I'd be happy to be wrong about this one if there are additional reasons for notability and reliable third-party sources to back it up -- but I haven't seen them yet. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced. Come back when there are some sources and we can discuss it more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then there is this request by one calling himself David Bruno Jasiulewicz to delete the thing. I gave him some advice on the matter. Dlohcierekim 17:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firstly, subject is non-notable. Secondly, article contained negative unsourced BLP material-- now removed. Thirdly, unsourced BLP's must be deleted. Fourthly, removal of BLP-Prod tag from unsourced article was improper. Dlohcierekim 18:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article on a military person who does not meet the notability requirements for military people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NOR, V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER. No evidence of notability. Unsourced BLP. If the subject objects to material, that makes it contentious, and the material must be removed unless properly sourced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Foundation[edit]

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

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of the St. James Foundation. In particular, it does not show "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." One source is not available. One is from an entity operated by the foundation. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching found no sources for passing WP:ORG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Lodging[edit]

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

Fails CORP. No sources to notability on article; a BEFORE search showed only a current article about the demolition of one of their properties, a few older articles about staff changes; nothing that rises above ROUTINE. This is not unexpected as hotel ownership and hotel management organizations are by nature low profile. John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you really do Before? I easily found plenty of sources to satisfy both Corp Depth and the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So are they a state secret, Philafrenzy? If you easily found sources to satisfy Corp depth and gng, how does it help improve the encyclopedia to keep that info to yourself? John from Idegon (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added them to the article before I voted, as you could have done before nominating the article for deletion. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are all ROUTINE. Staff changes, more sourcing on the ONEEVENT security incident. Further, none are what one would call reliable and independent. Nothing from PRnewswire can ever be considered for notability (the name is the givaway) and trade publications are very seldom usable to show notability, as they are constructed from press releases with no journalism at all. John from Idegon (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of the sources pass WP:CORPDEPTH. John from Idegon is correct in saying that they are routine reports of staffing updates and are neither independent nor reliable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. Insufficient in-depth coverage in RS. Sources given are routine or minor. MB 13:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a resource for anyone interested in researching this sizable company. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Pete, Joseph S. (2016-11-30). "White Lodging names new CEO amid hotel building boom". The Times of Northwest Indiana. Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
  The article notes:
  White Lodging, one of the largest hospitality companies in the United States, has named a new chief executive officer as it gears up for rapid growth.
  Chief Financial Officer Ken Barrett has been named CEO of the Merrillville-based company, which has invested $2.5 billion in developing more than 125 upscale hotels over the last three decades. He replaces Dave Sibley, who will become chief operating officer.
  Chairman and founder Bruce White said the changes were made because of an upcoming phase of rapid expansion. White Lodging plans to open new hotels in Wisconsin, Texas, Tennessee, Colorado and Indiana next year.
  ...
  White Lodging develops and manages leading hotel brands such as Marriott International Inc., Hilton Worldwide, Hyatt Global, Preferred Hotels & Resorts and InterContinental Hotel Group. Altogether, it manages 165 hotels in 19 states.
2. Tyson, Kim (1994-04-09). "Company to build 3 hotels along I-35 - Indiana firm expects to spend $9.2 million to open lodgings". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
  The article notes:
  Later this summer, White Lodging will start a 63-room Fairfield Inn next to its Courtyard by Marriott hotel at 5660 N. Interstate 35, south of U.S. 290. The company last year bought the former Ramada Airport Hotel & Conference Center and spent $1.7 million converting it to the 198-room Courtyard.
  ...
  White Lodging was started in 1985 as a hotel operating division of Whiteco Industries, one of the country's largest outdoor advertising companies. The Celebration Station amusement park chain is another division of Whiteco, a privately held firm based in Merrillville, Ind.
  ...
  Most of White Lodging's 20 existing hotels are affiliated with Marriott Hotels, although some are franchises of the Ramada, Comfort Inn and Radisson chains.
3. Glenn, Jenni (2007-03-25). "Bidder's experience conventional - Managers lined up for proposed downtown hotel". The Journal Gazette. Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
  The article notes:
  White Lodging currently has more than 100 hotels under management - a portfolio it built up in 22 years. The company could not have grown that quickly, he said, without delivering value to its owners, the White family.
  Bruce White is chairman and chief executive of the privately held company. His father, Dean, owns White Lodging's former parent, Whiteco Industries. Dean White is one of four billionaires in Indiana, according to Forbes magazine's 2007 rankings of the world's richest people.
  ...
  White Lodging operates many Marriott-branded hotels across the country, Livengood said. Marriotts make up most of the company's management portfolio, although it also runs some hotels with Hilton or other brands.
  ...
  White Lodging agreed to sell most of the properties it owned - 100 hotels - in a $1.7 billion deal last year. RLJ Development LLC - a Bethesda, Md.-based hotel investment company owned by the founder of Black Entertainment Television - bought the properties and left White Lodging in charge of managing them. Four downtown Louisville hotels, including the city's main convention center hotel, changed hands as part of that deal.
4. Svaldi, Aldo (2013-04-24). "White Lodging Services plans to build a 346-room Hyatt-branded property". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
  The article notes:
  An Indiana developer plans to build and manage a new 21-story hotel on the southeast corner of 14th Street and Glenarm Place in downtown Denver.
  White Lodging Services said Tuesday that it will start construction this fall on a dual-branded Hyatt Place/Hyatt House property, with an opening scheduled for the spring of 2015.
  ...
  White Lodging, founded in 1985, is based in Merrillville, Ind. The company has 161 hotels in 20 states, including two dozen located in Colorado.
  Those Colorado properties include the Marriott Denver Westminster, Marriott Hotel Boulder and Marriott Hotel Denver South.
5. Shidler, Lisa (2006-02-14). "NWI hotels sold in $1.7B deal - BET entrepreneur acquires 100 hotels from Merrillville-based White Lodging Services". Post-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
  The article notes:
  The lodging company headed by the son of Crown Point's billionaire hotelier Dean White will receive a huge infusion of cash of its own, selling 100 hotels to prominent black businessman Robert L. Johnson for $1.7 billion on Monday.
  White Lodging Services is selling the hotels to RLJ Development, controlled by Johnson, but the Merrillville-based company will still manage the hotels. Bruce White is CEO and chairman of White Lodging.
  ...
  Currently, the company owns and manages a number of different hotel brands including Marriott, Fairfield Inn, Hilton Garden Inn and Holiday Inn Express.
  Judy Bronowski, vice president of strategic planning and communications for White Lodging, said the company is also actively involved in developing additional Homewood brands.
  The company has close to 5,000 employees and was founded in 1985.
6. Perloth, Nicole (2014-01-31). "Latest Sites of Breaches in Security Are Hotels". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
  The article notes:
  In the latest in a spate of online attacks affecting American businesses, White Lodging, which manages hotel franchises for chains like Marriott, Hilton and Starwood Hotels, is investigating a potential security breach involving customers’ payment information.
  White Lodging Services Corporation, which works with 168 hotels in 21 states, confirmed that it was examining the data breach.
7. "RLJ buying 100 hotels from White". The New York Times. 2006-02-13. Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
  The article notes:
  Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said Monday that his hotel investment company would pay $1.7 billion to buy 100 hotels in the United States from White Lodging Services.
  The sale of the hotels, mostly under the Marriott name and located in Indiana, Texas and Illinois, will be staggered, with 87 deals set to close in the second quarter and the remainder within the next two years, Johnson's company, RLJ Development, said. Johnson sold Black Entertainment Television to Viacom for $3 billion in 2001.
  ...
  Under the agreement, White Lodging will continue to manage the hotels, which will operate under their current brand names and franchise agreements.
  White Lodging, a 21-year-old company run by Bruce White, develops and manages midsize to large hotels in the United States. It operates hotels under the Courtyard by Marriott and Residence Inn by Marriott names.
8. Shevory, Kristina (2013-10-01). "Austin, Tex., Stands Out in Hotel Recovery That Has Hugged Coasts". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
  The article notes:
  Eight hotels containing almost 4,000 rooms are scheduled to open across Austin within the next three years, making the Texas capital one of the most active markets in the country for new hotel construction.
  White Lodging, a private hotel developer and manager responsible for about a third of those rooms, is betting big on Austin. Although the Indiana firm has put up and managed mostly midmarket hotels near the airport or in the Austin suburbs for the last two decades and currently owns or manages 23, White Lodging is gambling its two new downtown hotels, the JW Marriott and Westin, will be worth its more than $400 million investment.
  ...
  Austin’s booming tech industry, from start-ups to offices for Dell, Samsung and Apple; universities; and its location as the world headquarters for Whole Foods help make White Lodging’s gamble seem sound.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow White Lodging to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage seems to be business-as-usual, coming mostly from local newspapers, often in passing. I don't think this makes it notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Lodging is based in Merrillville, Indiana. It has received significant coverage in the Austin American-Statesman in Austin, Texas; The Denver Post in Denver, Colorado; and The New York Times. The Journal Gazette is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, which is 124 miles from Merrillville, Indiana. There is plenty of nonlocal coverage.
The company has received sustained coverage. The Austin American-Statesman article was published in 1994. The New York Times article was published in 2013 and The Times of Northwest Indiana article was published in 2016.
The Times of Northwest Indiana article says White Lodging is "one of the largest hospitality companies in the United States" and notes that it manages 165 hotels in 19 states.
A 2006 article in the Post-Tribune noted, "The lodging company headed by the son of Crown Point's billionaire hotelier Dean White will receive a huge infusion of cash of its own, selling 100 hotels to prominent black businessman Robert L. Johnson for $1.7 billion on Monday." A company that does a $1.7 billion deal through the sale of some of its assets is notable.
This company is clearly notable for receiving sustained, national coverage.
Cunard (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What notability guideline states that companies that make big money deals are notable? All of the citations you've shown here are stories on transactions or personel changes. Further, if you look at them closely, they share a close similarity in style, even though they come from separate papers. This says to me they were written off press releases. There is simply not enough depth in sourcing to have a decent verifiable article, which is why we have notability guidelines in the first place. John from Idegon (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says:
When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.
A company that sells $1.7 billion worth of hotels has had a "significant or demonstrable effec[t]" on "society".
Cunard (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits. The sources provided confirm that the company exists, and that it conducts business. Good as far as it goes. But those sources also focus on routine business activity. White Lodging did X, and also is a company. What I want to see is an article that reads "White Lodging is a noteworthy company, because it is doing X, Y, and Z..." or some such. In other words, the thing being noted by those sources is what the company is doing - NOT what it is. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage says: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization."
It does not require sources to say why a company is a noteworthy company. If a source did say why a company was noteworthy, many editors would dismiss that as being a promotional, advertorial article.
Cunard (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the routine business activity is not what is notable, and not what we're writing an article about. The business itself is - and the business itself isn't what's being covered in the sources, except in passing. I agree that great depth isn't required as such, but some measurable level of depth is. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Cunard quotes from Notability guidelines above, it also states that we need "verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization". The sources provided do not get pass WP:ORGINFO and/or rely on information provided directly by the company or their staff. Fails WP:CORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the sources offered above are local and advertorially toned as in "Company to build 3 hotels along I-35 - Indiana firm expects to spend $9.2 million to open lodgings" (future-looking, puffy piece). The rest of the sources are similar. WP:CORPDEPTH fail. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I acknowledge the opinions here that the coverage is superficial and the company is run of the mill, but I agree with Cunard: a company of this size and geographical influence, whose activities have been widely covered in national and regional media, is sufficiently notable to warrant coverage in our encyclopedia. To omit sourceable, relevant material about this important Indiana company, a significant national player in the hotel business, would unnecessarily cut a small hole in our coverage of those subjects. I suppose an alternative might be to incorporate this content into the existing articles about Indiana's influential White family, but I find this less attractive given the wider scope of the company's operations. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep large company with notability established through multiple RS as noted by other keep advocates -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've gone back and looked in detail at the sources and references provided. I believe that there are sufficient reliable secondary sources that establish notability and therefore I've struck my Delete !vote above. My comments on the sources are below.

The Northwest Indiana Times article reports a company announcement of a new CEO with some quotes from the founder and chairman. Fails as per item 5 at WP:CORPDEPTH

Austin American Statesman] article is also not intellectually independent and relies on quotes and information from the company and its officers including a potted history and forward looking statements. Fails as the reference is a primary reference and fails WP:ORGCRITE.

THe Journal Gazette article is acceptable from the point of view of being an independent source.

The Denver Post is reporting on a company press release. Fails point 5 and 9 of WP:CORPDEPTH

Indiana Post-Tribute article is good as a reference to establish notability in my opinion. Even though it contains quotations from various sources, the article appears to be independent and objective.

The New York Times article is independent and discusses a data breach at the company

The New York Times article is a press release and forward looking statements about a potential sale. In my opinion, this fails point 6 of WP:CORPDEPTH

The New York Times] namechecks the company and gets a brief quote from company personal but on the whole, the article appears to be independent and objective.

Based on the above, there are 4 secondary reliable independent sources that establish notability. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:41, 21 April 2017 (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 Battlestar Galactica. Consensus was to delete, but there seems to be agreement that there is some useful content that could be placed in other articles. Since there is a plausible redirect target, I've redirected the article to make the history more accessible to anyone that might want to merge some of the content into other articles. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 00:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon War[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Big background event in a fictional universe, but fails WP:GNG. Lots of mentions in passing, sure, but primarily in the in-universe reference works. Nothing I can find shows that this has real world significance or impact, no scholarly source discusses influences on or by this fictional event, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Battlestar Galactica if people think that it is a plausible search term. - The article is currently nothing but a lot of unsourced plot summaries, with a smattering of OR sprinkled throughout. Additionally, a large portion of the article is just a general summary of the plot of the reboot series, making it a rather unnecessary WP:FORK of the main Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) article. As stated by the nomination, while there are plenty of passing mentions when doing the normal searches, none of them are anything but trivial or plot-only sources, and there is nothing that talks in depth about either version of the "first" Cylon War. And, as I mentioned, the "second" Cylon War is just the plot of the series that has no reason to be a separate article from said series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate and split Merge the very separate wars to the respective original and reimagined BSG series, and make the article a disambiguation page to the 2-3 sections of the notable fictional franchises in which Cylon Wars appeared. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Seems like a decent subject, and the two different takes on it sharing an article would seem to make sense (with room for comparisons between the two) but at the moment it's utterly unsupported by any kind of sources and so not viable. Artw (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just the usual in-universe stuff, no reliable independent sources, not worth the merging effort. Sandstein 18:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no new points made from the last AfD from the deletion perspective. Still contains sources independent from in-universe only content. Notability is kinda iffy, but I'm sure I can find something to establish it. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FC Luzhany[edit]

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

I found nothing to show that this team is notable. SL93 (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sportspam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to fail WP:FOOTYN no indication club has taken part in a national tournament. Fenix down (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PRESERVE - Neither sportspam and the club won the National Football Championship among amateur teams. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be some confusion. The sports notability guideline refers only to athletes and not teams. The page even specifically states that teams must go by WP:CORP. Further, FOOTYN is an essay. SL93 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, the article is particularly essential in providing some understanding about sports in the region (Chernivtsi Oblast). In 2000s the club was a leader of regional football, was very active at the National Championship among amateur teams for several seasons, and provided quite few professional players, yet since 2010 there seems to be almost no information it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FOOTYN is an essay but it is also a generally accepted consensus established through a large number of AfD discussions that football clubs need to have participated in national tournaments to be considered notable. I'm not aware of WP:CORP ever actually being used in football club discussions, specifically because the language used is heavily tilted towards companies rather than sports clubs. @Aleksandr Grigoryev: it is a bit difficult with amateur teams and national titles as they have participated in a national tournament, but the fact that it is amateur normally means it receives substantially less coverage than professional competitions. It would help if rather than including external links, you could change them to inline citations with sourced prose indicating GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to have ever played in a national league or tournament. Seasider91 (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It participated in the National Amateur competitions. How is it does not appear to have ever played??? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amateur competitions are no evidence of notabiity, if the tournament was a professional one then they would be notable Seasider91 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting logic. External links are provided, citations are provided, the club's players who played in the Ukrainian Premier League are mentioned, the club's achievements in the Ukrainian National amateur league are included, the fact of multiple championship titles in the region is mentioned and the article has a link to its corresponding articles in other languages (three other languages), the outcome you give is no evidence of notability. Good job, thank you for your help. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, explain evidence of notability for the 20th level division of the English Bristol and Avon Association Football League in comparison with no notability of FC Luzhany and your eagerness to delete the article. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The club Oldland Abbotonians F.C. also fails WP:FOOTYN without any indication whatsoever playing at any national level tournaments with teams throughout the whole England, the given Ukrainian club on the other hand did participate in such competitions. And now you here are speaking about evidence of notability. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2017 (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 Nike_timeline#The 2000s. Seems to be an unlikely search result for LeBron. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkman[edit]

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

There is effectively no content. The one entry on this DAB page for LeBron James should be deleted because there is no mention of "dunkman" in the target article. "Dunkman" is also not mentioned at the See also Slam Dunk Contest. This page was created as a result of an RFD discussion Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. Shouldn't this be handled by some technical WP:SPEEDY? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Piotrus, Shhhnotsoloud: There is a brand owned by Nike which is called 'Dunkman' (see Dunkman (brand), 2004.) I think redirect to that is the best option, although the brand seems to be named after LeBron James. Certainly the see also is invalid. Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ran google and gNews searches on dunkman and "dunk man" references to this specific sneaker are minimal, and largely confined to sources like Sneaker News, or promotional - nothing to justify a bluelink, redirect or disambig page. There are references to LeBron James as "dunkman," but both my searches and the RfC linked above persuade me that the term is also used for other players. It appears to be comparable to "slugger" used to describe a baseball player. Note, however, that Slugger links to actual sluggers. This discussion leads no no significant uses of "dunkman." He's not commonly called "Dunkman James." Let's deep-six this one. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Banko[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources in article, and after searching, no evidence of WP:SIGCOV found. Appears to fail WP:NACTORS & WP:GNG as I failed to find any WP:RS independent coverage regarding roles she appeared in, only press releases and non-notable/reliable blogs. Prior AfD in late 2014 closed as no consensus after 2 weeks and zero participation. Does not appear to have had any notable roles or coverage since then (Cheerleader Camp: To the Death does not appear to be notable per WP:NFILM). Roberticus talk 15:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Roberticus talk 13:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roberticus talk 13:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Roberticus talk 13:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Roberticus talk 13:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Roberticus talk 13:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roberticus talk 13:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing multiple, significant roles in notable films here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I remember this one, but she does not pass WP:NACTOR (or WP:BASIC). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkesha[edit]

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

Non notable actress. Has supposedly acted in some movies and ads, though the references mentioned talk about a play in which she happens to be one of the performers. Searching also does not provide any better sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Jupitus Smart 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SOurces are not significantly about this person or not independent. Searches return social media and bare database listings and event listings. No significant independent coverage in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Na Bhuto Na Bhavishyati[edit]

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

Non notable film with a non notable cast and crew. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Searching also does not provide for any better sources. Jupitus Smart 16:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The external link to the FilmStreetJournal (essentially the article's only source) says that the movie was being started back in 2012. If it hasn't been released by now, there seems little likelihood that there will ever be any additional coverage of it. I also note that the prose is little more than a plot summary. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin P. Hardy[edit]

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

Probably not yet notable: half the refs are to his own work, and most of the rest are by one particular Forbes "contributor", who is not a member of their staff, and therefore no more reliable than a blogger. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This is obviously a stub article that needs more work. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stubs, whether they "need more work" or not, are not automatically entitled to stick around; there actually has to be a credible notability claim in the first place, as well as at least some evidence that the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage needed to support it at least exists even if it isn't all in the article yet. But this meets neither of those requirements: the notability claim boils down to "he exists", with no evidence shown of anything that would make his existence more notable than the norm among people who do what he does, and the referencing is mainly to primary sources that cannot assist in showing notability — while the fewer sources that do assist in showing notability (Forbes) are not being used to support any actual substance, but are simply piled up as a reference bomb metasourcing the mundane statement that Forbes has written about him. But that's not how referencing shows notability either — the reference has to support a statement about the context that the coverage was given for, not just a statement that the reference exists. There's also a direct conflict of interest here, as the article is a clear WP:AUTOBIO by the subject himself — but even if he can be shown as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, the path to getting one does not pass through writing it himself. At best this is a blow it up and start over situation; at worst it's WP:TOOSOON for a person who may clear our notability standards in the future once his book is published but does not yet pass them today. Bearcat (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Instead of a potential WP:PERMASTUB, I'd rather see it gone. If and when he becomes notable AND if someone other than himself does the writing, it will stand a better chance of survival. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Neither the article nor sources indicate any notability of the subject. Sources are mostly primary. As nom stated all the Forbes articles are written by a "Contributor" and article carries Forbes' standard disclaimer. Medium.com is pretty much a blog host and accepts just about anything someone wants to write about and being the number 1 writer on it certainly isn't notable. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. CBS527^Talk 00:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rumana Islam[edit]

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

promotional bio. non notable as a singer,. It is impossible to tell the significance of the awards. The one ref is a tribute from an Indian newspaper,and cannot be taken seriously as sufficient independent coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MUSICBIO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom.@DGG:--WP:BLP was prob. sufficient.Winged Blades^Godric 07:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Not really sure what the claim of significance is here either but Comatmebro hit the nail on the head as well. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe the reason for A7 removal was the argument she could be directed to her notable father. There is no obvious reason for a redirect here, and since this is a living person, I think the argument for being conservative and not redirecting to the biographical entry of another person is strong. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there's no particular reason for a redirect. Mytildebang (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as A7 nominator. If I understand the policy correctly, a (mere) relationship with someone famous is not in itself a claim of notability (hence the A7). Even assuming that it is a claim of notability, per WP:INVALIDBIO, it is not enough to establish notability. So, since we haven't established Ms. Islam's notability, and searches for sources have been unable to do so, this article doesn't meet the guidelines. Mytildebang (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khan Ataur Rahman per WP:INVALIDBIO. She's mentioned in that article and I don't see any reason not to have a redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In what way, per your own suggestion that this falls under WP:ATD-R, is this a useful redirect? She is mentioned solely for being born. Nothing more. It's about as useful as directing my user page to George Washington because he's my great-something grandfather. That redirect isn't likely to be expanded into an article any time soon as is obvious by this AfD and total dearth of sources and it certainly shouldn't be merged with his article. This isn't like a band or a film where they could conceivably share the same works or general subject matter. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would likely be deleted at RfD if it had been blanked and redirected, because INVALIDBIO does not say redirect every non-notable biography created to their notable family, it says David Beckham and Brittany Spear's children redirect to them respectively. The questions we should be asking are: is it likely that people searching for her would be satisfied by the information on her father's page about her? Would people find this redirect useful? Are there any reasons why we might not want to redirect?. 1 and 2 the answer is likely no. 3 the answer is yes: she's a low profile living person and this would redirect to an article that her actions have no impact on. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable on her own right, some sources:^[1]^[2]^[3] From The Daily Star: They had a daughter named Rumana Islam, who later became a famous Bangladeshi singer.^[4]. Google রুমানা ইসলাম, her name in Bangla to find more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinegarymass911 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "A fresh take on timeless classics". The Daily Star. 3 February 2017. Retrieved 19 April 2017.
^ "Bhalobashi Mago Tokey". The Daily Star. 31 March 2011. Retrieved 19 April 2017.
^ "Carrying on a musical legacy". The Daily Star. 2 October 2007. Retrieved 19 April 2017.
^ "Happy Birthday, Khan Ata!". The Daily Star. 11 December 2015. Retrieved 19 April 2017.

- The tribute sources were addressed by DGG in his nomination. The source that is different in character is announcement of the album source, and it is trivial and isn't even under a byline. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 03:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalmyk Americans[edit]

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

Non-notable ethnic group. No reliable or significant coverage. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I remember in my days at BYU coming across a book in the BYU library on the Kalmyk Americans. Sources only have to exist, and people have written books on this topic. The article at present is highly questionable, such as the claim the Kalmyks assimilated in Russia, since they are the only historically Buddhist population in Europe, so clearly in some ways they did not assimilate, but having a poor article is not reason to delete, but reason to improve.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in Encyclopedia of New Jersey ([3]), Kelvin C. Stuart's book Mongols in Western/American Consciousness, article "The American Kalmyks" in The Mongolia Society Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Winter 1962), pp. 6-8, this from the Penn Museum, "Kalmyks in the United States" article in Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, Volume 41, 2002 - Issue 2, all found from a two minute Google Books search. --Michig (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, recreated as RFD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 18. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 10:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zambian Americans[edit]

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

Non-notable ethnic group. No reliable or significant coverage. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khowar Academy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

May be hoax. No independent sources. Re-created after previous deletion. Known COI problem (see WP:COIN#Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, Khowar Academy, Chitral Vision). Known sockpuppet problem (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akbaralighazi/Archive) John Nagle (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I don't think it is a hoax. Previous AfDs have found a couple sources, here and here, and on proquest there is another, here. I feel each of these are about Rehmat Aziz Khan Chitrali more than the academy, but the academy certainly exists, at least as an organization for the publishing of Chitrali's work. Further, I think Chitrali sounds like an impressive person and should be commended. However, their work with WMF and writings here seem to focus on international promotion, which is difficult and important for an organization, but an article like this which seems meant largely for promotion isn't really encyclopedic. If there was coverage of the institute from which an article could be based, then it would be easier to write an article about the organization. As is, I can't differentiate the organization from Chitrali on the basis of reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass the basic notability criteria. Cited sources are unreliable so cannot be cited. --Saqib (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the latest still non-notable recreation of an article about an "academy" that has been found non-notable multiple times, first as Khowar Academy Pakistan and then under its current name. Both this article and its companion article, Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, are nothing but blatant self-promotion, created by socks of indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer Akbaralighazi, whose latest socks were blocked only five days ago. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 05:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of independent sources suggests lack of notability. Those sources that do exist either come from Khowar Academy or treat Rehmat Aziz and not the Academy as such. Cnilep (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conversant[edit]

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

Notability is questionable, and the article reads like an advert. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: The company has been known as "Conversant" only for a small part of its independent existence and now as a subsidiary of Alliance Data, so it is worth also considering the former name, added above. AllyD (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This gets to the ever-present problem of what Wikipedia wants to be, an encyclopedia or a catchall business directory. Is this business unique? It is especially profitable or known to legions of people? Since the answer to both questions is "no," this article should go. Chisme (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ebeanstalk[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RS sources amount to passing mentions, no significant coverage in independent sources in cited sources or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flipword[edit]

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

no evidence of notability for this company. Trivial refs, including a funding request that raised $50,000 DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lee Huffman[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial support. Part in Grimm was a small part in one show. reddogsix (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet GNG> Dlohcierekim 19:07, 25 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfield Mall[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. the coverage is very routine or run of the mill, like real estate news or a store opening. at 25,000 square metres this is small by Australian shopping centre standards. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insignificant shopping mall lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:ORG. Small shopping centre with a lack of significant independent sources. Ajf773 (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the comments above. Is there an article to redirect to? MartinJones (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2017 (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 Nuclear (band). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matías Leonicio[edit]

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

Redirect to band was reverted without rationale or improvement. Searches turn up very little, and all of it in connection with his band. Should be a redirect, but as I said, it was reverted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band since subject lacks indepdent notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nuclear as per nom L3X1 (distant write) 22:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-tech[edit]

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

WP:NEO. Term does not appear to be in common use. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree this is a non-notable neologism, not clearly defined in any sources I can see. Change to weak delete, see below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm new here, so I don't know the exact rules about the deletion of articles. However, I do see a definition in this ON/OFF book which is as a PHD thesis a scientific piece of work and a good summary of the current debate.^[1] Further, it's mentioned in the DIE ZEIT article^[2] (it's the German NYT) which did apparently run as the main article of the issue. Even it's not mentioned widely over the web, it's mentioned by very reliable sources. Can concepts become part of Wikipedia only once they are regularly used? Mljakubowski (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mljakubowski: I cannot speak for the German newspaper usage, but the book you found does indeed define it (in the future rather than commercial bookseller please link to page view on Google Books if possible, like this: Sarah Genner (3 January 2017). ON/OFF: Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet. vdf Hochschulverlag AG. pp. 163–. ISBN 978-3-7281-3799-9.). The source of their definition seems to be [4], a German language document on whose reliability again I cannot comment. That's a good start, but please read WP:NEO and WP:GNG. For new terms we need more than 1-2 sources, a more widespread use would help. If you can show this term used in let's say 5 or so more reliable sources, preferably English (so I can read them), I'd be ready to change my vote to keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Genner, Sarah (3 January 2017). ON/OFF: Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet. vdf Hochschulvlg. ISBN 3728137995.
^ Jürgen von Rutenberg. "ZEITmagazin International, No 2, Fall-Winter 2015 (printed), German version online available". ZEITmagazin International. Retrieved 24 March 2017.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not wikitionaryL3X1 (distant write) 22:04, 19 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Brett Bailey[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. There are some secondary sources which are quite detailed, but appear to be more a review of his performance than a biography. See [5][6][7][8][9]. Also appears to fail WP:ENT. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources added to justify removed of the speedy deletion tag do not establish notability. Most refs appear to be advertising or peripheral mentions. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - New sources evidencing cult status in the UK theatre community have been added. References chosen demonstrate industry profile and acclaim. 17:13, 25 March 2017 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Churlishmeg (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are either WP:PRIMARY, not independent of the subject (his own website), or passing entions in the context of a work rather than for himself. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per O Fortuna, passing mentions in press. L3X1 (distant write) 20:22, 19 April 2017 (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 to delete. (non-admin closure) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Workflow (app)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSOFTWARE, as all the non-routine coverage seems to center about the single event of the parent company being acquired by Apple. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if rewritten: The mere fact that Apple thinks its valuable enough to acquire must mean that this app has signifigance (notability is not temporary), and may play a part in future versions of iOS. Right now, however, the article is just a statement and a list of sources. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this article. I have added more references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.38.134 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:109PAPERS. Quantity of sources is not nessecarily a means of measuring notability. It is the quality of the coverage. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest reference is in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.38.134 (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did re-write the article just now; apparently this app won an award from Apple for its support of iOS accesibility features. Surely that is an example of pre-acquisition notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has been relisted thrice and I still don't see a clear consensus for either keep or redirect/selective merge. A renomination after some time is recommended. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 09:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Freedom of the World[edit]

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

The superficial referenciness of this article obscures the fact that there are no cited sources independent of the publishers which establish its significance. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge/redirect to Fraser Institute. Neutrality^talk 14:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to Fraser Institute. I agree with Neutrality. The article is not notable on its own, but some of the content in it should be on Fraser Institute article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ditto~~. Actually, Keep – Article has several independent sources. (I'll work to provide more.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Index is widely referenced. I see no advantage in merging as article is quite long.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming off of a Wikibreak, I did a little research. Seems the Fraser Institute is very highly ranked (2014 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report) as a think tank. In my Google Scholar search for "fraser institute freedom index" I got 78,500 hits. E.g., lots of authors are looking at the Freedom of the World index as a source. Reason enough for a clear Keep (IMO) because the listing itself is notable. – S. Rich (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is indepedntly notable, and doesn't need to be redirected or merged. L3X1 (distant write) 21:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fraser Institute; a lot of promtionalism and lack of independent notability. I was not able to find sufficient sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2017 (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. Mz7 (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InterTrader[edit]

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

No evidence that this has any notability. The refs provided show that it exists and promotes itself. Nothing here suggests notability . Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete : Found some news on Google News. But not sure about the reliability of these reference. Someone please check. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I did not find much promotional content in the article. There definitely exist a few references, but I'm not sure if they make the article notable enough. RoCo^(talk) 18:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unremarkable private company going about its business. Sources are insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The content on product launches and the like belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elana Di Troya[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NACTOR: all roles seem to be either minor or in non-notable films, beyond the one movie mentioned. Article seems promotional. bojo | talk 01:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems mainly aimed at getting us to buy the soon to be released film she stars in. I'm surprised it does not list a price for the film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Organ Grinder Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine lacking non-trivial, in-depth sourcing. reddogsix (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fun Magazine with a decent amount of subscribers. But needs more press coverage from major news sources for it to be notable. Knox490 (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Tanoose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

SPA account has created article with tenuous references. Single EP release last month detailed in Discogs as played on two albums, in last six months. Brand new but simply not notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND. In previous Afd, IP SPA account 2601:380:8100:34F:3CB0:594D:B7A9:8565, argued that he was notable. SPA account 70.124.208.204, who is probably Greg Tanoose himself, came in an argued extensively that all sources were valid. Clearly not notable. scope_creep (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search reveals pages of mentions, including sources as significant as the New York Post. A source backs up every sentence in this article, which is a very modest article about his notable productions. Each mentioned collaborator in this article acknowledges work with Greg Tanoose on their official social media accounts, there is no debate that the events took place. With each statement in this article being notable in itself, it is simply a matter of significant facts. A Google search reveals additional production work with notable hip-hop artists, which this article does not mention. This article will benefit from additional facts about this person's work, not deletion. The article is unbiased and states modest matter of fact, with each statement backed by a source. With many more sources available via a google search to back these claims, it is these facts and statements that are notable. It should be noted that Discogs does not reflect the large-scale digital and streaming notoriety. Discogs covers only physical products, which for a new artist is rare, and large-scale digital circulation of Greg Tanoose is revealed through a simple Google search. Google search also reveals significant circulation of his publishing in media, and this publishing is documented on BMI (which includes work with Universal Music). Further content in this article would reveal additional sources, it simply has not been mentioned in the article. The article cites a film on IMDB that is currently on Netflix, with Greg Tanoose credited as providing music. The article should not be deleted. Note: It is not helpful to this discussion to say "probably" of anything. I contributed to this article as a fan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.208.204 (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC) • — 70.124.208.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The above comment has been copied verbatim from the previous Afd, with slight additional detail and all of it is non notable, as it's not backed up with verifiable sources. scope_creep (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comment applies since the comment for Afd nomination was copied verbatim from the last Afd discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.208.204 (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — 70.124.208.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The argument wasn't valid then, and it isn't any more valid now. You do realize that "mentions" are not meaningful for notability assessment? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notability from newsworthy sources. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Greg Tanoose has a fan-base from his status as a new Club Kid (see article). As a budding artist, the option for a future page on Wikipedia should be left open in the event the page is built on stronger sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.208.204 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC) — 70.124.208.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Completely irrelevant. You don't get a Wikipedia article if you're a "budding artist". You must have already arrived. Even if protected against recreation, then the option for a new article is still always open in draft space (e.g. Draft:Greg Tanoose), where it will have ample time to be brought up to acceptable standards without concern about being deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG, non notable. L3X1 (distant write) 01:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly the SPAs involved in this article aren't getting the message. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not amount to passing GNG and the article is plagued by name dropping to try to show notability but not doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAI Consultants, Inc.[edit]

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

I could only find run of the mill trivial coverage of new projects that they had a part in. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only current source is their own web page. All news sources that I found were run of the mill, local news stories about business transactions, not even about what exactly they do. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- yes, please: spam. Such content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Holiday[edit]

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

There really doesn't appear to be any independent notability outside the subject's band. At best, this warrants a redirect to Born Cages. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC via the criteria of being "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Jet Lag Gemini and Born Cages both have articles, and he's been a main member of both. I actually don't think he's especially notable but by the letter of the guidelines this should remain. KaisaL (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to KaisaL (talk): Although Jet Lag Gemini has a wikipage it’s a good candidate for deletion itself. See my comments in my Delete ivote below. So if your vote is to “follow the letter” of WP guidelines because this individual—who you admit does not strike you as independently notable—is in two independently notable ensembles, then you might consider changing your keep to delete if you agree with me on the shortcomings of one of those bands. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you nominate Jet Lag Gemini for AFD and it is deleted then I'd reconsider. For now, the guidelines say this is a notable subject, guidelines that are there I'd add to prevent knee jerk deletions by people not applying the policy correctly. If one of Vlad's bands is not notable then it becomes likely he wouldn't be in his own right, but I'd need to look into it further to give a properly considered opinion. Jet Lag Gemini have an EP and an album with articles too, I'd nominate those simultaneously. KaisaL (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI'd say the other band, Jet Lag Gemini is notable enough as well to warrant this page existing. Also as a producer, worked on Now 45 (released on Capitol Records and certified gold), Donald Cumming's Out Calls Only (Razor & Tie / Sony), Public Access TV's Never Enough (Cinematic Music Group / Sony) as well as Kidz Bop 25.

Notability can not be conferred. If there are non-promotional, independent third party references ABOUT Vlad Holiday’s role as a producer (rather than tangential mentions) on these projects, then those things listed as sources would add credibility to keeping this page. His involvement on Now 45, it should be noted, was within context of his role in Born Cages (which has its own wikipage,) . The success of that particular project has nothing to do with his contribution and everything to do with the other artists on the compilation. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to Born Cages article. Not enough evidence of independently notability. Of the 28 references provided here, only two are outside of his role in that band, and they are credits lists. Same thing goes with his role as an independent producer. Also, there’s a bit of sleight of hand with the Gold Record award. Are we really expected to believe it’s because of the subject’s contribution to Born Cages’ presence on a NOW MUSIC compilation album? I suspect it’s because the other tracks are by Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, Kesha, Josh Groban, etc. Notability is not conferred by association. As for the other band, Jet Lag Gemini is of dubious notability and that article is probably worthy of an AFD nomination owing to it’s lack of good sources and a sole EP and album output, neither of which show evidence of chart placement or review coverage from significant third party sources (the references provided are the usual fluff.) Finally, it should be noted that the unsigned “Keep” argument above is from an SPA editor with a special interest in this article and the one for Born Cages. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 19:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect Plenty of mentions in press which go towards GNG. L3X1 (distant write) 22:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No policy- or guideline-backed arguments for keeping the article have been shared. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Smith[edit]

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

This author has published a couple of books that seem to have enough coverage to have their own Wikipedia articles, but the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR criteria for inclusion.

Note: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Morgan. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree subject does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Boneymau (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added additional 2017 references to show subject continues to create notable works - a 'best feature film' nomination at an international film festival and regular written article contributions to a leading trade magazine Sanseng (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Sanseng (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
You're missing the point. Exactly what criteria of WP:NAUTHOR does this author meet? Contributing to trade magazines and having a film nominated in a non-notable film festival isn't helping here. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article had 2,858 pageviews in the last year, so clearly there is significant interest in this subject.92.21.249.2 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)— 92.21.249.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
An article having pageviews isn't a valid reason for keep. I'm sure there are lots of pageviews for all kinds of non-notable or inappropriate topics, but that doesn't mean the author is notable. We need sources, of the kind that Sanseng has added, to demonstrate notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A source from IMDB and a primary source about an obscure film festival talking about itself, which Sanseng added, don't demonstrate notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NAUTHOR L3X1 (distant write) 21:49, 19 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of no-linguistic-absolutes[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a linguistic theory. PRODed as "No references, and so does not provide the views of reliable sources". PROD removed without reason given. Searches give no indication that such a theory has been proposed in scholarly sources. Mduvekot (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Google search for the term yields nothing at all, suggesting to me that it could well be made up. I've tagged it for speedy deletion on that basis. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been declined in favour of this Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm the culprit – I agree it all looks made up, but there is still some chance the article's title might be the paraphrased name of something legitimate, and and AfD is a way to gauge that. ~~No objections if this gets snow-closed~~. – Uanfala (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be original research without references. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced original research. I couldn't find a legitimate thing it might be a paraphrase of. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. The article should not be deleted. It is a boiled down translation of a theory published by RASK - Syddansk University, in Rask: Internationalt tidsskrift for sprog og kommunikation, 2000, pages 40-48. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingo999 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lingo999 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

@Lingo999: Could you provide more detail, including the author and title of the publication you mentioned? I'm not able to access the 2000 issues of Rask (their web site says "Access is denied due to invalid credentials"), and according to WorldCat there are no paper copies available at universities near me. If the journal is indexed somewhere, or if the study is available in some other format we would be better able to judge its impact and notability. Cnilep (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on I'll get the chance to have a look at a paper copy of that journal by the start of next week. – Uanfala (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even with a reference, as written the article reads like an opinion without enough information to provide a neutral point of view or a dictionary definition. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the April 2000 issue (no. 12) of RASK, and the page range given above falls within the limits of the paper "Critique of Linguistic Reason II" by Wataru Koyama. Is that the one you were referring to, Lingo999? I don't see anything relevant in the December issue. – Uanfala (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we assume that Koyama's "Critique of linguistic reason" is the incompletely-named source that the article cites, then I'm not seeing support there. For example, I don't see anything in Koyama that supports the idea of in lexicon versus per sentiunt approaches. And given that Koyama is trying to define a unified theory of synchronic and diachronic approaches, he would seem to be at odds with an argument that no unified theory can be correct. That said, I've merely skimmed Koyama, and in any case Lingo999 may have been thinking of a different article. But unless more detail is forthcoming, I'd say delete. Cnilep (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still reads like OR, and the lack of significant sourcing does not bode well. Dlohcierekim 18:54, 25 April 2017 (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. per WP:SNOWBALL. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom (MGK album)[edit]

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

This unreferenced article does not demonstrate the notability of the "Bloom" album. It does not meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is regrettable that this article was taken to a deletion discussion only a day and a half after being created. A redirect to Machine Gun Kelly discography would have been more helpful. There is also the issue that its notability is mainly in question because it is "upcoming"; that will change in only a couple of weeks. A redirect could then have been reverted, if it charted in a national chart (highly likely). MartinJones (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have added reviews to the article. I found dozens on Google. This will only increase in the coming weeks. MartinJones (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Dude has a #1 record on the album and consistently debuts in the top 5 on top of the album dropping in a month. What made you think it would be a smart idea to attempt to delete this page. BlaccCrab (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per BlaccCrab (talk · contribs) MassiveYR ♠ 21:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft space. No coverage in reliable sources as yet beyond regurgitation of a press release confirming the track listing. It may well have more in a few weeks time. but why on earth do people keep creating album articles like this way too soon? Work on it in draft space until there's something more to say about it. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added "Singles" part and some references, by the way, the album has more information to add in. We should do that instead of redirecting it to Machine Gun Kelly discography. Nguynkimsn2003 (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It features a hit song, but there are few music websites talking about the album since it hasn't been released yet. Depends on how relevant you consider Rap-Up, Rapdose and XXL. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Americo[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician and activist, with no strong reliable sourcing to properly support notability for either endeavour: there are just two references here, of which one is a WP:ROUTINE piece of local coverage in her own hometown and the other is her own self-published Bandcamp page for her album. As always, neither musicians nor activists are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they need to be sourceable over WP:GNG, but just one media source isn't enough to get her there. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: creator has since added several more sources, but none of them bolster notability at all. Some are unreliable sources (YouTube videos, "Shutter16", etc.), some are primary sources that she wrote herself, and some are Q&A interviews where she's giving soundbite on a topic other than herself and thus fails to be the subject of the source in question. None of this helps at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references given do not show notability . They are either to her own postings, or PR, or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Center for Public Policy[edit]

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

small not notable organization. The article is POV advocacy, All the ref but the NYT are purely local,and the NYT just mentions it. DGG ( talk ) 12:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The NYT mention is not worthy enough to keep this and the article does read like advocacy per NOMs statement. WP:TNT. -- Dane ^talk 01:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many good WP:RS that are significant. Fully half of the NYT story references or quotes this center and just because the papers are from the same state does not make the stories of purely local interest. This is exactly the sort of profile a public-interest research center prominent in state affairs should have. Claims of "local sources" are too often used to carve good sources out of WP:GNG in AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete besides the NY times article, the sources provided are almost exclusively from Oregon. under WP:NGO , signiifcant coverage other than local is required. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. L3X1 (distant write) 22:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. Also it is very good function for Wikipedia to serve as a reference about news/opinion sources. --do ncr am 23:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is very good function for Wikipedia to serve as a reference about news/opinion sources is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2017 (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. Mz7 (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Sutton (radio personality)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio personality and podcaster, referenced entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and Q&A interviews that cannot support notability with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, radio personalities are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; media coverage about him, written in the third person rather than featuring the subject talking about himself, are required for passage of WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 16:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the GNG.L3X1 (distant write) 22:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotionalism on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Jones (Illinois)[edit]

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

This local politician does not meet the criteria to be considered notable Mpen320 (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a non-notable local politician. AusLondonder (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Danville is not large enough that being its mayor would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, but this cites no reliable source coverage to demonstrate that he would pass the "who have received significant press coverage" condition in NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Povlsen[edit]

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

This local politician does not meet the criteria to be notable. Mpen320 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DeKalb is not large enough that being its mayor would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, but this is not referenced to the depth or breadth of reliable source coverage that it would take to get him past the "who have received significant press coverage" part of NPOL #2 — three of the four sources here are primary ones, and the only one that's actually media coverage is a routine reportage of the results on election night. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have way too many articles on non-notable mayors of small places in Illinois.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Perdun[edit]

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

This local politician does not meet the notability criteria for a Wikipedia page Mpen320 (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO. Pburka (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jerseyville is not large enough that being its mayor would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, and this is not referenced to the depth or breadth of media coverage that it would actually take to get him past the "who have received significant press coverage" part of NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2017 (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. Mz7 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 20 closure[edit]

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

Article about a one-time news event. A412 (Talk • C) 00:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - This article covers an event similar to the Interstate 85 bridge collapse which is closing down an entire highway. At a minimum, this article should be merged into Interstate 20. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the event is already covered in Interstate 20 in Georgia, and it does not warrant a stand-alone article as it won't have the lasting impact of the I-85 event. Unlike that event that has closed I-85 for months, I-20 has already been partially reopened, and repairs are expected to be completed tomorrow. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To follow up, according to local media, the highway reopened at 6:30 a.m. this morning (Tuesday). So yeah, nothing to see here other than a construction accident without any lasting impact. Imzadi 1979 → 22:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Imzadi as a news event with little lasting impact. "Pepper" @ 03:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Imzadi. Nothing like the I-85 collapse, and by next week no one will even remember this happened. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do we have a list of notable highway buckles? I'm not proposing that we create one, but if we did, that would be the place to merge. Failing that, the relevant details are already covered elsewhere, so this should be deleted per Imzadi. –Fredddie ™ 22:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a news events of minimal significance. Lepricavark (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insignificant news with no lasting effect that fails WP:NEVENT. Ajf773 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. --Rs chen 7754 04:58, 25 April 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merle LeSage[edit]

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

Merle LeSage does not meet notability requirements of a local politician. The page should be deleted. Mpen320 (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Geneseo is not large enough that being its mayor would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — but apart from one deadlink of an article in the local media about a minor public relations blunder of no enduring significance, this is otherwise parked entirely on primary sources, and offers no indication of the depth or breadth of reliable source coverage needed to get him past the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2017 (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 consensus is that there is insufficient coverage available in reliable sources to determine the notability of the subject under Wikipedia's notability guidelines, particularly the notability guidelines for politicians. Mz7 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Oremus[edit]

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

Local officeholder fails to meet threshold for notability Mpen320 (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bridgeview is not large enough that being its mayor would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, but this cites no reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG, WP:N and he is not a notable businessman.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Bridgeview had less than 15,000 people the entire time he was mayor. This is way to minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2017 (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.