Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 6 August	8 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep - Overall consensus to keep & notability's been demonstrated . (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Latino American Dawah Organization

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

The article lacks Wikipedia notability guidelines and does not cite references. LatinoMuslim 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --- LatinoMuslim 16:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to this source and this it appears to be notable. There is probably more, but I will try to start using these as references. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that notability can be demonstrated. I've added refs to article from NY Times, Christian Science Monitor, Voice of America, NBC, and Oxford University Press, and there are more out there. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2015 (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. Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond (Ray) G. Ellis

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

Non-notable politician. Ellis is an as-yet unelected candidate for the San Diego City Council. If elected, given the size of San Diego, Ellis might be notable, but as an unelected candidate, not yet. The article also reads very much like an election ad for the candidate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego is a large and internationally famous city for which we would most likely accept articles about its city councillors per
WP:NPOL #3. But the mere fact of being an unelected candidate for office does not get a person into Wikipedia — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he already got over a Wikipedia inclusion rule before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for an article until he wins the election. But this article makes no such claim, and essentially reads like a campaign brochure. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if he wins his seat next year. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:NPOL, soyrces are routine coverage of failed election campaign, expressly excluded from notability-building under NPOL Kraxler (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He currently says he is a candidate in an election that will not occur for more than a year. He has not even passed a primary, and will not be notable for this unless he wins, and even then it might not be 100% for sure. He is clearly not notable at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2015 (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. Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TiGER-M@TE

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

Fails

WP:BLP The Banner talk 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles aren't from Shadhin, but from different authors. The claim of Guinness World Record is a boast by Tiger Mate and not from a source. There are refs from some reliable sources, which partially back up claims in the article. Problem being Tiger Mate didn't actually hack the sites mentioned, only DNS servers. Hacking Google and hacking some ISP's DNS server are two different things. There are also no reliable refs that go into any detail about Tiger Mate. Bgwhite (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources mention him by name as one who "hacked" various sites, but no substantive detail about him, even as the pseudonym. Seems rather analogous to a band article having several sources that just announce a band is playing somewhere. Crow^Caw 19:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing good aside from here and here and there's not much for more here. He's mentioned at List of hackers and this would be best mentioned somewhere else but that's only linking article. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2015 (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. Randykitty (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses Route 498

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

There is nothing in the article that demonstrates its notability, and bus routes have generally been seen as inherently non-notable. Unlike a state highway, which is very tangibly fixed in place, a bus route is ephemeral and subject to re-routing, changes in frequency, or other aspects of their configuration at any time. The fact that it is listed in a navbox does not mean it needs to exist, as List of bus routes in London can contain the information present here without need for a full article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a run of the mill bus route of no outstanding interest. Fails
WP:NOTGUIDE at the least.Charles (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- A year or so ago, we undertook a mass deletion of articles on bus routes. I do not know if this one missed the cull or if it is a re-creation. Whichever it is it should go. Such articles require regular maintenance, which the bus operators will do on their own websites, but WP cannot guarantee to do. Without such maintenance articles become obsolete and thus give misleading information, which is worse than useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charles & Peter - Nothing encyclopedic about a bus service, Anyone wanting travel info should obviously visit the Operators website!. –Davey2010^Talk 17:54, 8 August 2015 (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 incubated, early close per move to draft space (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revival (Selena Gomez album)

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

Redirected twice by two different users, reverted twice by creator. Currently fails

WP:TOOSOON for an article on an album being released in two months. Azealia911 _talk 18:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:27, 7 August 2015 (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. Randykitty (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PRA2

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

I was pruning this, but it's off to AfD: non-notable musician. No record label, no hits, no coverage whatsoever except for one single interview with an apparently online DJ magazine (now a dead link) and an interview in a local paper. Please see an earlier version as well. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 17:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has valid independent press related to the artist. Apparently, this producer is quite recognized in his home country (Argentina). After doing a research, I found that he released a remix of Daft Punk for Virgin Records/EMI Music (major labesl) which has millions of streams. Although I believe the earlier version had fluff content and promotional verbiage, but that has already been removed. MWMastering (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (draft and userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Current citations are primary or promotional. Search turned up nothing of use for notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 14 August 2015 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Richmond Pharmacology

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

I started to question this organization's notability, because I noticed most of the article is about legal or political events the company commented on, and not about the company itself. I could not find any sources to verify basic facts, like its foundation date and founder. It also turns out the company's revenues are only $11.4 million[1]

When I looked at the sources currently used in the article, citation 3 looks to be a law firm's website and citation 4 is a primary source/court document. The two reliable sources (1 & 2) just mention Richmond's opposition to the HRA's proposal and are far from passing

WP:CORPDEPTH. It would be much more sensible to include the properly sourced content on the HRA page. CorporateM (Talk) 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. There was little coverage prior to the attempt to shoot down the
All Trials initiative, but quite a lot since. This is not the first time they have been involved in potentially far-reaching legal cases. Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Chester Overseas Ltd and others was also reported, as [2014] EWHC 2692, and there are others. The Highbeam search has several non-trivial sources, including a second on payment for trial involvement, which I know is not uncommon but seems to come as a shock to UK citizens. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Company is the subject of numerous reliable sources: a piece in
talk) 16:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

These sources are all about HRA's initiative and/or Richmond Pharmacology's opposition to it. I don't think it makes sense to create a company article about a trivial organization on the basis of a single event that attracted media coverage. When we do create articles about a single event, the articles are usually titled appropriately, like Richmond Pharmacology's opposition to HRA's initiative, but naturally it would make much more sense to register their opposition on the page about the initiative, rather than creating an article about the company that focuses entirely on this one issue. CorporateM (Talk) 17:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant. Involvement in something as potentially significant as this, with a judicial review against an important official body, is notable even if it were the only mention of the company, which it isn't actually. I understand the firm don't like the article, the solution is for them to propose additional content (rather than whitewashing, which is what they have tried to date). Guy (Help!) 20:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Scholar search shows the company's involvement in approaching 100 published trials. The Highbeam search and the recent news stories relating to the court case add to its notability. Clearly the ongoing case needs to be covered from a NPOV but poor editing here should not lead to deletion of a small but notable early phase CRO. Jrfw51 (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The company is probably most new-worthy for having taken the lead in opposition to overbearing regulations, but the fact that most of its activities are not ones that get great publicity does not mean that it is not notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any references to that, do you have a cite? Guy (Help!) 23:24, 13 August 2015 (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 only keep arguments are based on

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Randykitty (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Mahnama Sultan ul Faqr Lahore

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

Non-notable magazine. Didn't find any useful sources. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a google news search returned zero results. And a websearch only returned primary sources. Clearly does not meet either
WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps re-read
stand alone article

These are commercial but still intact as listed by Wikipedia’s List of magazines in Lahore Pakistan/Urdu language:

Family Magazine

–2 liner article. No content. No third-party sources

Humshehri –Hardly one complete sentence. No content. No third-party sources

Nida-i-Millat

-No third-party sources

Urdu Digest –No third-party sources

Monthly Aanchal –Fails quality standards(not written as an encyclopedic content).No third-party sources

Check Talk:Mahnama Sultan ul Faqr Lahore

Talk Jeraphine Gryphon [2] [3] [4]

WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply

]

Response: Not sure what you're referring to

other stuff exists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Response: I have only mentioned the other articles to bring to notice that only the article I created was put to deletion whereas there are other popular magazines that have articles but magazine articles from Pakistan hardly have more sources. However, Mahnama Sultan ul Faqr Lahore has listed a few references and they are sufficient for the article to exist.Markangle11 (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google search on the web shows a list of references about Mahnama Sultan ul Faqr Pubications: [5] Markangle11 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepCheck
WP:N(E). The stub article may require additional time for events to take place to allow third-party sources. But it is still an informational article. I recommend to keep it. Demington (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Demington (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

That actually seems like an argument to delete per

WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

If you really want to give a label,

WP:WORKINPROGRESS would be more suitable here.Markangle11 (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment

deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate

.

Both the editors belong to remote countries from Pakistan User:Jeraphine Gryphon (Estonia) and User:Onel5969 ~~(New York)~~ but the article belongs to the Portal:Pakistan and the editors unfortunately are ill-informed about the notability of this magazine and other magazines in Pakistan simply because it does not advertise.Markangle11 (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response - a [google search] produced what appears to be enough substantial coverage to warrant passing

WP:GNG, such as this, this, and to a lesser extent this. I believe it does go to the notability of the magazine. Demington (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Demington (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply

]

A topic having results on Google isn't the same as "substantial coverage in reliable sources"; I'm mostly just seeing blog posts and other unusable sites there. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet
WP:GNG as it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The 2 references that are presently cited in the article cannot be used for notability being a site linking to various issues of the magazine and a link to the company's website that publishes the magazine. (from another "remote country" editor) Coolabahapple (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2015 (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 keep !votes are unconvincing and not policy-based. Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan ul Faqr Publications

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

Non-notable company. I posted on the article's talk page a month ago saying that I would take it to AfD, some discussion ensued but it was almost entirely non-constructive, and the article was not improved. I looked for proof of notability and couldn't find anything; the article's author hasn't provided any additional sources either in this time. The article initially had more references but I removed them as invalid or unreliable, see article history. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I just learned that this topic has been up for AfD before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. and was deleted. But I think it would be good to let the current AfD run its course (instead of speedying). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a google news search returned zero results. And a websearch returned only primary or unreliable sources. Clearly does not meet either
WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Per above. Non-notable company—TripWire ^talk 17:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above as well, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC) - blocked sock. GermanJoe (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are already notable and reliable sources available for this article in the ‘books’ and ‘scholar’ categories listed here if you click them. It is a notable company. The references removed were infact evidences for the notability of the publication house and hence, served as reliable sources which were not primary as already explained in the talk page repeatedly. ‘The author’ did provide sources in this time but you removed them and left the article with only its primary sources. Let me list the sources again:

Open Library [6]

Marymartin [7]

Britannica [8]

ISSU [9]

SCRIBD [10]

buyurdunovels.com [11]

According to User:Jeraphine Gryphon even Britannica and Marymartin are unreliable sources even if contributions, disregarding the fact that everything published by such sites appears only after the review of experienced editor team.

Also, the article is a stub and of course requires improvement but this does not qualify the article to get deleted. Various other publication pages exist as stubs and the far less content and certainly less or no sources. It is a biased decision to even tag this article as deleted. The article was created on the 8th July 2015 and like most articles in general require time for improvement by editors so does this article.

Talk:Sultan ul Faqr Publications

Talk Jeraphine Gryphon [12] [13] [14]

The article is about a trivial publication house which is the centre and subject for many reliable sources itself. If it has not experienced an event to attract media coverage, etc. it dos not mean that the company is not notable. It's notability is that it is a known publisher itself and hence, the provider of sources.

WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply

]

All of those "sources" are useless. marymartin.com is a bookseller, a bookseller listing books to sell isn't exactly a claim to notability. The Britannica link definitely looks like user-submitted content and is therefor unreliable and unusable. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 23:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not-unreliable. Perhaps can be included in a

scholarly review. Markangle11 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I really don't think so. ""The best Sufi flavor this spring!" by Abdur the Anonymous" doesn't sound very academic to me. There's also a handy "report this contribution" button right under the post, I'm assuming it's there because Britannica itself doesn't review user submissions. (And if you go here then there's an "add your contribution" button there, this is clearly just

user-submitted content and nothing else.) And besides that, what are we even using that source for? It's a two-sentence review of a book and hardly mentions any facts we could use to talk about the publisher (if it were a reliable source). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment

deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate

.

Both the editors belong to remote countries from Pakistan User:Jeraphine Gryphon (Estonia) and User:Onel5969 ~~(New York)~~ but the article belongs to the Portal:Pakistan and the editors unfortunately are ill-informed about the notability of this publication and publication houses in Pakistan simply because it does not advertise.Markangle11 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in question adheres to
WP:N. It is one of the most known publisher in Pakistan amongst others such as Sang-e-Meel Publications. I have often come across Sultan ul Faqr Publications when researching on Sufism. Its books rank the highest when one googles Sufi related items such as [15], [16],[17], etc. Demington (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Demington (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

None of those links you offer go to notability. They show the existence of the publisher, but not their notability, since they are not about the publisher. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: @ User:Onel5969 earlier in your comment you said, "google news search] returned zero results. And a websearch returned only primary or unreliable sources". This statement misguides people.

please try this [18]. It provides a list of full results. Markangle11 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - statement was accurate, and I provided the links. To categorize it by saying it "misguides people", is inaccurate, and kinda not AGF. Your link is a websearch, and quite frankly, doesn't do much regarding proving notability. The first several pages return not a single independent reliable source which has substantial coverage of the publisher (all primary sources, tangential mentions of the company, blogs, or mirrors of the Wikipedia page, etc.). Furthermore, using the pk google with a news search, which is much more appropriate in terms of notability, provides this result, another nil factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs)

Response: google pk or international, you missed the point. The web search provides a list of sources for the magazine, not talking abut news but about the web. Markangle11 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Didn't miss the point. As both Jeraphine Gryphon have explained (or at least attempted to explain), none of those sources show the notability of the publisher. They only show the existence of the publisher. But we've both made our points, an admin will adjudicate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response:As already cited above, sources -reliable sources exist whether you consider them or not is not the question as that is for the admin to decide. However, there is credible indication of why the subject is important or significant. I have already given above at leat 5 sources which are not primary sources and are independent and reliable sources. On the other hand, if you "think" that these are not notable (who knows why) then there is a list of popular books it has published with which you may like to acknowledge yourself [19]. This fulfills the criteria for

recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes an should be kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Markangle11 (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Open Library is a booklisting site, a book being listed there doesn't mean anything. Same for booksellers like marymartin and buyurdunovels, you're just linking to listed books. And then there's the publisher's Issuu and Scribd pages, those count as primary sources. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you linking to WP:LISTPURP? This article is not a list and doesn't contain any lists. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To inform you that informational articles exist. Markangle11 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article should not be deleted. I have done some research on it and found that this publication does meet
List of Urdu language book publishing companies. Be fair and offer justice here on Wikipedia. All the web sources cited talk about Sultan ul Faqr Publications. Despite the references, the publication house is clearly known for its books all over the web as well as nationally in Pakistan. The article does not violate any Wikipedia rule. In fact, Wikipedia itself encourages publishing material relevant to the notability focusing on high-quality secondary or external sources which in this case have been cited as Britannica, Marymartin, ISSUE, etc.JugniSQ (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

"the fact that users are only going to learn about the publication from Wikipedia itself and this in itself a necessary criteria for the article to keep" -- no, it really isn't.

I already stated above why the references don't help with notability, did you read what I said? Do you have a response? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. read comment as the response. JugniSQ (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2015 (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) Kraxler (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LogSumExp

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

Lacks notability.

talk) 14:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

keep. Known, useful, referenced mathematical function. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 16:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. I'm seeing about 60 hits for this on Google scholar, from many unrelated research groups. That to me indicates that it is in general if not wide use, enough to justify an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2015 (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. Most of the discussion involved whether NFOOTY was met, however, towards the end of the discussion sourcing was produced to establish notability under the GNG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Aničić

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Previous concern is unknown as the deletion log simply says:

WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the
YO 😜 04:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Are you kidding?
first division.--ChelseaFunNumberOne (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The claim that Kazakhstan Premier League is fully pro is not supported by reliable sources. (See
WP:FPL). Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
See the reglamet of the League: 2015 Reglament of the Championship of Kazakhstan among clubs of a Premier League
Due to reglament, all coaches should have
UEFA Pro Licence
. (See page 4, line 20).

Controls by
Football Federation of Kazakhstan as an only country's professional league represented in UEFA and must comply with its rules. (See page 5 and 7)--ChelseaFunNumberOne (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
Wikimandia and ChelseaFunNumberOne's comments are erroneous, there is no consensus that any league in Kazakhastan is fully professional. The "pro" element of a UEFA coaching license has no bearing on the level of professionalism of the players in a league, it is merely a grade of coaching badge. Being a member of UEFA has no bearing on the level of professionalism in a country, Andorra and Gibraltar are members of UEFA, but no one is suggesting this makes them fully professional. If there are specific elements of the document that indicate full professionalism for any level of football in Kazakhstan, can you please present them explicitly with translation? Fenix down (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@
YO 😜 11:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
It doesn't have any criteria because each league requires specific sourcing to indicate a fully pro status. Essentially, you have to show sources that support the league as having more than just professional elements. All the clubs have to be professional to the point that they are their players sole employer. It doesn't have to be from the FA or league itself. This source, for example, is a news report that shows the English football league to be fully pro. Fenix down (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I need to find an article that states that the players in the Kaz Premier League don't have other jobs? Or that the one guy with another job is indeed, the one guy who has another job? LOL.
YO 😜 11:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Well not exactly, but you see that it isn't the sort of things that can have rigid criteria. If you think you have sources that indicate full professionalism, then please do present them
here. Each league is judged on the strength of the sources presented and consensus needs to be achieved in order for a league to be considered fully pro. It's not a perfect way of doing things, but at least it means there is a level of agreement. Fenix down (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a really weak situation - if you are going to decide notability based on this one criteria (playing in fully professional league) this should be something that has a clear definition. I don't understand how whether something as specific as "professional" or not "isn't the sort of things that can have rigid criteria." Why isn't there a definite list of full professional leagues in the world's most popular sport? The Kazakhstan Premier League obviously has tons of sources, its current season (
YO 😜 13:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
It doesn't matter whether articles on the league are well sourced in general, what matters is can you find a reliable source that indicates a fully professional status for a given competition. The reason there isn't a clearly defined list of criteria is that it's not necessary. As I showed with the link above, sources indicating a fully professional state can be found anywhere and do not necessarily conform to a given type.

Now this isn't perfect, but I think it is a very good way of judging things. Rather than having any individual set of criteria, each league is judged on it's merits and clear consensus among the community must be reached before addition on the FPL list. The notion of consensus is fundamental to enWiki. I'm sorry if it seems vague to you but not everything is clear cut when it comes to consensus and the FPL rule has been in place for about seven years now and has worked pretty well, at least well enough to the point that no one has come up with an alternative that has been deemed preferable.

To be honest though, the notion of FPL is fundamentally moot. GNG is what really counts. If a player is really that notable, then they should be able to satisfy GNG regardless of what league they play in. Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think he has basic sufficient coverage to meet GNG. His Russian article is more fleshed out. However, I am really stumped as to why the Kazakhstan Premier League would not be considered a fully pro league. The actual name of the league in Russian/Kazakh is, literally, "Professional Football League." They have a solid international roster, plenty of coverage, the president of their country attends the top matches etc. It doesn't make sense that they're a league of part-timers or low level. Their "minor league" or farm teams come from the
YO 😜 21:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
RE "His Russian article is more fleshed out" most of the Russian article is about what happened in the Summer of 2010: In June, Anicic signed a contract with
WP:FPL) and actually played one test match against Arapongas Esporte Clube, but left the team in July (before the next season started), and went back to Mostar. Kraxler (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

None of this confirms full professionalism. The name is entirely irrelevant since a league is free to call itself professional without this actually being the case. As a corollary example of this is the French fourth division, which has a fair degree professionalism despite the league being called the Championat de France Amateur. Likewise, playing in the UEFA club competitions is no guarantee of full professionalism as there are any number of confirmed semi-pro leagues, and even one amateur one that feed those competitions. While there is every indication that the league is professional to some extent, there are still no reliable sources that confirm that the league is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
YO 😜 15:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I have to disagree Fenix down's statement that there is no criteria. While its not explicitly stated it has been generally accepted that a league in which all footballers are payed a living wage and do not require a secondary source of income is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:FPL. Giant Snowman 08:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

That list states it is incomplete and, most absurdly, there is no criteria whatsoever listed. The first two references I checked out simply used the word professional. Please tell me how those leagues made the list and I will find that for the Kazakhstan Premier League aka Kazakhstan Professional League.
YO 😜 14:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Talk 13:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

keep Plays for one of the major Kazakhstan teams. Played for youth champion (2008/2009) of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Not a stellar player, but multiple coverage does exist. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This directly contradicts

WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry to butt in, but according to this, "the rules are not hard and fast. GNG is fluid by definition and trumps NSPORT". Kraxler (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there's no indication that

WP:GNG is met either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

That's your opinion, you have said it before, and repeating it many times will not make any difference. Kraxler (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um...what? Those comments where the first time I cited

WP:GNG outside the nomination. Also, if you didn't want me to answer, why "butt in"? (That's not rhetorical. I'm honestly asking). Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep It's enough for
~~WP:NSPORT, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)~~ - blocked sock. GermanJoe (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Please support this claim with reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from

WP:BADGERing the !voters, Sir Sputnik. Kraxler (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep passes
WP:GNG marginally with multiple over 15 appearances in Europe and has per this ,this ,this this and this Russian wiki Article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

All of those sources are match reports, which are routine coverage insufficient for

WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You're quite mistaken, Sir Sputnik. The first source says "Anicic signed contract with Astana" and gives a resume of his career, mentioning 10 games in qualifying matches for the Europa League and 2 games in qualiyfying matches for the Champions League, and has a picture of the player. The second source is an announcement, made a few weeks before, that Anicic is coming to Astana, and mentions also 18 games with the Bosnian youth national team, and has an image of the player. The third source says that he signed a contract with Metallurh Donetsk, in June 2010, and talks about the circumstances, and has a little image of the player. The fourth source is in-depth about Marincic's play at some game with two pictures of the player. There's not a single "match report" there, absolutely none, Sir Sputnik. That's a question of fact, not opinion. Kraxler (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I guess that's what you get for trusting your skills in a language you don't speak. That being said, my previous comment still stands. Though I mistook one sort of routine coverage for another, this is still routine coverage insufficient for

WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

What is, and what is not, routine coverage, that's a question of interpretation and judgment, so there will be differing opinions about that. We'll have to live with that. By the way, his club qualified for the European championships, they will either play in the Champions or the Europa League, it depends whether they win or lose the next game. So we will hear more of Anicic soon. Kraxler (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that it is a core issue here, Joe Decker's closing remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarlan Guliyev on leagues of unconfirmed professional standing bear repeating:

The various special notability guidelines, NFOOTY included, live in tension with our general notability guideline. When the subject notability guidelines and general notability guidelines give different results, the community tends to weight one or the other differently depending on which subject notability guideline we are considering, but both are pretty much always in play in various degree.

In this instance, NFOOTY gives a plainly ambiguous result. Having looked to the April discussion at WT:NFOOTY, I find that while there was a consensus to remove the League from the FPL, I do not see that there is a consensus about whether the league is or isn't fully-professional, it is instead simply so far unverified either way. We don't know.

I'm left with the view that any argument based on NFOOTY here is pretty weak, and I have weighted NFOOTY arguments in general here quite weakly. In addition, SNGs in general and NFOOTY in particular is usually, as a matter of textual interpretation, treated as putting the burden of proof on those wishing to show notability via the criteria, which further reduced the weight of keep arguments based on NFOOTY.

Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a lot of complaining here about
WP:FPL criteria being unfair or poorly defined - all probably true, but how does this further the discussion? We've discussed Khazakstan at length before. It always seems likely it is fully-professional, but the evidence remains elusive. All we really need is one good reference. A simple reference to what the minimum league salary is would probably do it - is this so difficult to find? Nfitz (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

It may be in Cyrillic script, and then it's really difficult, yes. "Poorly defined" is the word and, I would add, even more poorly followed by the users who established it. It seems there's no answer to a question that arose some time ago:

WP:FPL, and was deemed wanting. So why is the league listed if it doesn't count, or how many games do you need? Kraxler (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Cryllic is fine. Heck, it could be in Klingon if it's a reliable source. What's are the leagues rules about minimum salaries. Irrelevant for this player as he meets

WP:GNG - but it would be useful to stop these endless debates about players in this league. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - Meets
WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

As I pointed out above, Astana qualified for playing either in the Champions or the Europa League, we'll hear more of Anicic, much more. Kraxler (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Long established that that's only good if BOTH teams playing in the competitions are fully-professional AND listed on

WP:NFOOTBALL

irrelevant.

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

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

The result was merge to

List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters#Karen Filippelli. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Karen Filippelli

)

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

WP:NOPAGE indicates that we shouldn't have individual character pages such as this since there are no really in-depth sources analyzing this character. jps (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could merge to
List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters, probably removing the plot summary elements. There are some sources discussing the character, the question is whether there's enough in-depth coverage. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge&Redirect to
YO 😜 10:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually she was in 26 episodes. Beach drifter (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I see that there are 27 stand alone articles for characters from the US Office. Beach drifter (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant character. Can improve the coverage Coderzombie (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

significant is not always the same as notable. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Talk 13:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge to
plot summary, and the remaining 2% looks to be based off of sources that are about either Rashida Jones or The Office, rather than the in-depth coverage that would support a separate article. Fictional characters need to have real world notability, but the article doesn't assert that this character does. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2015 (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. The !voters disagree about what to make of the sources. And there was not much input here. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canchupati Venkatrao Venkaswami Rao

)

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

No real claim of notability. Inadequately sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep we do have evidence that he has been the subject of 2 books (although I am not sure how independent/closely connected the authors/publishers of those books are to his "following"). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Book review: Life story of a Yoga master". The Hindu. Retrieved 16 July 2015.
- Callahan, Daren (2007-06-18). Yoga: An Annotated Bibliography of Works in English, 1981-2005. McFarland. pp. 232–.
  ISBN 9781476607023
  . Retrieved 16 July 2015.

Delete. No evidence of notability. The first source found by TRPoD sounds sceptical: "The book abounds with similar super-natural anecdotes like reviving dead people through Prana supply treatment. Naturally, people with faith or experience alone believe in such celestial dispensations." I have failed to find any mention of him in the second. Maproom (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- the second reference is under his nickname "Master CVV" (which seems to be the most common name he is referred by) on page 232 in the entry 1690 by Vedavyas, E the book called The 'Electric Yoga' of Master CVV . and yes the claims of Master CVV are quite astounding, but
  some people become notable because of the ridiculousness of their claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Talk 13:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep for now as sure the sourcing may not be excellent but the current sources at least support the article and a Books search found a few more here and hopefully in time sourcing will be become better. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 13 August 2015 (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. Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ornithologists and their proper name contributions

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

First, this is arguably of interest to some people (just as a list of things owned by Elvis is of interest to some people), but essentially trivia and difficult to ever complete, and fails

taxonomic synonyms, genus names, and other named ranks). --Animalparty! (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This info should be on the individuals' pages, and I don't see much point in reproducing it in lots of little tables here. If this page was converted into a list of ornithologists who have named taxa, with links to their articles, that might merit a keep (although is that information elsewhere?). I'm reluctant to argue delete if there's a reasonable possibility of transforming the page into something useful (
WP:AfD says a page shouldn't even be nominated if that possibility exists). But as it stands, there's only the germ of an useful page here. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Talk 13:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. I'm going to have to agree with Animalparty here. This just isn't the way this information is organized anywhere else. Obviously, our articles about various taxa indicate their naming authority, and our articles about the taxonomists ought to mention at least a few of the important taxa they authored. I can't quite justify calling this a "trivial intersection", because that isn't exactly why this isn't ever done this way. But it isn't, and I think one way or another, this fails
WP:LISTN. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Unfortunately, since its such a well laid-out article. There is a List of ornithologists, and the added information in this list is more appropriate in the individual articles of the ornithologists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 14 August 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Bobby B

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

I couldn't establish that he meets

WP:APPNOTE to Fourthords. This has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as my searches found no good sources to suggest improvement and notability with the best results including this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

^Talk 13:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Unfortunately. I thought that a DJ like this would have more notability. The article is completely un-referenced, and a google news search returns very limited hits, and not a single one of any substantial coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 7 August 2015 (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

non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Retractable screen

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

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

I couldn't establish that this meets
WP:NOTABILITY. I could find sources to show it exists, but not that it is notable, and this is not a dictionary. Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to window screen; sounds like a topic that deserves a mention in that article, but not its own article due to a lack of significance or even content to write about. I'd propose a merge, but the article is unsourced. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
^Talk 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to window screen; add brief description to window screen article and to screen door explaining that retractable screens may be installed on screen doors, citing sources such as this 2005 source and this 2003 source. --Djembayz (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2015 (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) Kraxler (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Football Stadia Improvement Fund

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

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

PROD contested, no reason given. This fails
WP:ORG; the organisation itself has not been subject to significant coverage, passing mentions in news articles is not sufficient. Giant Snowman 12:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator put this on the talk page of this AfD rather than the AfD itself, for the sake of completeness I copy it here without implying support or otherwise: "The fund has helped a lot of lower level English clubs to develop their facilities and has been mentioned in other Wikipedia entries so surely there should be reference to this on Wikipedia so when it's read about in articles the basic information about the organization is available?" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG relevant phrase seems to be "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." General coverage of the topic appears to be more than trivial from my understanding of the sources. Most indicate the topic briefly but not trivially in reference to the actions taken by FSIF in support of improvement projects for the football community. This general trend leads me to put more emphasis on the last part of the statement from WP:GNG with regard to need not be the main topic. A strong specific case of non-triviality occurred in 2011 when actions taken by FSIF played a notable role in a public controversy involving Supporters Direct. According to at least one source, the public "disciplinary" actions of the FSIF threatened the existence of Supporters Direct after they withdrew a sizable grant in response to tweets made by SD leadership. While not yet incorporated into the article content, this seems like more than a trivial mention of FSIF and its notability within the football community. --N8 19:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It seems to me that a fund that has made grants of £50M, even over 50 years, is probably notable. Some football clubs, despite their success are denied promotion to becasue their ground is not of the standard required for the higher league. This fund provides a way out of that bind. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@
general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources - so where is that? Giant Snowman 08:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

How do you define significant coverage? If it's not mentioned on a mainstream news channel or a website used by a large amount of people then it's surely not significant? Based on that I'm sure 90% of Wikipedia need removing? There are links on the page to what has been found but based on the following "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or casting a !vote based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." it should stand as an article, so the work done by this group can be added as found and future references as the happen? Robcolbie (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Talk 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Agree with the comments above about significant coverage. The organisation does one fairly basic thing - i.e. give money away to clubs to improve their grounds - this isn't something that needs a 1,000-word newspaper article to explain, so when its purpose is mentioned, I think this is probably enough. Certainly looking at Google News hits, the work of the organisation gets a lot of coverage in the media. Number 5 7 05:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree that this organization does not meet the standard of "significant coverage", I think the over-riding guideline in this instance should be
WP:BASIC, which states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The coverage of this organization (as shown by a search on News and Highbeam), while not substantial, is certainly not trivial. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 14 August 2015 (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. There seems to be rough consensus that the article as it currently stands fails CORP. Once created, a redirect to Graphical password is justified with perhaps a brief mention of this technology there. Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passmap

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

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

Promotional article for non-notable technology from defunct startup. No references at all covering the core topic of the article, no evidence the technology ever was in any way notable. Article created by
WP:GNG. Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 10:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Significant coverage in several academic papers -> http://ijisme.org/attachments/File/v1i5/E0222041513.pdf, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2414513, http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.1962 and I am sure there are more. Sadads (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of these citations has anything to do with this company or their specific technology. Merely typing a word into a search engine and counting how many hits it returns, without showing that they are actually relevant, shows nothing - per
WP:GOOGLETEST. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding sufficient sources to pass
Draft:Graphical password. It's pretty rough now, but there are tons of sources available and we only have a redirect to password currently. I don't have more time to work on it right now, but it's possible Passmap will merit a brief mention there, in which case a redirect would be justified. Until then, though, I'd have to go with delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

For those so inclined to check it out, note the several as-yet-unused sources hidden in an html comment at
Draft:Graphical password. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and prune per the sources listed by
Draft:Graphical password. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
^Talk 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and prune. Article can coexist with a graphical password article. I copy edited first sentence of this article to mention term "graphical password", ready to link. Rest of article, especially headings, is unencyclopedic writing and needs to be pruned. Prhartcom (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The relisting shows a strong Keep. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqulyn Longacre

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

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

WP:GNG, but not even one of the sources here does that. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As per nominator. My news sweeps did not find sources to satisfy the
WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep While not a national figure, she was quite prominent in Oklahoma. Was nominated to Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame and this year a play was produced honoring her and other women who made significant contributions. I reworked the piece, adding several outside sources. Her field, reproduction and women's health, was not likely to have been even discussed in public through most of her career. That there are news articles and a book acknowledgement and a hall of fame nomination speaks to her notability. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if you might (1) cut all the non-references as per
WP:RS -- I click on links and I don't find the search term 'longacre' (2) cut unreferenced verbiage (3) add more reliable references, and I'll consider changing my vote.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not remotely sure that I understand what you are asking. Are you asking me to rewrite the whole article? I didn't write the article, but per deleted articles, before one votes one is supposed to attempt to verify notability and find sourcing. I did that and reworked the entire career section. If you do not like what I wrote, or want to change it, feel free, that is what Wikipedia is about, anyone can edit. I do not understand what you mean by don't find the term "longacre" in the sources I added. I get if you cannot access them because I am not in the US, but you didn't say you cannot open them. However: Other women featured in the production ...Jacqulyn Longacre", Jacqulyn Longacre, a lifelong advocate for women's issues and rural health programs, gratitude to the staff of RHS especially Jackie Longacre, "Longacre, Jackie.. Born in Robeline, Louisiana, she grew up around Wewoka, Oklahoma.. She founded Rural Health Projects, Inc.", Jackie Longacre director of the Northeast Oklahoma Area Health Education Center", Jackie Longacre director of the agency, Jackie Longacre, director of the Northwest Oklahoma Area Health Education Center, Jacqulyn Longacre 1993 Inductee Every single source cited here has a direct reference to her. The other 2 links I added tell when RHP started and what Perinatal Coalition was. Based on my analysis I find she is notable.SusunW (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all of those links fail our sourcing rules in one of two ways. Every last one of them either (a) namechecks her existence, but fails to be about her (a person does not, for example, get a Wikipedia article just for being thanked in the acknowledgements section of a book), or (b) doesn't count as a
reliable source at all (the "archive-edu-2012.com" link, for example, comes up as a dead link, so I can't even verify what it is.) Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bearcat: GNG states that articles about people "need not be the main topic of the source material ..." Each one of the articles from NewsOK talks with her in depth about the programs the organization she is directing. The book is about the RHP which Longacre founded. As for notability, it states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Multiple sources confirm not only that she was working in health services for women and rural families, but that she was considered a key figure long after her retirement. If I can find these sources from outside the country and on-line, then there are surely sources which exist to confirm it there. SusunW (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, she doesn't have to be the main subject of every single citation in an article — I didn't say otherwise. But she does have to be more than just glancingly namechecked in at least some of them. GNG does not confer notability based on the mere existence of text matches on a person's name; it confers notability based on the substantiveness of the coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Exactly my point. She ran reproductive health programs in Oklahoma between 1969 and 1996. It is a very conservative state and she was not likely to have been front page news. In fact, one of the articles clearly shows that there was considerable conflict about the programs she ran for teenagers and gave her defense of those programs. That the state chose to honor someone who did the kind of work she did is notable. That there are "any" articles to prove that they honored her is even more remarkable. The articles in question do not just mention her name, they credit her and the programs she directed with improving health for women and rural communities. Multiple mentions (regardless of whether they are a single line or not) in multiple sources saying the same thing over time confirm her contributions and that her state thought her contributions were valuable. SusunW (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Weak keep based on references above. Still, article should be severely trimmed, such that only referenced sentences should stay. My two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Talk 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There is obvious notability here. Questioning sections of the article is unrelated to whether it should be deleted or not. --
CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep (I came to this from another discussion. If that is canvassing I am shocked, shocked!) There are plenty of independent sources in the article or noted above to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inclusion in the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame suggests at least a degree of notability, as it is meant to honor "Oklahoma women who serve as pioneers in their fields, made significant contributions to the State of Oklahoma, or have championed other women, women’s issues, or served as public policy advocates for the issues important to women." But the oral history interview clinches it for me as it includes a page-length biography of Longacre in addition to the 30+ page interview. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 06:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame inclusion. If Oklahoma is about the same size as Cambodia or close to twice the size of Portugal, her notability should be accepted at face value. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on the basis of surface area is new to me. Portugal has more than twice as many people, and their hall of fame includes people like Cristiano Ronaldo. Oklahoma has nobody like that. But I hasten to say I have nothing against Okies. Vasco da Gama, much less important than Ronaldo based on word count, still... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Aymatth2 Hmph --Just off the top of my head: Jim Thorpe, Johnny Bench, Shannon Miller, John Ross (Cherokee chief), Will Rogers, by choice Nadia Comăneci all who I'd venture to say are more famous with a much longer legacy than that footballer who I never even heard of. :) SusunW (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Per Susun and Rosie.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SusunW's sourcing. Bearcat's source analysis is wrong; he's equating depth of coverage with length of it. Crediting the subject with state-wide health care improvements is depth, even if it's done concisely. I don't see the quasi-word "namecheck" in any policies or guidelines (the WP:Namechecking essay is about adding redlinks to lists). There's also the bio and long, published interview. It's almost certainly a quixotic exercise to nominate for deletion someone who was honored with a US-state-level hall of fame induction. I mean really. Do you think they did that because she had a nice haircut? Such honors are based on a lifetime of notable work. It's a misuse of AFD process to try to bend it toward general article improvement; that's what article talk pages are for. It would have been more constructive to use inline cleanup templates for specific issues in the article, and the {{Notability}} tag one if you thought the notability of the subject was questionable. It obviously was not the case that the subject was clearly not notable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:24, 12 August 2015 (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. Reverting previous close (pushed the wrong button)... Close rationale remains unchanged: The two sources highlighted by Luckynumber78 are too brief to qualify under GNG. Randykitty (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers of eXtreme Illusions

Avengers of eXtreme Illusions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a web series whose only substantive claim of
reliable sourcing that it takes to get web content covered on Wikipedia. Basically written like an advertisement, which is not the kind of article that any topic gets to have. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1st source is YouTube, 2nd source does not say the series is "popular", 3rd source is probably a primary source (AXI appears to have a web-channel on the site), 4th source is a blog, 7th source is a blog (wordpress site) and does not say that Diane Sawyer called AXI "legendary", 8th source does not say AXI episode "was well-received for being a timely gay-interest adaptation of a Bible story". I agree the article is written like an advert. The sad thing is source 5 is also written like an advert for AXI. Additionally, source 6 is about the director Shawn Welling rather than about the series, and because it's so short it doesn't prove anything more than the fact that the AXI series exist. As a result, the article doesn't have any good sources or significant coverage. 37.188.122.55 (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article may have some sloppy sources, but the Dance Spirit magazine (source 5) is a notable publication, as is World of Dance (source 3). The notability of the series is sufficiently proven for this kind of short series overview page. --Luckynumber78 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
^Talk 13:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom. Searches on News, Newspapers and Highbeam returned zero results. The fact that this has existed for 5 years and has such little coverage seems to be the biggest argument against notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 14 August 2015 (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. Randykitty (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitest Group

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

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

Contested PROD. I could not find any sources to support notability. The ones in the article are mostly primary or are not
WP:RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete. Some passing mentions, like this dutch article that says Qualitest is one of the largest test companies in the international ICT market. But unable to find any significant, indy references to show company notability. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I worked to update the page with more "reputable" references - I do believe that analyst firms like Gartner would be considered reputable, right? As a third party who has used qualitest in the past, i believe that qualitest has some unique contribution to provide to the market, and as such, i worked to display that. - contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewissall1 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the Wikipedia guidelines for references should be reviewed. Even though QualiTest is not mentioned on "google news" or "books", that doesn't mean that QualiTest is not mentioned by reputable sources, such as Gartner, Forrester, Ovum, and other reputable market leaders of technology research firms. Just the fact of being worthy of mention by these sources implies that they are relevant to have a page on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewissall1 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Lewissall1: You made your statement here already. You can't add a second keep. Sorry.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing to suggest better improvement and notability with the best results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only source listed that would be viable for Notability is Gartner (although thats a stretch based on my experience of how as a tech company you can get in their reviews). There are no others I can find, they mostly seem to be PR generated. So fails
WP:GNG Paul Bradbury 14:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Talk 13:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Tyseley Locomotive Works. Seems the outcome most likely to be agreeable to most contributors here. Sandstein 14:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyseley Car Company

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

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

I searched at News, Books, browser, Newspapers Archive, highbeam and thefreelibrary and was unable to find many good sources aside from this (one of the best results seems to be the "World's Carriers and Carrying Trades' Review" but it's not fully available). Given it was a short-lived company, that could explain the low amount of sources and not to mention (maybe some offline and archived sources) and I would think it's best to mention this elsewhere (maybe aside from List of car manufacturers of the United Kingdom), not there's not much anyway. It's interesting to note this article was started by an IP (when that could still happen) but has received very minor edits and, unless archived sources are found, I'm not seeing any possible improvment (that's probably why no one has edited it). SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plus no indication of significance. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of significance. ~Euphoria42 05:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - To a point I hate !voting delete on articles like this but unfortunately there is no notability on this company at all so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 03:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. It's mentioned in The New encyclopedia of motorcars, 1885 to the present (1982 edition). Although World's Carriers and Carrying Trades' Review is in search results, that's probably only because Garner Motors, the subject of coverage there, was based in Tyseley. Peter James (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peter James. That the company was covered in another encyclopedia strongly indicates that it is notable. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a short section in Tyseley Locomotive Works. It is unfortunate that that article jumps straight from 1908 to 1968, so that the merged section will not sit comfortably in the target, but that should be handled by tagging the target as incomplete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Talk 13:30, 7 August 2015 (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. Sandstein 14:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor IT Process Assessment

Tudor IT Process Assessment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails
WP:GNG. Sources are primary or do not mention TIPA. Spam. Widefox; talk 08:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an unimportant and obsolete-from-the-day-it-was-spawned process methodology. Yet another one with too much big government procurement involved in it and decades behind the curve of real IT management. It's make-work for dull people in cheap suits. Also delete because it's Luxembourg, and if it's not US or UK, en:WP sees it as inherently insignificant.

OTOH, I see no policy-based reason to delete this. There's plenty of sourcing out there, especially if you read French IT procurement policy documents. Martin Fowler protect us. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
^Talk 13:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranil Wijegunawardena

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

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

Article hasn't established the subjects notability - doesn't comply with
WP:CREATIVE. Dan arndt (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Had already put a notability tag on it myself. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, subject is CEO/MD of Sri Lanka's oldest ship building company. Article will be further improved.
WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply
]

Comment - just being the MD of a company does not make him notable. There is no evidence that he has achieved anyhting notable at the company or that he has been involved in any notable events. Dan arndt (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
^Talk 13:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nominator and
WP:GNG -- Chamith (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redirect to Colombo Dockyard as my searches found nothing outstandingly good aside from here and here. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As SwisterTwister pointed out, nothing to show notability in searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 15 August 2015 (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. As with the other articles--promotion, and not notable; Had I seen this earlier I';d have used speedy, but it isn't needed now. Material of this sort should be deleted as soon as encountered DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IFC Markets

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

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

Notability. On a closer look most of the sources are press releases, announcements and Certificate listings. Sources like the "review" from investing.com are not neutral (bordering blatant advertising). The article is also connected to a set of other SPA articles (GeWorko and Personal Composite Instrument), which will need a closer look later. GermanJoe (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm more inclined to delete as the listed sources aren't as good as they could be and my searches found nothing better. If anyone else finds any, maybe but it's probably best to delete and draft/userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I have found a couple of other sources and updated them, also removed some of them. LevonAv 12:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Talk 13:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The sources primarily link back directly to IFC itself, either on its site or as press releases. Some reference software created by the company. This is an investment company founded in the British Virgin Islands whose "principle analyst," Sergey Kamenshchikov, is also the person who created the WP articles on GeWorko and Personal Composite Instrument, which are essentially COI advertisements for the IFC products. The ones by the BVI finance department are simply lists of registered companies. LaMona (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2015 (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. Non-notable, and purely promotional. Speedy would have been appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GeWorko

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

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

Notability. Only sources are a pedia entry, 1 press release and a blog entry. SPA created article, connected with Personal Composite Instrument and IFC Markets, all promoting the same new invention. Even assuming this is a viable financial instrument, the article would need 3rd party sources for notability and verification. Content is mostly redundant with the PCI article. No significant coverage found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No extensive coverage. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
^Talk 13:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Note that previous versions of this article named "GeWorko Method" were speedy deleted twice before, created by the same account. See: User_talk:Sergey_Kamenshchikov (I don't know if it is possible to link to the actual deleted articles.) I suspect COI, but in any case that doesn't matter because there are no reliable sources for this topic that I can find. There is one brokerage house, but I have no idea if it is linked to Geworko: [23]. All of the other information I find is on sites run by Geworko. I got zero hits in WSJ, Financial Times and NYT. Most Google hits come from PR Web. LaMona (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Leo Klink

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

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

Non-notable person. Klink is a business person of no particular note and an actor with a small number of unnamed (and often uncredited) roles. He has appeared in the news largely because of an event involving his wife at his son's football game. The rest of the coverage provided appears to be of the "local gossip" variety. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although the article is neat and sourced, there's not much here with my searches here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
^Talk 13:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I've not seen so many sources together to show (spammed) someone's philanthropy. Doesn't show importance and reads kinda pressy.Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is about as marginally
notable a living person as I've ever seen, but I'm not sure either way, though. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Sullivan (musician)

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

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

Total non-notability. Speedy declined on the basis that there is a claim of notability: Imo playing for a geriatric Peter Noone is an admission of desparation to pay the rent rather than a claim to notability. And being a sideman for the Gary Lewis is little better. I coud PROD this as an unsouced BLP, incidentally. TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 15:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as not notable at all. Kierzek (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
^Talk 13:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete being in a band does not give a person notability, especially when the current incarnation of the band is not clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I gather, he's only a touring musician for other bands. Lacks importance. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches resulted in zero hits on News and Highbeam. He exists. He plays. He is not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 15 August 2015 (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. Can be restored if somebody unaffiliated with the company wants to do the merger work. Sandstein 15:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singtel CIS (Corporate Individual Scheme)

Singtel CIS (Corporate Individual Scheme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional, non notable product.
has been speedy deleted and recreated, redirected and unredirected multiple times, mostly by a
WP:COI. Needs to get taken care of more permanently. delete and saltGaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional article with little encyclopedic value.--Lionratz (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Per nom + all primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 17:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Talk 13:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Is there any reason why the content could not just simply be merged to
csd new 09:08, 12 August 2015 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Barrelle

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

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

not notable. poor article, vanity piece, not a single reference or reason to be on wikipedia Rayman60 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete could be an AUTOBIO. And clearly fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Orderinchaos 12:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
^Talk 13:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: from my searches, I couldn't find anything that amounts to
significant coverage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There seems to be nothing in this article that establishes that the subject passes
WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Icon Collective

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

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

I'm four pages deep into Google and cannot find any serious mention of Icon Collective other than "so-and-so graduated from Icon Collective" or "they hope to attend." It definitely exists, but seemingly only as a resume-builder for DJs. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to argue to keep the article included. Icon Collective has been covered by big media outlets in the industry such as YourEDM, insomniac and Nest HQ. Each of these outlets are national and have readership in the thousands. The alumni are mentioned often in press, but for a private music school, a lot of the academic achievements are reflected in the careers of the alumni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahBhorntus (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No extensive coverage, therefore non-notable per WP:GNG; this is not even considering the advertorial nature of the article itself, which seeks to promote the place. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Talk 13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This kind of school definitely needs reliable 3rd party sources to even hint at being notable. Fails
WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now (draft and userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing particularly good. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No substantial coverage to show it meets
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greenville County Youth Orchestra

Greenville County Youth Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BAND. A small local youth orchestra. Created by a single purpose editor so suspected promotional article. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article states "For more information on audition requirements and applying for a seat in the orchestra, click here". That sentence betrays two matters. First, the orchestra is so insignificant that it is forced to have recourse to Wikipedia to procure its members. Second, the orchestra or someone affiliated is abusing Wikipedia to conduct that procurement. The article should be deleted. Syek88 (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
^Talk 13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non notable youth orchestra. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Aside from the promotional feel of the article (which could be edited out), searches turned up nothing to help establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:04, 14 August 2015 (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.

(
non-admin closure)The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by the nominator. -- Chamith (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sarath Ranawaka

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

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

Obviously doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Did a google search, and couldn't find any reliable sources. Accuracy of the article is also disputed as there are no available sources to verify that he is a member of the parliament. Chamith (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator - After doing some research on my own I realized that, like Quasihuman said, the subject meets
WP:NPOL. Withdrawing the nominations as I was hasty with this AFD nomination.-- Chamith (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment he is on the parliament's list of past members [24][25]. Thus he would most likely meet
WP:BEFORE checks done here, as the list above was found on the first page of the google results for 'former members of Sri Lankan Parliament'. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur "Artie" DeMello

Arthur "Artie" DeMello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced self-promotion ("references" are self-published). A search for independent, reliable coverage revealed only a few passing mentions. GermanJoe (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Classic
WP:COI, with User talk:Ademello59 being the obvious SPA/creator (his sole Wikipedia activity on an April day in 2011). This has been citation tagged for several years without improvement in the slightest, and there's no evidence this fellow passes the GNG. Reads like it's off the fellow's brochure. Ravenswing 16:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless appropriate evidence is provided. Way too much unreferenced information and no indication of notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like all the others, it should be deleted
WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Klein

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

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

Probably non-notable politician. A failed Senate nomination candidacy (described as "far behind" in the few sources I could find). Article makes no specific claim of notability. Only passing mentions (candidacy related and as speaker on some events), but no in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was trounced in the nomination process. Those who get major party nominations for US senate might be notable, but those who do not get them clearly are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other three candidates mentioned as in the Democratic primary had all held other elected offices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not get to keep an article whose only substantive claim of notability is that he was an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already notable enough for an article before he became a candidate, then the fact of being a candidate for office does not get him into Wikipedia. Even the person who wins the party's nomination still has to win the big enchilada and thereby hold a notable office, or already be notable for other reasons, rather than getting into Wikipedia just on the candidacy itself. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet
WP:POLITICIAN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 14 August 2015 (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- creator has been blocked and all their creations deleted. Procedural NAC. Reyk _YO! 07:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware (2015 TV series)

Hardware (2015 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Cannot find any source with the TV series, no mention on any of the actor/actress page. I believe it is a hoax. (Hoax tag was placed, but removed) Cahk (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not on any site I've found, and the incoherent writing, a bunch of actors and behind the scenes people already committed to other series and a 'never will happen' suggested merger of Fox and ION into ABC Family suggests a fantasy TV vandal trying to pass this on here. chatter) 08:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. No such show is on Fox's 2015-2016 schedule or mentioned accordingly. LionMans Account (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2015 (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. G4, the prior AfD consensus holds good. —SpacemanSpiff 19:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esha Tewari Pande

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Esha Tewari Pande

Articles for deletion/Esha Tewari Pande (2nd nomination)

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

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

This is article is back again with nonsense written from a unknown IP. All of sources are self written, some of them are not notable and some are general press releases. Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 05:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:24, 7 August 2015 (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. Wizardman 13:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uri Geva

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

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

Person appears to run a collegiate baseball league and a web design company, neither of which would meet
WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY (not that there's anything wrong with that). LionMans Account (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of :Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Person is a pillar of the Bryan - College Station community. He speaks often at Texas A&M University, helps students, employs many people, and at one point was running the Texas Collegiate League. He has won several awards and has been published.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎66.215.95.4 (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2015)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet GNG
YO 😜 04:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP - seems like there is a ton of information about this person and all his activities and influence in Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.67.82.202 (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - he's an important person in the community — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.95.4 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete certainly important for his community, but not notable for a stand-alone article in Wikipedia's sense of the term. Would need more in-depth coverage specifically about himself. A lot of the content describes successes of his team or developments in the league, which should be covered in the appropriate articles about those topics. Of course details about Geva can also be mentioned in context within those articles. GermanJoe (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2015 (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 Diffuse sky radiation. This page seems to be the main page on the topic. (non-admin closure) -- Orduin ^Discuss 01:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the sky blue?

Why is the sky blue? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Wikipedia is not a QA site. The term is already covered by Blue Sky. GZWDer (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Blue Sky#Science. Doesn't meet guidelines for a dab. Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Sky#Science or make an article about the question. I agree that WP is not a Q&A site. I agree that there's not a compelling reason to keep what we have. It's important that people entering one of the most popular questions in our search box get their answer. That it is among the most popular questions suggests that we might want to cover it as a popular question. Here are a couple of places to start with that: [26] [27] -- ke4roh (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: this article was originally created as a redirect to Rayleigh scattering. It's a frequently asked question, so restoring the redirect seems like a useful outcome. However, Blue_Sky#Science doesn't appear beneficial as a target. My preference is Diffuse sky radiation, the main article for Rayleigh scattering#Reason for the blue color of the sky. Praemonitus (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diffuse sky radiation which answers the question in an easily understood manner. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is an easy answer. Where to is up to the closing admin. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. A redirect to Rayleigh scattering would be fine, but nobody can argue that the question isn't notable in its own right, and this isn't really a deletion discussion, but a discussion about what redirect target to use. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Why%20is%20the%20sky%20blue%3F indicates there's value in keeping this, but it should not be a disambiguation page in and of itself because it's not the point of
WP:NOT#HOWTO. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.
WP:CSD#G7. Jenks24 (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Dj Seeger

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

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

Article about a non-notable candidate for minor public office. Fails
WP:COI. Jersey92 (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Article's Talk Page: Talk:Dj_Seeger --Jersey92 (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Professional Basketball League

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Global Professional Basketball League

Articles for deletion/Global Professional Basketball League (2nd nomination)

Global Professional Basketball League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Proposed basketball league that never played a game. The same issues exist today that existed when the article was last put to AfD. LionMans Account (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're two teams also in this league:

Lancaster Liberty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

North Jersey Runnin' Regulators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LionMans Account (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. They fail GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fails
WP:ROUTINE coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all per nom and following rationale. Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fails GG and ORG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nom and above editors. Search resulted in a single brief mention in an article from 2010. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 15 August 2015 (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. Not notable and promotional. The Reuters material is press releases, and so marked. I urger that Speedy G11 be used for articles of this nature. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Composite Instrument

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

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

Notability. Only sources are a pedia entry, 2 press releases and a blog entry. SPA created article, connected with GeWorko and IFC Markets, all promoting the same new invention. Even assuming this is a viable financial instrument, the article would need 3rd party sources for notability and verification. No significant coverage found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We seem to have both a
wp:COI situation, as well as possible sock or meat-puppets. Three accounts have been co-editing the same three articles, at least one of which has been speedy deleted twice in the past. As for this article, the only RS (Reuters) is a press release, not a Reuters article. I'll work on the COI notification. LaMona (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hangsen

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

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

E-cig company. Unsourced since 2012. Standard searches were unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, indy sources. Many press releases and blogs/reviews of the company products, but nothing to pass the notability threshold yet. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promo advert of non-notable company, no in-depth coverage found in web searches, only ref in the article is the subject's own website Kraxler (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't ascertain the notability of the company, search resulted in only brief mentions or PR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 15 August 2015 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sarah Knox Taylor

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

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

Contested PROD with the rationale "She is notable in United States history". However, I see nothing in the article or any outside references that demonstrates this. Notability is not inherited, and she isn't noted for anything other than her family affiliations, which is not enough by itself to warrant a separate article per WP:BIOFAMILY and WP:INVALIDBIO. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The daughter of a future president of the United States marries the future president of the Confederacy. That's a pretty fascinating intersection, and add to that a look at a time gone by when it wasn't safe to travel around the country in the summer for fear of disease. She's described in a number of books per this search. There is real historical value here (I either never knew, or had forgotten about, her until running across this) and Wikipedia is a better place for this article being present. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that being a POTUS's daughter doesn't by itself make one notable, and neither does being the wife of a President of the Confederacy. Per WP:INVALIDBIO, "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A". Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wasted Time R. Omnedon (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my above response; fails WP:Notability (people) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The sheer number of references mentioning her is moot when she fails WP:BIO Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wasted Time R-thank you-RFD (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted's rationale is flawed though as indicated in WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wasted Time R. She is a subject of much grade school trivia, due to the nature of her marriage and her father. Nothing hurts to keep this article. Spartan7W § 13:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Shakes head in disappointment) "Nothing hurts to keep this article"..... see WP:Notability (people) for why this shouldn't have an entry. Being part of "grade school trivia" is insignificant, given that it is after all trivial information. Wasted Time R's rationale is wrong since one does not become notable solely because of family affiliations. Not sure why that's being overlooked and/or disregarded. One needs to be noted for more than just family affiliations to warrant a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly meets the
WP:GNG with reliable sources such as this one and this one so I have trouble understanding any rationale for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Or consider this 1941 Louisiana travel book, which tells the story of Sarah Knox Taylor and then describes how her grave and the cemetery it was in were restored in what became the Locust Grove State Historic Site. Her story is historically compelling and has been for a long time. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Her story is historically compelling" and being buried in a historic site by themselves are meaningless in regards to WP:BIO and per WP:INTERESTING. Per the "Invalid criteria" and "Family" sections of this page, she fails notability criteria for biographies since she isn't noted for anything on her own that doesn't have to do with family affiliations. WP:BIO requirements are more nuanced than simply "is covered in reliable sources", and WP:BIO is the relevant notability criteria for biographies. It exists for a reason, so it should be applied here. The sheer number of references discussing her in this case are entirely moot because she's only noted for family connections. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretations.
WP:BIOFAMILY says "Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable" – but these books and other sources talking about Sarah Knox Taylor are doing more than just mentioning her in passing. And sometimes you have to use a little common sense. This article has been in WP since mid-2004, which is pretty early on, and you're the first person who's tried to delete it. From looking at some samples on the stats page it gets about 20,000 views a year. That's over 200,000 people who have benefited from reading and learning about this historically valuable story. That's the promise of WP being delivered, not a fault to be corrected. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

If anything, "common sense" would say not to have an article on people only known as someone's family member; WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". View count and amount of time article has existed also do not by themselves indicate notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wasted Time R; the Wikipedia Community needs to pay attention to what the readers are reading and would like to see included in Wikipedia. I agree with Wasted Time R that we need to use common sense. We need to pay attention to the readers of Wikipedia. Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close The nominator's arguments would be valid if the article's subject had drifted into obscurity as the wife of a long-forgotten whomever. But her marriage to Jefferson Davis makes her unique as the only woman in U.S. history whose father and husband would become heads of state. Furthermore, the subject has been the subject of considerable scholarly research, which more than satisfies
bolder members of the Wikipedia family to consider closing it earlier. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

This isn't exactly a "speedy keep"; notability is not inherited, and being related to political famous figures does not by itself make one notable per WP:BIOFAMILY. Your reasoning is therefore flawed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transbay

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

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

WP is not a dictionary: This page fails as:

Dab with one or zero valid entries (most/all fail
WP:PTM
)

Article: fails
WP:GNG
(has 1 unreliable source)
WP:SIA
currently they're not the same type

List: undefined inclusion criteria / local scope unsourced

This is a disruptive page, that's been moved to WP namespace with a cross-wiki redirect, and history shows resiting dab cleanup/fixing. Widefox; talk 08:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a disambig page. After cleanup, entries satisfy the partial title matches guideline per its discussion on generic versus specific components of article titles. --
talk/_contribs) 21:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Transbay Tower: I doubt it, and it's not like it's the Eiffel Tower which is arguably worth including in the dab Eiffel (even though nobody refers to it solely as "Eiffel"). I can imagine the transport services possibly being referred to solely as "Transbay" locally so I've left those in, even though that would be just be a local use. (ping editors User:Boleyn User:Mistakefinder User:Transponerd User:Magioladitis User:‎Bazonka User:Mercurywoodrose) Widefox; talk 09:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delete. I'm OK with deleting if it indeed does not meet the guidelines for DAB page. However, looking at the Eiffel example mentioned above, it appears to be also a list of PTM's. In fact most DAB pages I've seen are PTMs, and that's why I thought DABs are supposed to include PTM's and so it was appropriate to create Transbay. Mistakefinder (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here, which is a weak argument for non-deletion. I've now fixed Eiffel which did (incorrectly) have PTMs, but not now. Widefox; talk 19:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

(Ping page's editors User:Boleyn User:Mistakefinder User:Transponerd User:Magioladitis User:‎Bazonka User:Mercurywoodrose). Widefox; talk 09:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per not a dict. the term is only used for transit across the SFBay, and this page is really just a set of partial title matches, which in this case is completely unnecessary and thus against policy. I will make sure this word is in fact at wiktionary, but the word is self explanatory.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Widefox; talk 19:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, and other editors above. As a dab page it would only list partial name matches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 15 August 2015 (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) cyberdog958^Talk 04:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Celestial Patrol

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

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

Looks like a promotional article, so I considered speedying, but the foreign language sources gave me pause for thought. However, they seem only to be evidencing elements that don't build notability claims for this website. Dweller (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:40, 7 August 2015 (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. Been up 3 weeks & judging by sources listed notability is there, reluctant closing as Keep so will close as NC (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Ponte dei Bareteri

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

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

This article is unreferenced and doesn't make any claim of any significance. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is obvious that this stub needs expansion, but I see our basic notability criteria per
WP:NGEO fulfilled. There are articles in several other Wikipedias, Google turns up with lots of hits, and it is covered in several books. One of them lists is as "bridge 26" of 100 Venecian bridges ([28]). Venipedia has a detailed description of it as well ([29]). With enough time at hands, I'm sure more in-deep sources can be turned up as well, so I think the article has potential to grow. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:39, 7 August 2015 (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
non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

3SwitcheD

3SwitcheD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Discussed notability at
WP:APPNOTE to X201. Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment There's another review on Inside Mac Games [30] but at least one more would be needed for notability. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@Boleyn: I tagged it because of the state it was in - it hasn't improved much since. Sources may come to light during this discussion, but at the moment my opinion, in order of preference, is Move to Draft followed by Delete - X201 (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 14:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

COmment Czar's proposal looks like a good idea. Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 01:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above.--Vaypertrail (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2015 (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) Kraxler (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

African Unification Front

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

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

They exist, but I wasn't coninced that they meet
Tameamseo. Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The organisation's website is not linked in the article, it is this one. They claimed "millions of supporters". From the website it looks as if the organisation ceased around 2003/2004. A number of references found in books: mostly list entries and citations of the AUF's publications, but there is also "The idea of creating the AU [
ISBN 9781472405388. {{cite book}}: |last1= has generic name (help) It appears to have had important influence in its time: Noyster (talk), 11:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. While most searches return little, as Noyster points out, a search on Books returns quite a few credible sources. The article definitely needs work, however. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 14 August 2015 (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 withdrawn by nominator. I have honestly been swayed by the commentators here, there are some points where I hold on to my opinion that they're not proper in certain regards, but I suppose they're useful to a point. (
non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 21:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Area code 707

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

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

This is testing the waters for a full out crusade against articles about specific area codes, a category that is largely un-notable and un-sourced.
As far as this article in particular goes (one I picked at random from the list of area codes) has no sources, and you're hard-pressed to find sources that don't merely contain boilerplate and standardized information on the topic. This fails to pass
WP:GNG, or any other notability guideline for that matter. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm going to further comment that the vast majority of prose in these articles is ambiguous
original research and it would be very challenging to find sources on them. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: On one hand, it seems to have ~7,000 page views and is pretty much a standalone list, which may show that it is useful for informational purposes (see
WP:LISTPURP). On the other hand, there is not much reliable sourcing. Esquivalience ^t 01:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: How would you prefer handling area codes? This one goes from San Francisco almost to Oregon and covers an area larger than a few states. It's not insignificant, even if poorly documented. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep
chatter) 08:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep, I'm the one who started the current format of these Area Code Articles, and they represent basic information. As for the source, go to the bottom of the article. There you can find a link to the NANPA map page which shows where the area code is. The map appearing on the page is mine, created to both provide an SVG format image for easy editing as new area codes are added, and to provide a replacement for NANPA's map to avoid copyright issues. As for the cities served, well, perhaps the link to AreaCode.Com, the PUC or state regulatory agency web page or the telephone company website might be appropriate. This is pure reference material, collected from other websites, and is (fortunately) in the public domain under the 'mere facts' clause or the "obvious lack of real effort" doctrine set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.. While all sources probably should be identified, there's nothing original here; any material shown is generally a regurgitation of facts from other sources. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a source that fulfills informational purposes, as evidenced by the number of page views. Although not preferred, primary sources can be used to support the information until reliable, secondary ones can be found. The consensus at Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Importance has not been fully eliminated yet, and articles that are of interest to many readers should be kept. Esquivalience ^t 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion veered of into tangents at times, and also attracted higher than normal attention from accounts with relatively few contributions to other areas of the project. However, even giving greater weight to established editors, the sense of the discussion is that the sourcing located shows the film is notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Little Pill

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

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

Following the AfD discussion and subsequent deletion of the "Sinclair Method", I'm trying to clean up the mess several SPAs did to alcohol-related articles, obviously trying to promote this particular doctor's work. No independent sources are listed for this film, which blatantly fails WP:NFF. Of sources gathered after a simple search, only 2 are reliable and independent, including the Boston Globe (which mentions it in passing in an article about another topic) and Forbes (which only quotes the main actress in an article about another topic as well). The problems with the sources provided in the article itself should be all too obvious for any experienced editor. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry nominator, as an experienced editor I need to share that something covering a
WP:NFF is inapplicable. IE: Hollywood Times is independent and confirms its 2014 premiere. And too, a film need not be the sole topic of any source, just so long as the source offers more-than-trivial information for our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Alts

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

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

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

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

Keep per the film's production meeting
the very minimum, this could be spoken of and sourced in the article of its producer Claudia Christian and redirected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I wrote most of the article on One Little Pill. Googling for 'sinclair method' today produced 1,010,000 hits. Example Why Isn’t The Sinclair Method Used More Often? By Michael D. on June 3, 2015 so people are beginning to hear about the treatment. The treatment was only licensed by the British Government late last year. The film 'One Little Pill' is designed to be a documentary that gets more people and doctors to use the method. The film is coming out on DVD this month. With luck an independent review will be written to provide an independent reference. Andrew Swallow (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:RS. Wikipedia is not here to promote anything... just report on it neutrally as sourced in external media Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I essentially agree with the nominator here. With some caveats Naltrexone can be useful to some people suffering from alcohol dependence; this is not seriously in doubt. However, the present article is essentially self-promotion. No one reputable calls this the Sinclair method; as with that article, this one is a bald-faced attempt to promote a non-standard term for a relatively common treatment for marketing purposes, and is doing so in Wikipedia's voice, which is unconscionable. The documentary itself does not appear particularly notable, but if its notability -- for itself, not for the treatment it is attempting to sell -- could be established, I would support keeping it in heavily modified form, i.e. without references to the so-called Sinclair method (and instead a simple reference to Naltrexone), and instead dominated by the same general information typically included in other documentary articles, e.g. critical response, awards won, etc. The kind of stuff that establishes the documentary as notable. Because right now, it seems like a PR release for Sinclair and/or some pharmaceutical company. Eniagrom (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please be aware that we're not discussing the therapeutic use of Naltrexone - which is not called "Sinclair Method", by the way - we're discussing the notability of this film. The encyclopaedia was plagued with unreferenced claims about this method, all made under blatantly COI SPAs which sought to promote the use of this invented terminology on the encyclopaedia. I'm trying to stop the pushing of this agenda, and this is the last piece of the puzzle as far as I'm aware. Please do not stray the discussion to whether the "Sinclair Method" is a thing or not. That was already determined in another AfD. As you can see, there are several accounts watching the relevant pages and trying to revert my clean-up. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In an
available coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Article is a mess and fails WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, but when
addressable issue which does not require deletion. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an addition reference giving the names of the producers and a quote from a review of the film. Andrew Swallow (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Applicable issues have been addressed. Quality of entry is irrelevant along lines of deletion. Antiwesley (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The synopsis has been rewritten and the subject has been reworded to lean towards being more an informative article than an advertisement 01:30, 8 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decardo111279 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 August 2015‎ — Decardo111279 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What? With all due respect, the article as it stands currently is just as problematic as it was when it was listed. The "Synopsis" section in particular is blantant advocacy. Use of the non-standard term "Sinclair method" is rife. This most certainly is not an improved article.Eniagrom (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
Tooth Fairy. Blatant fictions. So what? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
As I said in my original !vote, I would not be opposed to keeping this article in a substantially different form, which would include significantly sidelining WP:FRINGE elements from the article. Your comment about censorship is not relevant here, it basically comes down to undue weight. A documentary about moon landing conspiracy theorists can (and should) mention their theories in the plot synopsis, but not with a tone that implies (with WP's voice) that they are right (to address your analogy: we do not claim that the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy are real in WP's voice). But that's honestly beside the point, because I disagree fundamentally with your contention that the film is notable. Rags like the Hollywood Reporter are essentially industry press release pumps: they will talk about anything they are asked to talk about regardless of whether there's any actual buzz surrounding it. While they are not unreliable per se, as sources used to establish notability they are very problematic, since that would imply that anyone who pays enough money to pump out enough press releases can basically guarantee coverage in WP, quite an SEO feat! The Boston Globe editorial only mentions the film in passing, I don't think it qualifies as anything but a supporting source. Epic Times is a blog. The Atlantic barely mentions One Little Pill and is fundamentally about Naltrexone, which as I mentioned earlier is notable in its own right -- but as you correctly mentioned, the notability of the subject matter of a documentary does not establish its notability. As far as I'm concerned, sources available cover this documentary not for its own sake but either because of Naltrexone or Claudia Christian. I see a lot of obvious attempts at drumming up buzz around this film -- normal for any new film, obviously -- but essentially no "independent" momentum. Eniagrom (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You opened your response above by seeming to
source addresses "thee topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material" Point here is that "significant coverage" does not mean "substantial coverage" (IE: WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline mandate). Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Have you actually watched the film? The synopis covers the content of the film, as this is a topic that the film covers in depth it is going to be mentioned. If you have edits you would like to see then please list them but only after viewing the film. I am struggling to see why there is a witch hunt on this topic? Decardo111279 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.70.255.215 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is irrelevant, I'm afraid. We don't decide whether a film is notable based on whether we've seen it or not, we base it on what reliable sources say. My contention is that this film is not notable and that this article (like others before it that have already been deleted) is being used as a platform for certain single-issue editors to promote the brand "Sinclair Method" on a site that has a huge impact on search engine rankings. Eniagrom (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the main objection of Eniagrom and FoCuSandLeArN to the article is that a webpage on a documentary about The Sinclair Method mentions The Sinclair Method. The treatment is not a Wikipedia invention as use of the Method in Scandinavia, book and academic papers describing it precede the article and film (by decades). This is a very weird objection. Andrew Swallow (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues here. One is that the film is fundamentally not notable, which the reason I voted to delete it. But assuming that that were not the case, the film's advocacy should not be Wikipedia's advocacy. Right now the Synopsis section of this article reads like WP is trying to sell us the so-called Sinclair method, which is extremely problematic. Saying "The film advocates the use of Naltrexone (which it calls the Sinclair method) as a remedy for alcoholism, focusing on the personal experiences of Claudia Christian with the remedy" is quite literally all that needs to be said. The clinical uses of Naltrexone, its efficacy, the preponderance of alcoholism-related deaths, and all the other coatrack stuff this article currently features is dealt with quite sufficiently and in much greater detail in other articles. A wikilink is absolutely sufficient. I don't want to assume bad faith, but the only reason I can see that anyone would disagree with that is if they desperately wanted all the right keywords in the same article for SEO purposes -- and since we have had a large number of SPAs pushing the absolutely non-standard "Sinclair method" nomenclature on WP for some time now, this seems like a prudent assumption. If we don't delete this article, it needs to be seriously reworked: from an advocacy and branding piece for a long-standing alcoholism remedy to one that actually discusses the documentary itself (not its content) in the same terms as the majority of RSs do. Right now there are very few in-depth mentions of this documentary anywhere in RS-land. But if we could find enough of them to establish notability, we would need to talk about e.g. how critics responded, how audiences responded, box office numbers, that sort of thing. Not a cranked-up biased rewording of Naltrexone#Alcohol dependence. Eniagrom (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "the film's advocacy should not be Wikipedia's advocacy", and it is not. As Wikipedia is itself self-admittedly unreliable, it "advocates" nothing except the sharing of sourced information, and being written of in Wikipedia does not make anything true or false. Under
WP:CONTN, and try to stop making this film discussion to be about the drug Naltrexone or something called "The Sinclair Method". This discussion is about A FILM, and not about the truth or not of those terms. If you have sources called the film crappola, offer and cite them in its reception section for balance. You may personally disagree with the film's premise, but its truth or factuality is not the issue. See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The original nominator seems to have an issue with the content of the documentary. This article is about the movie itself and the article factually presents what the movie is about. I feel the film is notable as it was produced and directed by Adam Schomer and narrated by Claudia Christian, it premiered at the HollyShorts Film Festival in 2014, has since been featured and won an award at the Albuquerque film festival in 2015. This film is very good representative of the independent documentary genre. What's more the film also has reviews on imdb and rotten tomatoes. I vote for Keep. Thx1138az (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)24.56.2.134 (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2015 (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. Russian sources added appear to address at least a portion of the nominator's concerns, but there was no clear consensus reached in this discussion. Default to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onliner.by

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

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

An allegedly popular Belarusian web site but scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, allegedly. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added some info. Please review. Cheers, --
talk) 12:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Here are the sources in the article added by Jarash:

"onliner.by - Site Info from Alexa". Archived from the original on 2012-03-01. Retrieved 2009-11-20.

"Экс-директор Onliner.by перешел на Holiday.by" [Former director of Onliner.by left for Holiday.by] (in Russian). Наша Ніва. 18 March 2015.

"OAC Shut Down Top Shopping and News Portal, Belarusian Web Shattered with Attacks". Belarusian Assocation of Journalists. 20 December 2014.

"Onliner.by is back to national domain zone registry". Euroradio.fm. 7 January 2015.

"Главный редактор Onliner.by Денис Блищ уходит из компании" [Editor in chief of Onliner.by Denis Blisch leaves the company] (in Russian). Marketing.by. 30 January 2015.

"Новым главным редактором Onliner.by стал Владислав Хилькевич" [Vladislav Khilkevich became the new editor in chief of Onliner.by] (in Russian). Telegraf.by. 20 May 2015.

Based on the sources here, I think there is enough coverage to establish notability.
Keep. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources provided only seem to be financial announcements, which even companies that are barely past the garage level will receive. But I'd be inclined to believe that foreign sources do exist. It was also nominated for deletion on the Russian Wikipedia, and subsequently kept. Esquivalience ^t 01:38, 7 August 2015 (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. Adequate sourcing support the article has not been located. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarian Family Festival

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

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

I attempted to search for sources but found nothing good at News, Books, browser, Newspapers Archive, highbeam and thefeelibrary with the best being browser and this particularly but that wouldn't support the article much, considering there's still other info unsourced. In May, I also nominated
Every Picture Tells A Story (event), a music festival, but even that one was suddenly improved and I'm not seeing as much hope for this Aquarian though. I'm not sure if this should be merged at best somewhere else. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I second nom's comments. No coverage available. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's comments. A google news search provided a single hit, the Wikipedia article, for some strange reason. The article has been unsourced since 2007, and even though work has been done on the article during the intervening time, not a single citation has been added.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 7 August 2015 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Homes

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

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

Non-notable with the best my searches found this, this (one of the best results is this, "one of the Paper City’s largest and most successful housing developments") and this. There's not much to suggest local or universal notability and there's no good target for moving elsewhere and I would not consider merging to Holyoke, MA a good option unless this is still considered locally significant. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. The current references aren't in a format which enables you to find and verify. Google searches reveal nothing to show the notability of this project. When reading the article, with lots of public discussion, you would think there would be more independent coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 14 August 2015 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Astuti

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

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

WP:ATHLETE today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. A teenage go-karter just doesn't get it done. Fails
WP:GNG with a big thud. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - looked myself and couldn't find very much at all. Orderinchaos 12:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a young sportsman who has not achieved enough notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searches revealed nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 14 August 2015 (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
non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

International Dadaism Month

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

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

Unsourced for more than four years. I cannot find any RSes that discuss it. Now an editor has decided that it needs to be linked to individual days. If the content must be kept, merge it to Dada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lawrence, Kansas. Found a couple decent sources, but not even close to enough to sustain a stand-alone article. I would say Merge, but I've already added it to the Lawrence, Kansas article along with two sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Concur with the above. This isn't a hoax—the mayor really did make this pronouncement—but nothing ever seems to have actually come of it, and there's no realistic possibility an article more than a couple of sentences long could ever be written. –
iridescent 22:52, 8 August 2015 (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. None favored retention. In response to the comment raised inthe discussion, the other articles in the category may well similarly lack notabilty, but their merits/demerits were not considered in this discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ardmore GAC

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

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

This seems to be a very minor local club with little significance outside its city. It's certainly not professional. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a minor point - there are no professional teams in Gaelic Games, because the rules specifically prohibit players being paid to play.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any non-routine coverage of this team, and I can hardly even find routine coverage. I even tried looking up their name in Gaelic but still nothing. If someone can turn some up I'd be willing to change my mind but as of now I can't find anything. Chuy1530 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- As a club playing only in a county league, not a national one, I do not think it can claim to be WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question - I would tend to agree with the nom and Northamerica1000 and Peterkingiron, particularly since this club's own webpage is no longer in existence. However I noticed the template at the bottom of the article, which lists all Derry GAA clubs. Just looking at the one category in which this article is placed, Junior Football Championships, and the other entries all have articles, and all are as just poorly sourced as this one. I know that
WP:OSE is usually not an argument, regarding Deletion discussions, it says "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." I'm not trying to threaten all those articles with deletion, but I am rather new to AfD, and am simply trying to gain an understanding of how to make a determination in cases like these. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion found that after cleanup, there were sufficient sources to establish notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indium Corporation

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

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

Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. I find lots of press releases, but effectively nothing in the way of secondary source coverage. There is the Time Magazine article, but from what I can see, it's about a scientist who later worked at this company, and not about the company itself. If someone with access to the whole article knows differently, then it could be a keep. agtx 01:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative stub Ugh, why did I spend time cleaning up all that junk. Spammy articles filled with promotion and primary sources should just be deleted, but now that I've cleaned it up, there are a couple sources worth keeping and a half-decent stub. Still very open to deletion however if those are the only sources available. CorporateM (Talk) 07:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good clean up. I also copy edited. The Business Week source is good, as is the Time source and the 2002 book. Interesting element; "indium was strictly a laboratory curiosity" until this corporation harnessed it. Prhartcom (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to satisfy
WP:BASIC. Although there are not a lot of in-depth articles, there are a ton of articles which mention this company in this very specific field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 14 August 2015 (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. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 19:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sesan Thaddeus Fabamise

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

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

Subject of the article fails
t@lk to M£ 22:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found one paper with five cites in GScholar on a search for Fabamise. That gives him a h-index of 1, which is below the average even for a (full) professor of law (which 2.8 according to LSE). So that closes that particular route to notability. On the other hand, I do know that GScholar does not give complete coverage of all academics and all academic publications. James500 (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

t@lk to M£ 09:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After searches on JSTOR and Google Scholar, plus news and miscellaneous sources, it is very unlikely that the subject meets
WP:PROF. Esquivalience ^t 01:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - non-notable. The first 3 references are standard biographical profiles, none of them really independent. Even if they were, they couldn't establish notability as common resumes (several sentences are copy/pasted from ref #3 btw.). Ref #4 includes a 1-sentence quote over a relatively minor incident ("minor" not for the affected school of course, but on a greater encyclopedic scale). Google search reveals nothing in-depth. GermanJoe (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and above editors. Can find nothing to substantiate notability on search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 14 August 2015 (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. Merging might be an option worth further exploring, but that can be done outside the purview of AFD. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imagination (Gorgon City song)

Imagination (Gorgon City song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable recording. I'd simply change it to a redirect, but imo the article title is not suitable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The song charted on the UK Singles Chart, and Wallonian Tip Chart, which therefore passes
WP:BEFORE actually suggests you not do, its more than likely that it would have seen natural expansion. Azealia911 _talk 19:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

At #194. Give me strength. This means that both the artists granny and their auntie bought it TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NSONGS doesn't give any indication on any position a song must reach, and it charted at a higher #26 on the Wallonian chart. Azealia911 _talk 14:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case NSONGS sets a ludicrously low bar. Whick is why Wikipedia is flooded with articles about flash-in-the pan K-Pop acts &c.TheLongTone (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sirens (Gorgon City album). Notable or not, there isn't enough content for a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:NSONG. I don't think this is a "reasonably detailed article". Random86 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep: charting song from an album full of very successful singles. Ticks all the right boxes for notability and although the article isn't in great shape, it passes the necessary criteria for keeping it. I'm willing to help out if necessary, just so that it doesn't get deleted! --ItsLuke (contribs) 19:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 7 August 2015 (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.

~~~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_August_7&oldid=1142626535"~~~~