Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 10 June 12 June >

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. Consensus is that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Street Asset Management

Fifth Street Asset Management (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:CORP, seems overly promotional JMHamo (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotion: Its internal claims to notability are that S&P recognizes it (quelle surprize!) and that a group of banker-lawyers gave it a "good chap" award. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
    reliable sources
    .
    1. Asmundsson, Jon (2015-04-17). "Tannenbaum's Fifth Street Funds Yield 10% by Lending Alongside Private Equity". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2015-06-05. Retrieved 2015-06-05.
    2. Melby, Caleb; Picker, Leslie (2014-10-09). "Fifth Street Founder Poised to Become Billionaire on IPO". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2015-06-05. Retrieved 2015-06-05.
    3. Soule, Alexander (2015-04-28). "Huge haul for Fifth Street Asset Management founder". Greenwich Time. Archived from the original on 2015-06-05. Retrieved 2015-06-05.
    4. Das, Avik Das (2014-09-08). Kalluvila, Sriraj; Das, Joyjeet (eds.). "UPDATE 2-Fifth Street Asset Management files for IPO". Reuters. Retrieved 2015-06-05. {{cite news}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help)
    5. Latour, Abby (2014-10-14). "Fifth Street Seeks To Join Parade Of BDC Managers To Stock Listing".
      McGraw Hill Financial
      .

    6. Peterson-Withorn, Chase (2014-10-22). "Fifth Street Pulls IPO Citing Shaky Markets, CEO Won't Become A Billionaire Today". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2015-06-05. Retrieved 2015-06-05.

      Journalist Chase Peterson-Withorn is listed as a Forbes staff member.

    7. Patel, Sital S. (2014-10-22). "Fifth Street Asset Management pulls IPO". MarketWatch. Dow Jones & Company. Archived from the original on 2015-06-05. Retrieved 2015-06-05.
    There is sufficient coverage in
    reliable sources to allow Fifth Street Asset Management to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • SPEEDY DELETE - if you look at what I accepted and what the article looks like now, it's pretty obvious that the editor is attempting to use Wikipedia to lend notability and puffery to a small company whose notability lies in having its IPO go wrong. And THAT information has been redacted, again. EBY (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AFC strongly indicates that you are voting delete based on surmountable issues. If the current version of the article was "clear spam" (which it is not), then it could be reverted back to the version you found acceptable.

    Cunard (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:51, 11 June 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. by a small margin based on the merits of the arguments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhenya Gershman

Zhenya Gershman (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 on a subject of questionable

notability, largely not supported by the given references. The only detailed profile in a reliable source I could find is this Le Monde article, which basically says the scholarly community has largely ignored her discovery. That's consistent with Google Scholar which shows a single citation. Coverage of Gershman as an artist, as opposed to an art historian, is little better and largely confined to blogs or reproductions of her organization's profile. Huon (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep This Zhenya Gershman article is accurately reflecting Gershman as an artist and should not be deleted. Her work is in major public and private art collections and has been on display in numerous international Art Fairs and art complex Bergamot Station, and has been extensively covered by Huffington Post, Monsters and Critics, Arte Al Limite, Jewish Journal, Hollywood Today, Campus Circle to name a few sources. Her work as an art historian is evidenced by her publications in Arion journal for Classics published by Boston University and was featured by Le Monde. She has since, presented her Rembrandt research in academic conferences including AANS Grand Rapids and up-coming conference at Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sini zaichik (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC) — Sini zaichik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sini zaichik (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Jeremy chessman (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Opened a sockpuppet investigation for the SPAs. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to Wikki policy this article is qualified for posting and should not be deleted:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

In addition to her exhibition history a TV series and a documentary film has been created about Gershman's work.Jon Deen (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC) — Jon Deen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete - I'm inclined to delete simply because she hasn't received solid, significant and notable coverage as shown here, here, a browser search found some of the same results, highbeam found two results and nothing at thefreelibrary. Scholar found a few results but nothing that actually looks significant. If she were notable, I would think she could get better and a little more major news coverage than Jewish Journal and Huffington Post. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SwisterTwister please take a look at the references to Gershman as artist. She is indeed notable as reflected by Hollywood Today featuring Gershman's portrait of Bruce Springsteen for the Grammys!, and the documentary film dedicated to her work, Russian RIA Novosti discussing her family and exhibition background, among many other relevant sources.Jon Deen (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The citation style is messed up, but I agree she meets GNG based on the links at the article now, and the documentary. Sources repeatedly refer to her as "renowned" (supported by this). She's not really an "official" art historian or academic but an artist and "independent scholar." Also, as far as the Le Monde article, I don't think it is as dismissive as nominator portrays ("basically says the scholarly community has largely ignored her discovery", no that's not what it basically says) and I find this annoys me. I would hope this does not influence anyone's vote. Having a good-size feature in Le Monde on your Rembrandt theory is no small feat. What this article basically says is, "Artist believes she has spotted Rembrandt painted into his painting at the Hermitage. Not that rare, as he did this often, and Gershman assumes it has been already discussed, only to discover it has not. Director of the Getty Museum, a noted Rembrandt restorer, is intrigued and encourages her to write an article. Other artist publicly supports this theory. So why hasn't it been widely discussed among art experts? Well, there is the Rembrandt Research Project, which has jokingly been called the Rembrandt Mafia, which dominate this area of research. We have to admit it's true, in general art experts/historians detest "amateurs" ie regular artists. In summary, isn't a testimony of great art the many interpretations it brings?" (Artist slams "the Rembrandt mafia" here, nothing to do with Gershman.) Regardless, ongoing coverage of her as an artist is sufficient to meet GNG.
    YO 😜 00:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Based on everyone's input I rephrased the article: In addition to her artistic career, Gershman is an independent scholar and a museum educator. Gershman's discovery of a hidden Rembrandt self-portrait in his painting Danaë was published in the classics journal Arion, Boston University and covered in France’s Le Monde newspaper[4].

I added additional references. Including citing her work at the Getty, US NEWS REPORT, and adding a source for a documentary film about her artwork. Thank you everyone for the comments and especially to Wikimandia.Jon Deen (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote above struck as you're only allowed to vote once. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Thanks - up-dated to commentJon Deen (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The HuffPo coverage - all of it, as far as I can tell - is by LuxEco Living. Gershman is a LuxEco Living contributor. I rather doubt that can be considered independent coverage of her. The US News piece is by the executive producers of the documentary about Gershman, not an independent review. This looks like another independent source until you notice it's submitted by Project AWE, which in effect is Gershman. There are some sources that look like reliable third-party sources at a glance, but few withstand closer scrutiny. I'd say the most telling is the "independent scholar" piece
    fringe theories such as that Rembrandt was a Freemason or that "his name is not what scholars think!" I don't think it's a reliable source, but it shows how far from the academic mainstream Gershman's historical work is. Huon (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment In response to talk - even if you disregard Huffington Post entries (which I think is unfair) we are still left with Le Monde discussing Gershman's work on Rembrandt, Hollywood Today featuring Gershman's portrait of Bruce Springsteen for the Grammys!, and the documentary film dedicated to her work, Russian RIA Novosti discussing her family and exhibition background, among many other relevant sources. Her work as an INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR is to take on the mainstream -- that does not devalue it and is supported as can be seen by the Academia as she is presenting at one of France's most prestigious academic venue Bibliotheque Nationale as talked about 3rd party Monster's and Critics (no affiliations there!). I don't think this is to be ignored!Jon Deen (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    Мандичка you brought up some great points. To add, though the figure in the Rembrandt's Danaee was obvious no one was able to identify it correctly until Gershman's discovery published by Arion, Boston University. Instead the Rembrandt scholars have confused this figure to be an "old maid" not only being wrong in the identification of a subject but even the attribution of gender! As you accurately quoted, Le Monde points out the "Rembrandt Mafia" wants to hold-on to how they choose to define Rembrandt. Le Monde article shows that Gershman is not afraid to challenge this, and did receive encouragement from David Bomford, then acting director of The J. Paul Getty Museum and one of world's most important Rembrandt conservators.Jon Deen (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I agree with (
    Мандичка) and (talk). In addition I found a 3-part TV documentary featuring Gershman's career: ICN TV. I strongly believe that Zhenya Gershman article meets GNG based on the links at the article provided now, and the added TV and documentary. As shown, numerous sources repeatedly refer to her as "renowned" and the fact that her discovery was featured by Le Monde speaks volumes in favor of her notability. Jeremy chessman (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment In Gershman's favor of notability as an artist (in addition to all mentioned above):

1. See short film created about Gershman's portrait of Bob Dylan for the GRAMMYS, also featured by JLTV 2. See EXTRA TV covering Joe Manginello at Gershman's exhibition who acquired Gershman his portrait as a gift for Sofia Vargara 3. See Larger Than Life Exhibition by Gershman covered by Red Carpet TV featuring her portraits of celebrity including Clint Eastwood, Jack Nicolson, and Bryan Cranston also covered by Art Week LA and Monsters and Critics. 4. See international magazine Arte Al Limite for a full feature on Gershman's Art. 5. Why is Jewish Journal disregarded by User talk:SwisterTwister? It is one one of most read journals in Los Angeles! This issue is a valuable feature article on Gershman's career. 6. Gershman's work has been exhibited by major international art fairs including Art Chicago, Art Platform LA, San Francisco Art Market, Art Miami and is currently on display at LGBT LA Center. 7. Gershman's art was also featured by Zocalo Public Square. I don't see how this can be ignored on the basis is of "questionable notability".Jon Deen (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I must point out that Zhenya Gershman Article is NOT promotional and does NOT "reproduce" her organization's profile. The two vary in information though obviously there is nominal overlap since it is the same subject! Zhenya Gershman article does not promote her organization, instead it sates objectively her contributions to the field of art that are undeniable, unless one objects to her under the cover of disliking Women, Russians, Jews, or individuals supporting LGBT cause. Jon Deen (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not yet notable, either as WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE: The Prof part is clear enough--she has one paper on a single picture. That's a good start to building a career, but it does not rise to the extent of being an authority on Rembrandt. When she publishes an academic monograph on him , then ehe will meet WP:PROF. As for being an artist, she does not yet have a painting in a major museum. The articles says she is going to a portrait in a new museum that is scheduled to open in 2017. I do not know if the museum will or will not be considered a major museum, , but if it is, she'll be notable by WP:CREATIVE in 2017. Notability would therefore seem to depend on the publicity for the short film, The Model's Artist. A major motion picture about someone can result in notability. This is a minor motion picture without a WP article. Acting in it, even in the central role, is not notability. So what the actual news stories are about is not things we consider notability, and the external links are promotional fluff. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete - Not sure if this is a case of
    TOOSOON or simply a non-notable individual, but half the current references are press-release-style single-paragraph notices, and I'm finding similar further-sourcing issues as per SwisterTwister. Would be willing to change my opinion but only if some rock-solid refs are found. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Cunard, I managed to miss the latter two links you posted. I'm still on the fence, but I will rescind my del "vote" for now. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your refreshing honesty. Too many editors would refuse to admit that they hadn't reviewed all of the sources posted in the AfD. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 23:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Le Monde, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, and Arteallimite are "rock-solid refs" that provide the "significant coverage" in reliable sources required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Why do you disagree? (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)" (copied from above to continue debate)Jon Deen (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unfortunately, since she seems to be a nice girl and doing some good art, but, DGG sums it up nicely here. The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles and Le Monde may be RS, but the former is published in her hometown (biased towards minor local celebrities, after all they have to fill their pages somehow) and the latter has no in-depth coverage (exactly one sentence about her), just reports on her sensational discovery. Sorry. Kraxler (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kraxler is not correct, accusing the Jewish journal of bias inappropriately and therefore ignoring important coverage of Gershman. The Le Monde article, incidentally, is not one sentence but a full feature dedicated to Gershman and her discovery.Jeremy chessman (talk), 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article posted by Jewish Federation just today featuring Gershman's art and a grant she received by the Jewish Federation: http://www.jewishla.org/blog/entry/the-russian-speaking-jewish-community-connects-and-innovates-with-a-little-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Deen (talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If she is an fine artist, then it would be normal to include information about where she studied, who she studied with, where she exhibited (galleries, museums), and whether or not her teacher or mentor was a notable artist.Simile (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)SIMS[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaron Guez

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

Non-notable individual. The references are all primary, unreliable, or Wikipedia. Sammy1339 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My searches immediately found no good coverage about him. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 13 June 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) 17:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughan Company Inc.

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

Can't seem to find sources for this company. The references are all either primary or not about the company. Sammy1339 (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More inclined to delete - My searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant aside from business listings at Books and a few links at Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many of the sources don't appear to even mention the subject of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 00:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo advert of a non-notable company Kraxler (talk) 16:38, 18 June 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. North America1000 22:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversational Photography

Conversational Photography (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)

Essay on a non-notable neologism. Sammy1339 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, confusing subject. Also, the creator was notified of a speedy deletion of an article with the same title, at 21:08, 9 June 2015 (2 days ago), and, creator has same username as article title, so possibly a COI. Seagull123 (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, explaining what we already know in a language nobody understands; non-notable / obviously made up by creator. Blackguard 23:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was going to make my motion by means of a photograph, but then I realized that it would be better with a rebus, which I will call an "new paradigm graphemoji." Trademark and money, please. Delete for OR and probably promotion. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as an article about a humdrum neologism, as one about an unclear subject, as one promoting a website, or as some combination thereof. -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 16 June 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-deleted (

G11) by Versageek. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Duniya Ki Rai

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

Radio show that isn't

sufficiently notable. Pichpich (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:08, 12 June 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. North America1000 22:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Thorén

Anders Thorén (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 was written by user

WP:MUSICBIO. Searches are complicated by other people with the same name. There is a page at All about jazz, but entries on that site appear to be user-generated. There are a lot of social-network references, but I do not find any of the substantial, independent comment about him necessary to establish Wikipedia:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This Google search should return the link at or near the top of the results. For some reason clicking through from Google avoids the paywall (in case anyone is desperate to read that one paragraph). Worldbruce (talk) 19:29, 18 June 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 speedily deleted by

non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Core tools

Core tools (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 about the "core tools" in the North American automotive industry, as discussed here. The problem with the article is that the only sources for this seem to be primary, like the one I linked which actually sells certifications in these "core tools." Sammy1339 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "Core Tools" is apparently a certification pushed by this Automotive Industry Action Group. This related article -
    YO 😜 22:34, 11 June 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. North America1000 22:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Craig

Zack Craig (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 Joeykai (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable former college football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per
    WP:GNG (insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:41, 13 June 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. Overall consensus is for article retention, based upon the subject having received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass

WP:N. North America1000 22:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Kerry Sulkowicz

AfDs for this article:
Kerry Sulkowicz (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)

Lack of notability. The article is just his CV or a similar piece of advertisement, with links to institutions he is connected to. There is a source praising him, but there are a blog post, which reads more like advertising. The NY Times article is neither about his work, nor about him. It is just about how psychoanalysts market themselves and sell their services, and citing Sulkowicz of a psychoanalyst who "treats" his patiences through e-mail.

Article was already deleted once by the first AfD. The 2nd AfD also got enough discussion to generate consensus (delete too).

I have placed this article into speedy delete.

A PROD was removed since the page had already been through the AfD. Abaget (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with that. I was too speedy when putting the tag of speedy deletion. A normal AfD would be enough, I suppose. Abaget (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an interview in Psychiatric Times, a Q.and A. in the New York Times - which presumably picked him as the expert to interview precisely because he is a notable psychiatrist, the bio Bloomberg published when he became a columnist, the fact that he was a columnist for Fast Company, and a lot, a really significant number, of authors and journalists who go to him for quotes and insight, quoting him at length, with brief descriptors. Institutions also turn to him - and the fact that they do gets coverage [3]. It's adds up to a profile high enough to constitute notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing GNG and SCHOLAR. He's often cited for a brief quote here and there, but there's nothing in any detail about him in the sources. (I am unable to read all the Financial Times sources because they limit you to 3/day without a subscription, but the three I read were all of this type - him being consulted for one short statement.) Interviews, Q&A's, and him writing a few articles are not enough for notability - those are all primary. The New Yorker source mentioned by E.M.Gregory is also a passing mention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (changed vote) I was unaware of the following sources mentioned in the deletion review: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Altogether it's enough for notability. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the criteria WP:ACADEMIC is borderline but just this side of notable, and he does meet WP:GNG. There are quite a few reliable and independent sources.Pax Verbum 05:24, 18 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Action Tuam

Action Tuam (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 doesn't appear to meet

WP:CLOP issues still remain. (The content previously just copy/pasted from subject website have been modified only slightly). Guliolopez (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - Hi, I am not a contributor to Wikipedia, but in my job I use it to source information on a regular basis. I registered to make a point in relation to 'Action Tuam'. I note the page is marked for possible deletion. I do not understand the issues, but I find it strange that a bona fide voluntary organisation with a successful 25 year track record in promoting a region of 350,000 population (with no self interest) would not be worthy of inclusion. Wereras, almost every County Councillor (the lowest level local representative) are included, most for self promotion. I feel there is an imbalance here. I strongly urge you to include the page as it is extremely useful information to a lot of people and of considerable interest to those in the West of Ireland. Just making the point.... Yours... JR. JoeRyan53 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JR. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. As a "new user", you may want to take a look at the "
WP:OSE). All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]


Hi, point taken on 'two wrongs'. You make a great point and you are right. IMO groups like Action Tuam provide a vital service, albeit at a regional level and within a small country like Ireland. However, Wikipedia could be the channel for others around the globe to learn from their experiences. This would make Wiki a wonderful source of information on real life experience. Yours... JR. JoeRyan53 (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Nom: JoeRyan53 has only posted to this AfD. LaMona (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I added the page for Action Tuam, my motivation was to highlight the work the group do, not to promote their services. Nobody in Action Tuam knew I was doing this. Action Tuam do not use the internet to promote their services. Their website is pretty basic (no blog) and the social media activity appears to be minimal. JR makes a good point in that Wikipedia is an excellent vehicle to document the work of a group with 25 years of serving the West of Ireland. Maybe others could learn from their experience. Poshpaddy (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. RE: "JR makes a good point" - I don't doubt you guys will have more than that opinion in common. RE: "motivation was to highlight the work the group do" - promoting stuff (whether there's an association or not) is
not what Wikipedia is about. RE: "Maybe others could learn from their experience". Again, it isn't a goal of the project to "inspire" other community groups or act as a forum or similar for such groups. RE: "Their website is pretty basic" - I'm sure the company that developed it (with which - by own admission - you are familiar) tried their best with it. I just wonder whether there are better avenues open to the relevant parties to PROMOTE it. (Coz this project ain't the place.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
There's a few "clearly"s in there that are perhaps a little clearer to others than to me. Yes - the organisation has its roots in the late 1980s (when Greencore committed a few million to the set-up of the organisation - a chunk of which went towards the setup of the enterprise park). But if there is evidence that it "clearly achieved notability" in the 80s, I'm not finding/seeing it. (Yes, there are mentions of the business park in newspapers and the like, but one would probably expect that for pretty much any business park - which is where
WP:ROTM would normally come in). Perhaps if someone might share that "frontpage Indo/Newspaper report" mentioned? Is there something in that that confirms notability beyond ROTM? I don't see anything especially notable in the article currently - however, as the Indo report mentioned (which apparently contributes something significant to notability) doesn't seem to be linked in the article itself, then perhaps I'm missing something. Can you share something of or from the frontpage news report? Guliolopez (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Details from the front page of the Irish Independent are correctly cited, nip down to your local library to check for yourself if you feel the need to read the content. When you nominated the AfD you asked for evidence of notability to be cited, this was done. Stop changing the goalposts. I have demonstrated that the organisation achieved notability in the 1980s, front of a national newspaper is more than sufficient. It took me all of 30 seconds to locate the story. If you don't have the tools to do a comprehensive search perhaps stop wasting peoples' time nominating AfDs. Reggiegal (talk 02:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply- Hi. You mention that "details from the front page of the Irish Independent are correctly cited". Again, I must be missing something, but can you tell me where they are cited please? Nothing was added by you (or any other editor) to the Action Tuam article or to this discussion that (as far as I can see) links or references an Irish Independent article. I would be delighted to try and source the relevant article, but it wouldn't normally be reasonable to expect anyone to search through the ~7000 issues of the Irish Independent since the late 1980s looking for whatever "front page article" another editor might have in mind. I wouldn't consider it to be a "shift of goalposts" to ask for at least some idea of where to verify a cite that apparently builds to originally highlighted issue (that the subject/article wouldn't appear to meet WP:GNG for coverage.) Without wishing to seem flippant, if we're using football/newspaper metaphors, perhaps a "spot the ball" competition is more appropriate - where there is no visible picture, but entrants are asked to guess which newspaper the image might be in. In any event, perhaps you are talking about this news article? If so, then I do note that it is a newspaper mention of the subject - but it is largely a passing reference (where Action Tuam isn't the primary subject of the newspaper article). This doesn't in itself demonstrate SIGCOV under the GNG. (Which is still the relevant goalpost - nothing has changed there) Guliolopez (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I guess this experience has not enhanced my views on the credibility of Wikipedia as a comprehensive source of information. Regarding having to prove notability, the credible press that cover business in Ireland are mostly subscription based (Irish Times, Business Post). The Red Tops are not into business issues. The 'project' should be about the inclusion of worthwhile information and not about questioning the integrity of those providing the information. Overall a disappointing experience and I would be slow to research another project. Poshpaddy (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Apologies if it is felt that anyone's integrity was questioned. That wasn't the intent. (Certainly I can see how you may feel - given a recent suggestion that I was "wasting peoples' time nominating AfDs". However, it isn't entirely unreasonable (if done civily) for editors to point-out where key tenets of the project are not being followed. Guliolopez (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply- Apology accepted. If "key tenets of the project are not being followed" a more welcoming approach might be to suggest the correct procedure, which might encourage others to contribute. Not everyone is familiar with the correct procedure and many will learn from their mistakes. For example, I am very familiar with over 1000 organisation in the non-profit sector in Ireland. Action Tuam is just one such case. Does my knowledge of those preclude me from suggesting their inclusion.? Many are wonderful organisations and certainly worthy of inclusion, but if I am accused of bias of 'promoting' them, then why bother. Poshpaddy (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply- Cheers. As it's probably more appropriate to address that question/point elsewhere, I've dropped a note on your talk page. All the best Guliolopez (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the news articles, this meets notability requirements. The article could possibly be expanded a bit using information in those articles (e.g. there is good stuff in [8] about renovating and selling space to local businesses). This would help explain its importance. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 15 June 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) 18:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LYFE (video game)

LYFE (video game) (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 unreleased video game fails GNG.

WP:TOOSOON. Sammy1339 (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 13 June 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. Sam Walton (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Saint-Hilaire

Gilles Saint-Hilaire (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)

Having some patents, a personal taste for self-promotion and regular IP runs across WP to spam his

WP:BLP. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 13 June 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) –Davey2010Talk 00:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Bunny with a pancake on its head

Bunny with a pancake on its head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability. Sammy1339 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under
    talk!) 18:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk!) 18:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I declined a speedy delete on this, because it is possibly useful as a redirect--as even the user who asked for the speedy indicates. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 12 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Lina

Zhao Lina (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 is a goalkeeper, invited to play in the Chinese National team. I really don't feel the invitation is enough to pass

t@lk to M£ 17:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Being in a national squad for the World Cuu is not enough to pass
t@lk to M£ 11:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I'm fully aware that she fails
WP:NFOOTY, which is why I didn't use that as a rationale for keeping the article. Try reading what I wrote again. Number 57 19:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
She fails
t@lk to M£ 11:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
If the usual practice is to Wait for every "local player" to play in the World Cup, my Son, Cousin and Nephew would have been the subject of Wikipedia's article long time ago. The server won't break if we Wait for every "local player" to play in the World Cup.
t@lk to M£ 11:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here in slovakian media
  • Here which is sourced from AOL news Japan
  • Here in Indonesia
  • Here which seems ultimately sourced from cnsoccer.com
  • Here in vietnam
  • and here in Indonesia again.
Fenix down (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fails NFOOTBALL but seems to have "gone viral", as it were, taking her into GNG territory in my opinion. Målfarlig! (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @
    WP:FOOTY and should be deleted. MbahGondrong (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - I think you missed my point. I am not saying she fails
    WP:NFOOTY. MbahGondrong (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
t@lk to M£ 20:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps if you'd simply added the references spending everyone's time with this process, we could all have spent time improving articles rather than spending time here.
WP:POTKETTLE Nfitz (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps if the users that provided the sources put the sources directly on the article instead here in AFD, that will REALLY save a lot of useless discussions. Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already spent a lot of time cleaning up your footballer stubs, @MbahGondrong, since their cap/goal stats (amongst other things) are usually the product of your imagination. Målfarlig! (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate, which one are those are my imagination? Anyway I really appreciate you cleaning up articles I created. Thanks! :) MbahGondrong (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you can provide me the articles, I am more than glad to have them on AfD. MbahGondrong (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no intention whatsoever of helping exclusionists get rid of worthwhile articles. ;) Smallchief (talk 11:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know why anyone would want to delete this article. She's on the WC squad! I agree with user Nfitz's comment. Gender bias methinks. Alec Station (talk) 06:42, 21 June 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 per

WP:G11 -- no assertion of significance as well as unambiguous promotion. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Emmanuel baptist church Athens Alabama

Emmanuel baptist church Athens Alabama (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)

OR essay about a non-notable church. Sammy1339 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 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 Deleted (A7 &G11 by

OrangeMike.) –Davey2010Talk 02:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Quintox communication

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

No hits on Indian newspaper search. Seems like a promotional page for a non-notable company. Sammy1339 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Should be speedied. No assertion of notability, no references beyond its own webpage and a directory listing. No way this meets
    WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 16:52, 11 June 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) 17:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Assessments Branch

Strategic Assessments Branch (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 Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about a proposed group of 10 CIA analysts to perform strategic analysis of Bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism. There is no official name to the unit and it never got off the ground. There are only a few mentions of the phrase "strategic assessments branch" in relation to the CIA and they are all based on one mention in the 9/11 Commission Report, page 342:

Though Deputy DCI John McLaughlin said to us that the cumulative output of the Counterterrorist Center (CTC) "dramatically eclipsed" any analysis that could have appeared in a fresh National Intelligence Estimate, he conceded that most of the work of the Center's 30- to 40-person analytic group dealt with collection issues.6 In late 2000, DCI George Tenet recognized the deficiency of strategic analysis against al Qaeda. To tackle the problem within the CTC he appointed a senior manager, who briefed him in March 2001 on "creating a strategic assessment capability." The CTC established a new strategic assessments branch during July 2001.The decision to add about ten analysts to this effort was seen as a major bureaucratic victory, but the CTC labored to find them. The new chief of this branch reported for duty on September 10, 2001.7

All mentions of the group are sourced to the 9/11 report.

The coincidental timing of the new chief starting on September 10, 2001 is probably the reason the article was created in the first place. The article's creator User:Frank Freeman also created a deleted article A Strategic Analyst on 9/11 (see User_talk:Frank_Freeman#AfD nomination of A Strategic Analyst On 9.2F11) which was about a disaster test exercise the National Reconnaissance Office scheduled for 9/11 that simulated a small jet hitting their headquarters. I took this text out of Strategic Assessments Branch here: [10].

This material has been inserted into

International counter-terrorism activities of CIA and History of the Central Intelligence Agency
for the sole purpose of adding the wikilink to this article. Those are the only incoming links to this article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It appears to be an unverifiable allegation written in the blink of an eye. The reference to Steve Coll is a reference to Coll's quotation of the 9/11 Commission. This initiative seems to be one of those fever-dream proposals that were made around 9/11/01 that were over before the nightmare of the massive overhaul of the Department of Homeland Security took place. So, unverifiable, except as a proposal, and surely not notable, since no one has been writing about this "branch" that didn't come into existence. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hitgladaeus and
    WP:MILNG.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 14:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 13 June 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 per

WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Vortex Science

Vortex Science (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)

Pseudoscience essay. Sammy1339 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about vortices, it's more like an alternative Theory of everything.  —SMALLJIM  10:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 13 June 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 Deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. –Davey2010Talk 17:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies

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

DePRODed without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Largely promotional and unsourced, this is about a discussion group hosted by a section of an educational establishment. Fails notability criteria at

WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:00, 11 June 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 Deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. –Davey2010Talk 17:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UltraGDB

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

No

conflict of interest. Drm310 (talk) 15:05, 11 June 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

Wikimandia for being BOLD & redirecting yourself :) NAC –Davey2010Talk 17:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2

Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2 (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:NFF redirect to original film for now. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 11 June 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. If anyone wants to merge any of the information in the article let me know. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Tryton and Odoo

Comparison of Tryton and Odoo (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)

Seems like a useful page for users of the software products in question but not at all encyclopedic. There are a number of software comparison pages, but they typically compare a whole category - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_comparisons. Possibility for speedy deletion? If comparisons between any two topics are allowed as topics then the number of pages will rapidly head towards infinity... U2fanboi (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad article but I fail to see the point of it existing on it's own If information was taken from this and added to the Tryton page that would be far more agreeable as there is information on this page that is not available on the Tryton page. I propose a merge of some information and a deletion of the rest. Andrdema (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comparison of two pieces of arbitrary software, themselves of dubious notability. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:47, 18 June 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) 17:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William "Bill" Mehl

William "Bill" Mehl (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)

Very sad, but currently no evidence of more than a fleeting (and local) notability at the time of his death. Dweller (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the sources provided and a Google search, I'm inclined to agree with Dweller. Doesn't meet
WP:GNG to make up for it. I think the giveaway is that his prowess as a footballer is appraised based on the university's newspaper rather than an independent newspaper. If there were more independent sources I'd lean towards weak keep. Aspirex (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment re student newspapers. As a general rule, no, student newspapers are not considered to be independent of their subject matter for purposes of establishing notability per
WP:GNG, and often cover non-notable subject matter that the professional mainstream media would never cover in any significant way. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject satisfies neither the specific notability guideline for college football players per
    WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earn to Die 2

Earn to Die 2 (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)

NOTE: Please add 'Keep' or 'Delete' so it would be easier to keep track of Wikipedians' opinions on the deleting of Earn to Die 2. Svetislavs

Non-notable video game. I dream of horses (T) @ 07:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 07:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I, personally, think that Earn to Die 2 is a notable mobile game. It has more than 1 million downloads on Google Play and has on multiple occasions been featured on the popular YouTube channel Annoying Orange. Svetislavs @ 21:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC+3)
— Note to closing admin:
AfD
.
  • Delete We don't have a
    chatter) 23:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
What about the reviews from the four reliable sources listed above? – czar 02:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not? The game is notable enough, and like Svetislavs said, the game has over 1 million downloads on Google Play and has been featured on Annoying Orange multiple times, so I say we should keep it.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy instead of deleting because it's a good start but just isn't enough to keep. --☣Anarchyte☣ 10:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete (no objection to Userfifaction though) - The "significant coverage in reliable sources" is getting there -- I'm just not seeing enough. Reviews really need to be solid in order to get that free pass re: the "sustained...over a period of time" bit of the GNG. Maybe it's a
    WP:TOOSOON thing (the game just came out a few weeks ago, it seems). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening following this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:12, 11 June 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life Sciences, Society and Policy

Life Sciences, Society and Policy (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 on an academic journal created by apparent COI editior (user name matches name of a co-editor-in-chief of the journal). De-PRODded by an IP tracing to the co-EICs home institution. Journal was established in 2005 under a different name (although for some unfathomable reason the COI editor insists on claiming that the journal was established only in 2013 - the journal website lists volumes back to 2005). However, neither under the old name, nor under the new one does this seem to be included in any selective database, nor are there any independent sources. Does not meet

WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 14:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has a reputable publisher but it's
    WP:TOOSOON to have accumulated any independent notability itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Springer says "CURRENTLY NO ARTICLE PROCESSING FEES". Since this is an open access journal, it begs the question of the business model. My best guess is that it is a "special offer for launch", and there will be processing fees later on. That could be indirect proof of non-notability. Tigraan (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep. As the article says, it is the continuation of Genomics, society and politics, published since ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics; Centre for Society and Genomics (Nijmegen, Netherlands) since 2005. That it has been picked up by a commercial published and continues as an OA journal is quite unusual, and might make it significant. I doubt they will keep it without a publication charge indefinitely, but they might as a demonstration. Worldcat shows it in many hundreds of libraries, but many colleges now routinely add everything in DOAJ (Directory of open Access Journals) to their catalog, so that isn't a good criterion. Checking the pre cursor journal, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, & Columbia, all of which list only selectively, have not added it -- I check these, btw, because they're the nearest such libraries and show up on the first few screens of WorldCat when searched from NYC). Most Springer journals are notable. In the absence of an impact factor, one can check individual articles in the journal: a/c Google Scholar, the ones with the highest cites are 45, 41, 29, 21, , 17, which is pretty good for a new journal. But in this field, I'd hope for at least one article with over 100. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • An example of a Springer journal that failed after a few years is Research on Language and Computation. During its short life, that journal was indexed in Scopus, so it meets NJournals, but I think the verdict on Life Sciences, Society and Policy is still out. --Randykitty (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot see how this journal meet the criteria of
    WP:JOURNALCRIT. I don't think it has been given any sort of citation index, nor has it been cited by any other conventional media as an expert source. Maybe in a few years it will get its own article, but probably not now. — TaqPol talk contrib 07:30, 18 June 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.

Cheboigan Band aka Burt Lake Band of Indians

Cheboigan Band aka Burt Lake Band of Indians (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)

Incorrect title, needs attention immediately Luxure Σ 12:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Draft: space—and once there, help the article creator to choose and appropriate article title and format the submission so that it meets our most basic formatting requirements. We have an enthusiastic newer editor here who needs to be shown how to channel that enthusiasm into a style of writing suitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia. Imzadi 1979 → 07:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note—I'm closing this prematurely simply because it duplicates an existing article on the same topic. I've moved this page into the Draft: namespace so that its content is retained for possible merger into the live article, but so that it no longer appears to no longer appears in search engines.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Alberghetti

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

No evidence of notability. There is almost no reliable source coverage of her save for some passing mentions. [17] [18] The vast majority of coverage of her that does exist is social media sites or unreliable fan sites. The RS coverage that does exist doesn't appear to be enough to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Hence, it seems to me that this page should be deleted.

talk 11:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 11:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 11:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 11:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no exact good target and the best my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found were some News links. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 13 June 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 delete arguments based on the notability guidelines are stronger than the keep arguments that mostly are not based on the current guidelines. With Nigeria knocked out of the World Cup the argument to wait no longer has any force. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Ohiaeriaku

Christy Ohiaeriaku (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:NFOOTY. MbahGondrong (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Being in a national squad for the World Cup Finals is not enough to pass
t@lk to M£ 05:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I'm fully aware that she fails
WP:NFOOTY, which is why I didn't use that as a rationale for keeping the article. Try reading what I wrote again. Number 57 19:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Common sense says we should have a basic article if she plays for the teams. She only featured in her side’s 2-1 home (Oshogbo Queens) win over
t@lk to M£ 05:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I am aware of that. However, given that there is one source on her that I found easily, I don't see the point in deleting this at this point. She's been the part of two major tournament squads as well, which is noteworthy even if she is yet to play. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the usual practice is to Wait for every "local player" play in the World Cup, my cousin and my nephew would have been the subject of Wikipedia's article long time ago. The server won't break if we Wait for every "local player" to play in the World Cup
t@lk to M£ 05:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Citation looks genuine does not translate into passing
t@lk to M£ 05:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reserve keeper at the World Cup finals? If that isn't automatic notability, we need to fix our guidelines. Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails
    WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - Fails
    GNG. The source noted above as an interview (which is in itself, very brief) is the only comment about her I could see in the first fifteen pages of a google search that was not a squad listing. I agree with Nfitz that being an uncapped reserve keeper at the finals of a major international tournament is relatively significant, and although not notable in itself per consensus, should prompt a search for GNG-level sources, but I can't see a great deal out there. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment -
OluwaCurtis, what do you mean, there are only 2 points. The note, which I assume is what you mean specifically notes they must be in the starting line up or come on as a sub to pass. Fenix down (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment - Nigeria have been eliminated and she did not get her first international cap. No other reason to keep the article. MbahGondrong (talk) 11:17, 17 June 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) 17:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard E. Gruenke

Bernard E. Gruenke (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)

Keep to mind I tried improving the article with sources such as this and this but I then realized the subject may not actually be notable. The article has several issues and one of them is that there aren't many good sources; sometimes I'm not even sure what are about this man and his father Bernard O. Gruenke (distinguishing it with the "E." helps). Books found some results but either nothing significant or freely available and searches at News (only found one good link, the jsonline link above) and Newspapers Archive gave nothing significant and Highbeam also gave some results. At first, I thought he may be locally notable but without good sources, I'm not sure. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On current evidence, there are sufficient sources to warrant a selective merge (probably a couple of sentences) to his father's article, where he does not currently seem to be mentioned - and almost certainly should be, given their relationship and very similar names. PWilkinson (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No
    reliable sources support any of the assertions. One reference merely lists the subject along with others. The other does not mention the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 12:07, 11 June 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. (

YO 😜 13:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Irfan Shahid

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

Second source goes to a dead link. Searched the Georgetown.edu website, see no mention of "Oman Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies" with regards to Prof. Shahid, he's simply on an Adjunct Faculty list as a Professor Emeritus, see here. Also while there are works listed, the article and the works fail to establish this professor's notability in verifiable established sources. Does not meet

WP:PROF guidelines. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 07:46, 11 June 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 speedily deleted by

non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Orji Fidelis Maduka

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

No demonstration of

WP:NSPORT. The one source which is in the article (I removed two which didn't mention the subject) is just a player info listing and states that he doesn't play for the national team. I did a quick Google search and didn't find anything which confirms notability. This is probably an A7 candidate but I'd like other opinions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 11 June 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) 07:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NYLXS

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

No reliable sources to establish notability since 2009, probably self promotional. GM83 (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:42, 11 June 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) –Davey2010Talk 18:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Le Pig-Al Patrol

Le Pig-Al 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)

non notable individual episode Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    List of The Inspector cartoons#1967, no enough coverage nor enough contents to sustain a separate article for this episode. Cavarrone 04:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:02, 11 June 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) –Davey2010Talk 18:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The Pique Poquette of Paris

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

non notable individual episode Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    List of The Inspector cartoons#1966, no enough coverage nor enough contents to sustain a separate article for this episode. Cavarrone 04:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If I was asked originally, I would say that we need one page for the series, and the rest should be included in it. But as many of the previous series have separate pages, then this would remain. Shad Innet (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:01, 11 June 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

List of The Inspector cartoons#1968. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

La Feet's Defeat

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

non notable individual episode Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no objection to a redirect if desired - as above. But these really should have been bundled into one omnibus nomination. Neutralitytalk 23:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:01, 11 June 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. While a simple vote count would suggest no consensus, all of the delete opinions came before the significant coverage identified late in the discussion to meet that main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Joseph

Basil Joseph (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)

Director who falls under too soon and may not pass notability guidelines. Wgolf (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
ChampionMan1234 00:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
ChampionMan1234 00:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as my first two searches here and here found links but not much significant and there's no target for moving the article elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SwisterTwister. I think that notability may eventually be established, but not quite yet. -Pax85 (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I cleaned up the article. It seems like he's had enough profiles and his short films have been called critically acclaimed.[19], [20], [21]. There's a ton of press about his directorial debut. I know the Indian film industry is prolific but I don't want to just assume everybody gets these articles. Also I put his name in Malayalam and it brings up more coverage naturally.
    YO 😜 09:16, 11 June 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 Suburban_Legends#Albums. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forever in the Friend Zone

Forever in the Friend Zone (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 is only a track listing. Only reference is a link to purchase the album. — cocomonkilla | talk | contrib 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 00:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The album has a release date in 3 days, I see no reason to remove this article. It's content is similar with the bands other wiki album pages. Currently, this album is download only, I would expect more info (band members, etc) to be added once the psychical cd is available. A quick search will show the album has received attention [1] [2] [3] User:Bobs Ska Radio 08:31 30, May 2015 (utc)
  1. ^ http://www.uberrock.co.uk/news-updates/93-march-news-updates/14074-california-punks-suburban-legends-ready-themselves-for-return-to-uk-stages.html
  2. ^ http://www.bostonska.net/news/suburban-legends-announce-new-album-with-lyric-video/3622/
  3. ^ http://www.bobskaradio.com/index.php/component/content/article?id=153
Try finding some attention in
reliable sources instead, if you expect anybody to actually change their mind. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the band's page. All I was able to find, now that it's been released, are a couple of bad reviews, promotional materials, and discography lists. No real notable coverage... -Pax85 (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the band. No prejudice against recreation in the future if
    WP:RS coverage shows up, but fan forums and social media don't get an album into Wikipedia as a standalone topic and albums don't get a notability freebie just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 11 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 07:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1549 Mikko

1549 Mikko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 11 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 07:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1605 Milankovitch

1605 Milankovitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. One lightcurve study [27] and the usual viewing-opportunity listings, but not enough in-depth coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 11 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 07:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1630 Milet

1630 Milet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. One lightcurve study [28] and one physical modeling study [29] but they're both of large groups of asteroids and don't say much about this particular one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 11 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 07:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1670 Minnaert

1670 Minnaert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. One group lightcurve study found [30], but not enough depth of coverage for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 11 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 07:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1610 Mirnaya

1610 Mirnaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 11 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 07:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1901 Moravia

1901 Moravia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 11 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 07:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1906 Naef

1906 Naef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect. Amid a bunch of general discussions of Vestoids (of which it is just a small data point) I found one lightcurve study [31]. I don't think it adds up to enough notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 11 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 07:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1876 Napolitania

1876 Napolitania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 11 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 07:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1634 Ndola

1634 Ndola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 11 June 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1750 Eckert

1750 Eckert (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 don't think it meets

WP:GNG, and should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a relatively large ~10 km Mars-crossing asteroid AND has a 375 hour rotation period. It has the 5th longest known rotation period for a Mars-crossing asteroid. -- Kheider (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I found three studies of small groups of asteroids that covered this one [32] [33] [34]. Together with the unusual properties discussed above, this may be enough for notability. But I would be more confident in this if we could find sources that actually mention that it is unusually large for a Mars-crosser, or that it has a high rotation period (as we have for some other asteroids). Incidentally, the supposed long period is contradicted by one of these sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 11 June 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 Miss World. The history will be there if anyone thinks anything can be merged. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World People's Choice

Miss World People's Choice (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 promo, fails

WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss World. I don't believe a merge is very desperately needed, since the article's discursive bit is tautological (the people's choice is the choice of people), and the rest is a big ol' table. If the mother article really needs more tables, then fine. I suspect, however, that this is yet another fan-generated list that satisfies a writer's needs more than a reader's. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 11 June 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) 07:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Noble Cortes

AfDs for this article:
Kenny Noble Cortes (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 aware this was nominated in 2011 but was withdrawn because a Billboard award he won but I'm not sure if this can entirely save the article. My searches at News, Books, browser (only passing mentions), Newspaper Archive, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing to suggest there are good sources to improve this. It's worth noting that he hasn't even received good coverage since that first nomination. @J04n: and @Dravecky: are welcome to comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
-is awake 07:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the award might make him a valid article topic if the resulting article could be properly sourced, the reality is that no claim of notability ever entitles a person to keep a minimally sourced article on Wikipedia just because they exist — the quality of sources that can be provided to
    WP:GNG — and the award in question is not major enough (we don't even have an article about it) that the need to have articles about all of its winners would override their sourceability or lack thereof. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 13 June 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) 07:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Manjith

Manu Manjith (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)

Lyricist that I can't tell if they are notable or not-can't find any reliable sources (also the style of the article is pretty hard to read right now anyway but that's another issue) Wgolf (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Searching for his name in Malayalam brings up a few very short articles but no indication of notability
    YO 😜 15:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 11 June 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. Davewild (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1574 Meyer

1574 Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure. Observed in an occultation event [35] and mentioned briefly in several papers about resonances and about the spectral properties of Cybele and D-type asteroids. Is it enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: OMB@59km and thus somewhat more notable than a common MBA<50km. -- Kheider (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:39, 11 June 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. Consensus is that there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connected (docu-series)

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

Recent release, fails

WP:NFILMS Flat Out (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I do not believe that Connected violates

WP:GNG
at all, but it is not notable. Istead of removing this, though, I believe we should move it to a Draft namespace. AKA Casey Rollins Talk with Casey May 26, 2015 2:49 PM EST
@Northamerica1000: I have just copied this to its draft namespace at Draft: Connected (docu-series) so that the user's work will not be lost and may be swiftly uploaded once it reached notability requirements. The user really should've created a draft first. AKA Casey Rollins Talk with Casey May 26, 2015 2:55 PM EST

Comment - im not sure what you mean by "violates WP:GNG." I said it fails WP:GNG (which means it fails the standard for notability). Its better to move the article into user space than create another copy. I am happy to support userfication Flat Out (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...looks like the article was deleted, but a much better version of the same article already exists at Connected (TV Series) AKA Casey Rollins Talk with Casey 28 May 2015 11:28 PM EST

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:37, 11 June 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. Davewild (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Me Home to You

Calling Me Home to You (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:ITSA. Appable (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep! Actually, it is a very historic song that charted in its day. Not every notable song is currently a top 40 hit. A new Wikipedian is working on this stub. Please give them the time to get their references in order. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The song holds historic significance. If the new wikipedian wants, I'd be willing to assist them in improving the page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend upmerge - the song, by itself, doesn't appear to meet notability; however, the article John McCormack (tenor), could certainly use more documentation of his songs, their placement. There would also be room for a list article that documents all of McCormack's songs: he was quite famous during the period, Sadads (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a search through Newspapers.com: based on their collection, at the time, the song, by itself, did not appear to be notable in the newspapers around that time in and of itself. However, there are 78 instances of it being present in listings with his other songs, so I am betting that you could do some substantial surveys of his music independent of the individual, Sadads (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadads: There were much more pressing things to report on at time, and that's without considering there was no "pop" music press at the time. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Richhoncho: My concern is that we haven't been able to surface any period sources attesting to it's relative importance, and thus reinforcing the Notability of the song. And I am not buying the idea that it wouldn't have been reported: I saw a bunch of stuff about McCormack and his individual tours to out of the way parts of the country which mentioned important individual songs: this didn't happen to be one of them. Sadads (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadads:@Richhoncho: I have just added a couple of citations for the notability of the musical score in and of itself. I don't know if that changes your opinions at all. But thought you'd like to know, in any case. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:30, 11 June 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) 01:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a little concerned about a chart that claims that this was the 53rd best selling single, when what charts there were in 1916/18 were published music. Having said that, assuming it was in the top 100 of any chart in those days makes the song notable, the article should grow, not be deleted. Thanks toTheGracefulSlick for showing us the true spirit of WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Many of the song guidelines won't apply, as this song predates charts (and radio). With steady improvement, the article will measure up, and the song itself is notable. It's hard to apply contemporary standards to it, but this one cast a long historical shadow. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:50, 11 June 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. North America1000 22:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Griswold

AfDs for this article:
Jean Griswold (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:BIO, article written by the company's digital marketing director is based on articles about her company in which she is mentioned, but lacks depth of coverage. Article previously deleted, was recently re-created, then speedily deleted but restored. While it may be different, same problems remain. Coretheapple (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@
ISBN 978-1577311492

Jarodkarns (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)— Jarodkarns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Joseph2302: Alright. Why is Jean not notable? She gained national attention after being featured in Inc., Forbes, Entrepreneur, and on NBC's Today. She has won numerous awards, including Working Woman's 2001 Entrepreneur of the Year honor. She is confined to a wheelchair after being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1969. Her story was published in the 2001 book Women of Spirit, edited by Katherine Martin. Please help me understand why somebody that went through so much, but still managed to create her own company, win awards and be featured in so many publications is not notable?. Jarodkarns (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)— Jarodkarns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Probable Keep Sources do seem to exist to document her as an entrepreneur of considerable accomplishment. Article may simply need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikimandia:, you may want to take a fresh look. There have been an impresive # of Jean Griswolds in the world, and coverage of this one often dates back over 20 yrs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Nah, afraid we still don't have sufficient significant coverage to support this person's inclusion in the project. Articles such as this do not count as significant coverage. We also have the fact that this article is written by the company's digital marketing director, per disclosure, and we should not have such articles in Wikipedia. It's unfair to our readers and to other corporate executives lacking such an aggressive Wikipedia-focused marketing campaign. Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Also, as discussed at length in the hatted discussion below, the claim that it is "the oldest company of its kind in the U.S." is sourced to the company and thus needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Coretheapple (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion of one source
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also I notice that you are using a press release to source a sweeping statement concerning the notability of the subject's company, that it is "the nation's oldest non-medical home care provider," per your edit here. That "McClatchy" article is clearly a republished press release that ran on the PR Web. The fact that it was carried on ProQuest is immaterial and does not anoint it with RS status. When a publication recyclces a press release, it is still a press release, and we don't use self-published press releases to source such sweeping statements. I haven't gone through the other sources you are talking up here, but I hope there isn't other questionable material at issue in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Coretheapple, Untrue. The article is not a "a republished press release". As I stated on the talk page, Proquest is an archive. It does list press releases. But it flags them in the search as PR for Press RElease, so you easily scroll past them to find articles form real newspapers. The article in question is not a replica of the company press release, although it was apparently inspired by the press release. It is form a The McClatchy Company newspaper, the Tribune Business News and it is about how the national rebranding will affect a local franchise of Griswold Home Care. Proquest is an entirely RS since it takes you to the actual article in actual papers. Please cease your edit warring and undue ownership behavior.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The McClatchy "article" is a fifteen-day-old recycled, localized press releaseavailable on the web here that ran on the PR Wire[36], as a comparison of the two indicates. The fact that you summoned up that article from ProQuest adds no value to it and means nothing. The important point is that the claim that the subject of this article is CEO of "the nation's oldest non-medical home care provider" is a claim made by the company and is therefore of only limited credibility and usefulness. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and a corporate press release is not sufficient to support that kind of claim. It is currently attributed to the company (unless in your zeal to "rescue" this article, you took that out). If this article survives, it will need to be removed, as it is not properly attributed. There is little point in removing such press agentry from an article, written by the company's digital marketing guy, that is under consideration for deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment on COI, sources, and notability I had not known that the article was COI, although, of course, many/most? articles about individuals and companies are. Authorship is not the issue addressed at AFD. The question is whether Griswold's notability is substantive and well-sourced. She has been profiled in the
    The McClatchy Company news article claims that her company is the oldest of its kind. And she is the recipient of numerous awards for being founder of a large, successful corporation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This rewritten corporate press release (this is its origin on the PRWeb news release wire) is what you inaccurately describe as an "article." The web version is identical to the ProQuest version. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what you are claiming to be a "McClatchy article" is a press release. It is word-for-word identical to the same press release, which was published in a different publication. So I stand corrected. It is not a "rewritten PRWeb press release." It is a press release. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted both the link to the open access press release, and a full cut-and-paste of the news article which souces the "oldest" claim (it is an article about the local franchise, not a copy of the press release) on the article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an article about the local franchise. For the umpteenth time, it is a press release about the local franchise. We know that because the same text, with the same headline, ran in two separately owned publications. Apart from that, they both read like press releases, and are in the format of a press release. I pasted the same press release that you took from ProQuest, and the same press release that was put on the web by a different publication. They are both the same identically worded press release. Any editor with ProQuest acccess, and there are hundreds of us, can confirm this. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this to the talk page, where it belongs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance to this AfD is this: the claim that you added to the article that Ms. Griswold is CEO of "the nation's oldest non-medical home care provider" is a claim made by the company. Period. You are, rather tendentiously, continuing to claim otherwise, but it is obvious that this claim is made by the company in a PRWeb press release, a shorter press release that ran in at least two publications, and nowhere else. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, not press releases. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone still interested, go to talk. However, even if this article turns out to be a press release, it is a minor point compared with the fact that Griswold founded a large, successful corporation; has received many awards covered in the press; was profiled in both
Philadelphia Inquirer. Sometimes editors who spot an inadequate article become emotionally attached to their AFD nomination even after better sources are located and the article improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@Coretheapple:@E.M.Gregory: I'm just trying to aid in this discussion. There was a request earlier here to provide sources for Jean Griswold being featured in some of the notable magazines. Here is a link to the Forbes article from December 24, 1990. Here is a link to the Inc article from JUN 1, 1989. Here is a link to the Church that Jean's husband Lincoln was minister at (he is mentioned in the history section of their site). Here are two more articles from Paraplegia News about Jean Griswold and what she has been able to do after being diagnosed with MS - Article 1 and Article 2. Still working on some of the other publications, but since I was asked not to edit the page, I am providing sources here so that others may do so. Jarodkarns (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, may I add that as far as I am concerned, mention of Griswold Home Care as a company or information about the business as it relates today, does not even need to be included in this article on Jean Griswold. We should be focused on the fact that this woman started her own company in the 1980's while fighting MS. With so much against her (being a female CEO and fighting a debilitating disease), she was able to help a lot of people that needed care, provide jobs, advocate for MS, and at the same time create a successful business. It's really a remarkable story. And again, although my COI is in play here (which I've declared), I am more than happy to take a sidelines approach as long as this discussion is handled appropriately. There shouldn't be much of an argument about whether Jean Griswold is notable or not as long as contributors are able to verify the sources. — Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this is an article on the founder, who has not received sufficient coverage to support notability, a situation that lamentably existed in the original article as well, the first one deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Founding a large, successful corporation is an excellent claim to WP notability, especially when it is backed up - as it is in this case - by a 1990 profile in
WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a chapter in a book and a profile/feature article about Griswold from
    Philadelphia Inquirer 1992 already on the page. Also added two long profile, feature stories on Griswold from PNMagazine (formerly Paraplegia News)[37] dated to 1991, and 2003. So there are 3 or 5 full profile/feature articles from major magazines, plus extensive news coverage of her in relationship to the company she founded. Plus discussions of her life and career in books. I fail to understand the argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions./>E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:33, 11 June 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) 07:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellyn Satter

Ellyn Satter (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, who wrote a few books. Fails

WP:NAUTHOR. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage found about her or her books - which appear to be self-published. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add my analysis of the refs: #1 She writes for Web MD, so this is her bio, probably written by her #2 mention only #3 Amazon! #4 minor publication #5 someone's blog #6 minor publication. LaMona (talk) 16:12, 15 June 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) 18:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avion Entertainment

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

Does not meet notability criteria under WP:COMPANY - unable to independently verify whether the producers and musicians involved (Artin Pro, Avion Flower) have any notability. - Andrew Y

talk 09:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: LoMax Films has 1 listing on IMDB.com about a documentary being released in October 2015. But there is nothing on IMDB about Avion Entertainment. I would recommend waiting until the film is shown on television and then resubmitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simile (talk • contribs) 05:47, 18 June 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. There is a rough consensus that notability has now been established. Davewild (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Fire Department

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

No content, no sources, fails

WP:ORG Zackmann08 (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 00:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
(Delete) Fire departments are not a class of topic where every one that exists is automatically entitled to an article — nearly every municipality of any size has one of either the volunteer or professional kinds, so you have to make and source some pretty distinctive and substantive claims of significance to get a fire department into Wikipedia. But that hasn't been done here — this is a one-line stub which just asserts the FD's existence and sources it nowhere. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source a real article about it.
Keep due to content and sourcing improvements by Mikeman67. More certainly still needs to be done, but what's been done so far is enough to flip me. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well said
WP:FIRE-STRUCT... Well then it would be different. --Zackmann08 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Based on that argument any city with a high population could have a page created saying "The <insert city name> fire department provides fire protection for <insert city name>." And nothing more. If this page were created right now, it wouldn't last a day before being deleted. --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it could. Your point is? That's exactly what stubs are for - to kickstart articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that no topic of any class gets an automatic notability freebie, whereby it's entitled to keep an unsourced stub of the "Topic is a thing that exists, the end" variety. A stub, even a short one that still needs significant expansion, still has to at least make and source at least a basic claim of
    notability, which is not the same thing as mere existence, to be keepable. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks for that. I've reconsidered accordingly, and reversed my comment above. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've also added some additional sources [45][46][47]. Altamel (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:' The person recommending deletion has a history of going through and recommending pages for deletion that should not of been recommended[1] and is particularly doing this to different fire services... so those reviewing this should keep that in mind and if it continues admin should consider sanctions. Zlassiter (talk) 15:19, 17 June 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. (NAC)--Antigng (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

François Massau

François Massau (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)

Poorly sourced article, no evidence they pass

WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 11 June 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) 07:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly Singh

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

The subject lacks significant/in-depth coverage in independent and secondary reliable sources. Does not pass

WP:GNG and merit entry in Wikipedia. Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

"creator of this page is Meformyself and it has edits only on this page, further please refer to this page too Yaseen Anwer which was created by Myselfanwer, these two people are linked with this event Poets Corner Group....so this could be an attempt to gain publicity and advertisement....Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Singh is non-notable, although hers may simply bee a case of
    WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 14 June 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.
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalamazoo_Department_of_Public_Safety
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_June_11&oldid=1142625543"