Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 20

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saarah Hameed Ahmed (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)

Procedural nomination per the CSD I declined. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No claims of notability made as such. Affiliation to a particular religion is no notability in this case. Also, the references used in the article aren't neutral. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her notability is part of her religious affiliation: first woman Muslim pilot. The article describes her struggle to be a pilot after 9/11. I'll check for more sources, bit she seems to meet GNG.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reworked article to be less like a press release. Easily meets GNG. Articles have appeared over time (2013 to 2015), in a wide variety of venues (Saudi Arabia, India, Australia). Concur with both Megalibrarygirl and sources that her notability lies in her religious affiliation because of perception and stereotypes associated with her faith, she has become a role model for other women. SusunW (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely keep as although this could be better, this seems notable and acceptable enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 15:23, 26 September 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. DIscounting all the "keep" opinions by accounts with curiously few edits.  Sandstein  18:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C-tru (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 artist. Does not meet

• KEEP. References that are present allow for enough information to be eligible for wikipedia. Verifiable objective evidence is included through the sources that are provided. This includes itunes, pandora, etc. Associated rapper includes papoose. Music video appeared on MTV. He might not have as much as senior artists, but I think enough to be eligible for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semyfayn (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. My findings are such that this subject meets WP music notability as relevant info was added recently that support this. Subject has won 1st place in major national music competition. ^[1] Subject has a collaborative album that charted in Swiss Music Charts and had retail and digital release. ^[2] The subject has collaborated and made music with notable artists in his genre including Papoose, Ras Kass, SwizZz, and Gunplay. These artist have been or are in major labels and have had major label releases and also have an extensive body of music work. I found sources listing C-Tru performances in Europe and sources of these concert venues were added. These all meet the multiple criteria for WP music notability, and C-Tru's body of work is notable. In regards to the review of the science paper cited where subject was thanked, that fact was cited not for WP academic purposes but just to show background info on the subject and past work. Peruporfavor (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 23:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I found nothing good aside from one press release, simply too soon for a better article. BTW Gogo Dodo it's good to see you around AfD (you'd certainly be welcomed to come around here more often)! SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. Upon further research the subject has satisfied a number of the criteria for music notability. Eg. subject of multiple published works, has album on Switzerland music chart, non-trivial coverage of international tour, has collaborated and worked with notable music artists, has won first place in a major music competition, has been placed in rotation on major television network (MTV)^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karisma808 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: None of your claims establish notability or hold up upon further scrutiny. I see no references to back up the claim of "multiple publish works". I see one press release, a reprint of a press release, and a blog post about the press release on the competition win (which has issues all on its own). All other references either do not mention C-Tru or are not published works independent of the artist. The claims that the artist has an album that charted on the Swiss charts is misleading. The album is by another artist, DJ Swissivory, which establishes DJ Swissivory's notability, not C-tru's. Appearing on the album does not qualify for being C-tru's album. The "non-trivial coverage" of touring is trivial: all references are just schedule listings, no articles about the tour. Collaborating with notable artists does not make one notable. It is just name dropping. There are no
  notable event. It looks to me to be a marketing event. The MTV claim is for DJ Swissivory's video, so you have again established DJ Swissivory's notability, not C-tru's. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: The MTV video does establish notability, as it includes 3 rappers: Papoose, C-tru, and Spits Nelson. This is a collaboration, i.e. team work. Feel free to watch the video. Swissivory was the DJ for the song. Moreover, a collaborative effort does not mean name dropping, but rather that it was a group effort. C-tru is up-and-rising, his Wikipedia should not be removed because of this. I feel that there are enough sources to meet criteria. Also, the “Real Dreams” album was #59 in the Swiss Charts, in which C-tru was features in at least 4 of the songs. This further establishes notability and eligibility for Wikipedia.
• Comment: In the composition of music works, the writers and collaborators play a very integral part in the success of the song, during the Grammy's all of the writers of a song are brought on stage, recognized and receive the award as well. Therefore the subject is notable for being a major contributor as writer and performer for a charting album. A search on C-Tru in American music publishing database for
  ASCAP ACE under "Writers" show this subjects published works. https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx In regards to the MTV music video, the subject is shown prominently as he is the main performer of the entire song chorus, the second verse, and the bridge. As that is the main single which received the most exposure and college radio play for the collaborative album "Real Dreams" it can be argued that the subject's work had significant influence on the success of the charting album. Therefore DJ Swissivory's notability is also in direct correlation to the notability of the subject. Peruporfavor (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: I saw this music video on MTV and decided to start a page for each rapper. I saw that Papoose had a wiki page, so then I moved to the next one, which was C-tru. It was relatively easy to find objective information, and I feel that C-tru should be part of wiki. Thank you. -Semyfayn
• Keep. Subject reminds me of MC Jin, notable for being one of the first rappers of Asian descent to achieve mainstream recognition in the U.S. rap markets. The subject's music accomplishments seem more significant being that artists of Asian descent are one and few in the mainstream hip-hop genre. It is noteworthy the artist was found in the hip-hop music genre working with accomplished rap artists and has a fan base to tour in Europe. With the globalization of hip-hop music I think this subject will be an important addition to wiki as his inclusion further expands wiki's expansive reference of different types of artists in the hip-hop genre.Djhero2099 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:
  WP:OTHERSTUFF and MC Jin is signed to a record label, has released albums with said label, has film and television credits, and covered multiple independent reliable sources. C-tru has none of these. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. C-tru 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)globalmario

• Delete Despite all the "keep" !votes, nobody seems to have uncovered any solid sources able to withstand closer examination. --Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No substantive coverage of the subject has been turned up in reliable, independent sources. I could also not find any. Jujutacular (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable writer. Quis separabit? 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 03:09, 28 September 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. Jujutacular (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: as non-notable

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to the citations in the article, seems to be notable in Norway.[2][3][4][5][6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I originally closed as Keep but someone was writing there !vote whilst I closed so I've reopened it. –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails PORNBIO. The coverage cited by MT falls well below what is required to meet the GNG, amounting to 1) a brief obituary; 2)a brief mention (with no biographical information) in an article about pprn performers ripping off actual celebrity names (Gabor acted as "Turd Wrenolds"); 3)a news-of-the weird type item that boils down to "porn star comes to town, wants local girls to have sex with him on camera", saying next to nothing about Gabor himself; 4) a brief description of a video (now offline) of someone named Alex Rosen telling a story about Gabor, labelled "humor"; and 5) a very brief followup to item 3, reporting that Gabor can only find one local girl willing to have on-camera sex. My comments here are probably longer than the collected biographical content about Gabor in the five articles combined. That's really not enough to sustain a biographical article for a subject who fails the relevant SNGs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (changed from Delete) fails PORNBIO and there's no other claim of notability in the article, the refs shown here are of the "tabloid journalism" variety, discouraged to be used by
  WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Kraxler (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

He most certainly fails PORNBIO, and I still think that most sources are tabloid journalism and a lot of obits which all repeat the same story. However, he may have been a minor celebrity in Norway, based on his looking like Sean Connery. There's reasonable doubt here as to whether he fails

WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong keep. Passes GNG with wide margin, I see dozens if not hundreds of articles in all the major Norwegian newspapers and publications. Some examples: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Gabor was also the subject of an NRK1 (Norway's largest and oldest TV channel) documentary ([22], [23]). More coverage easily available, clearly a celebrity in Norway. Cavarrone 19:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm in the delete camp on about 97% of the debates about pieces on porn actors brought to AfD. However, Cavarrone has demonstrated that this deceased individual, as "Norway's most famous porn actor," has been the object of multiple instances of substantial coverage in independent publications of presumed reliability — and thus passes GNG, completely setting aside our ludicrous SNG for porn stars.. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 26 September 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.

Kathleen Griffin (educationalist) (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)

Do not find the subject notable and cannot find many sources discussing the relevance of this particular Kathleen Griffin (school teacher/educationalist) as there seem to be so many Sheroddy (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: agree that independent notability has not been established. Quis separabit? 21:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now (draft and userfy if wished) as I found no better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The references should definitely be upgraded: all 4 "External links" and 3 of the 4 inline cites appended to the article are either broken or provide no readily discernible access to subject (the brief informative exception, inline cite 4: http://www.wwv.org.uk/worldwide-volunteering-patrons-and-trustees-2/). However, upon typing "Kate Griffin President of the International Confederation of Principals" into Google, one can find numerous mentions of her as well as references to her, thus confirming her notability (per
  WP:COMMONNAME, the main title header should be "Kate Griffin", rather than "Kathleen Griffin"). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. ICP seems to be a professional or trade group that itself has questionable notability (unsourced for almost 10 yrs). Griffin does not seem to have any other claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak delete - it's arguable that her volunteer work, combined with her headmaster status, could make her
  yet. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 23 September 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 Rich Kids on LSD. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Other (punk band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I found nothing good and the name is no help even with adding "punk band San Francisco".
  Rhododendrities Considering this was PRODDed in May, what made you nominate it now? (I'm assuming you were watching it and you found it again) SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I just went through my PROD log yesterday and decided to follow up on a few. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I'd be ok combining with RKL (although RKL and The Other are two completely different bands) as long as the information was not lost (i.e. merge the content) and then redirect "The Other" to that section of the RKL wiki. Pacohaas (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pacohaas: Since you expressed that you aren't familiar with this process, I'll just drop a quick note to suggest adding the word "Merge" in bold text to the beginning of your comment above (like SwisterTwister did with "Delete"). Just a convention to succinctly communicate a proposed outcome to precede more substantial arguments/explanations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rich Kids on LSD, and merge any content where appropriate from the page history. This group does not appear to have independent notability -- I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 03:14, 28 September 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 Rhythm D. Redirecting, although the target seems to be headed for AfD, too. If that is deleted, this one should be deleted, too, judging from the comments of the editors participating in this debate. Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intense Method (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:MUSBIO -- notability claim seems to be that a song appeared on a popular soundtrack album. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rhythum D (the second option was to delete) as the one charting would be the only thing saving this and my searches found no better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, or possibly even delete both articles. I could not find significant coverage of either in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 03:27, 28 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JProfiler (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 find no

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure as I'm compelled to say delete because although my searches found results (here, here, here and here), I'm not sure if it's enough to swing improvement and I think this could be mentioned elsewhere but there's no target as well. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winner of the, "2007 Java Developer's Journal Readers' Choice Awards". [24] [25] The software is also recommended in dozens of programming books.[26] It appears that they have a free version for personal and a paid version for commercial use. 009o9 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a java developer there is very little reason to keep this page there is nothing of worth on this page that you would not see from attempting to use it inside of eclipse. I understand that it is a good tool but it is a bit simple. Its like writing an article about a specific brand of pulley system. There will never be a reason to write about the branded item but about the system itself. We have an article on Software profiling. I don't see why this is notable beyond that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrdema (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W. K. Lyhne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of meeting

• Delete: fails
  WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 23:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom: the Guardian article is the only decent ref, so subject fails
  WP:ARTIST. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for now as I found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 26 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Preview Channel (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 found results for both companies but not for this joint venture and I'm not entirely convinced it existed although it is common for there to be few results therefore I want comments. Calling Calamondin12 and TheGGoose. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This did exist, for whatever that's worth — on a
  reliable source coverage by which any more substance could be added. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above, I could not find significant coverage. Jujutacular (talk) 03:33, 28 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound and The Fury (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fr an article from January 2005 with hardly much information and change since then, my searches found absolutely nothing and it seems they may no longer exist and their website is closed. I was initially going to PROD but this seems better for comments and given the age (the article claims they performed at some Award shows but without good sources, there's simply not much). SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Completely
  WP:NMUSIC. If you squint hard enough, it could maybe be considered as hanging by its toenails off the edge of NMUSIC #7 ("most prominent of the local scene of a city"), but even that would have to be properly supported by RS coverage, and doesn't give a band a no-sourcing freebie just because you claim it. So I'm willing to revisit this if the sourcing can be substantively improved, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -- I could not find significant coverage of the band in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 03:37, 28 September 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) 18:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject does not seem to meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete for now as I found nothing better than links at News, Books and browser but nothing to suggest immediate improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I could not find significant coverage of him reliable sources. A fair amount of hits in searches, but no in-depth coverage of him specifically. Jujutacular (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unable to find any
  WP:GNG. I fear, even Mooshu the dog will not save this.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 28 September 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. Jujutacular (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Crawford (pornographic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. Negligible independent reliable sourcing, mostly press releases, presskit pieces, and promotional interviews. No real claim of notability. There's just nothing here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - won of awards, (two times: individual and scene), 16x interwiki, notable. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 22:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG. Mainstream media coverage is trivial to nil. Porn trade press coverage is mainly republished press releases. Only plausibly non-trivial coverage comes from Adult Video News. Not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete actually both awards are scene related and as Gene notes there is not the coverage to pass gng.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Spartaz & Gene93k - Looks unfortunately don't count towards notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 26 September 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. No consensus at all to delete this content, and we don't need to be at AFD to discuss whether to do some selective merging or not. Courcelles (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (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 cleaned up a couple of these lists a while ago, as they had an excessive number of external links to (mostly) iTunes and similar commercial sites. However, I now believe that they should be deleted as per

List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

List of Telugu songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Tamil songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Punjabi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Marathi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Kannada songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Bhojpuri songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit: Added additional lists. Bjelleklang - talk 20:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan with maybe a possibility of merge. Bhojpuri, Marathi and Pakistani song list aren't that huge. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all lists into List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I don't understand the segregation by language. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Segregation by languages was probably made to keep article sizes within limits. Merged article would be huge. Also segregation by languages means segregation by various Indian film industries which are language based. Unless we can find a different criteria for segregation or a way to keep size small, status quo seems the only solution. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Clay, New York. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moyers Corners 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)

Nothing to indicate notability on article; all secondary sources found on Google news are either about fires or personnel; neither of which show notability for the department John from Idegon (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:OUTCOMES. This is a small, (now) suburban fire company in Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as this is always considered the best option. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 26 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASUS Transformer Book T100 (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 product; just another tablet. No references provided; the only one is dead, and its at the manufactrer's own website. Unencyclopedic rundown of all submodels and options. Mikeblas (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per-model articles have an uphill struggle to demonstrate any encyclopedic significance, and this one isn't even trying. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as although News, Books, browser and highbeam all instantly found links, I suppose we can wait for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject does not meet

• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Full name is Anupam Singh, which is probably the better search term ( Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ). Having said that, there seem to be quite a number of recent news sources for him, but most seem just to be quoting him as spokesperson for Swaraj Abhiyan. There might be something substantial about him buried somewhere among the passing mentions, but if so, I haven't spotted it. PWilkinson (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now unless this can be noticeably improved as I'm not seeing much to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Gunn (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 believe the page has already be deleted. Player fails

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A previous article about the same subject, at
  general notability guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Has the same level of notability as Kelechi Iheanacho when the consensus was made to keep his article. Arials101 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How? Kelechi has actually played for the first-team. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to keep Kelechi Iheanacho during any of the 4 deletion debates that I'm aware of. Was there a fifth? Nfitz (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No there wasn't any other AfD, the last one was closed as "no consensus" per the votes cast, not per the "level of notability". Aside from

WP:OTHERSTUFF in general, Kelechi Iheanacho and Angus Gunn particularly have nothing in common, notabilitywise. Kraxler (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
  WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - no pro appearances Spiderone 18:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Meets
  WP:GNG with significant coverage over the years in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Examples from 2012, 2014 and here's one from after the AFD started 2015. Nfitz (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Wait until he makes a professional debut. Thursby16 (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If he meets

WP:GNG then doesn't matter if hasn't made professional debut. Nfitz (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

... but he doesn't JMHamo (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly doesn't. The sources provided above to support GNG are classic examples of

WP:NOTINHERITED. There's a bit of chat going on about this young player because of who his dad was, not because of any achievements the player has gained. You simply cannot claim a player is generally notable in the field of football when they have never actually played football at any senior level. Fenix down (talk) 10:30, 28 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Danzig (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 guidelines —Boruch Baum (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 01:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename to Neil Gdansk, surely? Claudebone (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Claudebone -- very droll. Quis separabit? 03:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I presume that this person's notability would come from his academic work. But I don't see how he comes close to satisfying
  WP:NACADEMICS. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: as insufficiently notable
  academician. Quis separabit? 03:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as although I found some results here and there, there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 26 September 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.