Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 May	9 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Survivor episodes

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

Per

2) contain this information. Given there have only been two seasons produced (with a third due later this year), hardly seems a need for a separate list article, particularly given the lack of citations. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 00:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I had also encountered this recently, no need for it. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I read this as a rough consensus to keep. Obviously the numbers are stronger on the keep side, though the weight of policy argument is closer. It appears we are somewhere in the gray area of

WP:ENT, with more people leaning towards the "close enough" side. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Erika Harlacher

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

Article topic lacks

video game reliable sources custom Google search. Hits in animenewsnetwork were passing mentions—nothing biographical. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 18:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar 18:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar 18:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP, there's simply nothing to suggest the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing shows this dubber is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toradora!#Characters. Weak keep Erika plays a major character in this anime (Ami Kawashima) so this would be the most likely search result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking this over, I do have the Toradora! booklet that might have an interview with Erika Harlacher who plays Ami Kawashima. This source would count as secondary, as it is not about the voice actress herself. I will check into the magazines I have as well later today. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ami is a major character in the Toradora! series. She also voices Kurapika in Hunter x Hunter (premiered on Adult Swim this month), and Asseylum Vers Allusia in Aldnoah.Zero (broadcast on Netflix originals) which are both lead roles. So is Elizabeth Liones in The Seven Deadly Sins anime (broadcast as Netflix originals), Mimori Togo in Yuki Yuna Is a Hero. Also has supporting roles such as Mako's mom in Kill la Kill, which was run extensively on Adult Swim last year. She has 4 convention appearances according to AnimeCons [1] That's fairly strong for breaking into the English dubs of the anime industry. Easily meets
WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Angus. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AngusWOOF's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing a voice actor, not the characters she voices. Per

WP:INHERIT, notability isn't somehow transferred from a notable character or a character from a notable series to its voice actor. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

And brigaded once again. If this voice actress and her roles cited are important, where is the secondary source coverage about her and her roles? czar 00:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter & Youtube would be considered primary sources as they are written by her, sources such as The Fandom Post, Anime News Network, and The Monitor in this case are secondary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Monitor is a student paper, The Fandom Post is fan blog (unreliable), and the ANN posts are not about her in any depth—her name is invoked in passing mention and there is no content about which we can write an article. Surely you can see how this makes no sense to see four keeps in a row based on even the added sourcing, no? Everything that could be said about her from these sources is already said in the corresponding media articles. czar 01:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cant vouch for the Monitor, but Chris Beveridge is mentioned in several printed sources, as well as having a panel at

WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll scrap Monitor as that is more of just a school run blog project. But Fandom Post is reliable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Fandom Post is arguably only behind ANN as an independent online reliable source. Much of the staff were contributors to AnimeOnDvd, several have cotributed to Otaku USA and I believe ANN as well. SephyTheThird (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A blog run by individuals who have once published elsewhere is not automatically reliable... (If anything, it would be as a

refbombed with tons of mentions yet none go into any depth about the individual.) czar 18:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

You wanted reception on her acting, so of course there will be bombs of reviews. As with film reviews, small portions would apply to the specific actor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but in all of those sources, which ones are reliable+independent+secondary so as to prove her noteworthiness. Right now there's just a number of mentions and, unless I'm missing something, all of the interviews are coming from fan blogs (unreliable, used as

self-published sources), meaning that no major outlet is calling her a notable figure apart from what we're splicing together here... czar 21:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Just an idea Would it be better if the article were made into a template that covers her works? I just can see nothing present when it comes to her biographical info, so why have an article about her biography? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like a navbox? There's no policy on this as I don't think it has been suggested before, but I'd oppose such a move, sorry.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Voice actors aren't actors, their prominence for your average audience is far less, and even the vast majority of actors don't have navboxes. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

That wouldn't make sense, per

WP:NAVBOX, there should be an article about the navbox's subject. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Very weak keep, neutral essentially. More or less on the fence with this one. On one hand, her roles mean she should pass
WP:NOTINHERITED. Would like to see at least an article with Harlacher as the primary subject. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

She does have interviews; they are mostly in the form of podcasts and videos. There are news articles focused on her as the primary subject but they tend to be over 80% interview. Very few news articles these days about actors talk about just the actor without some sort of interview portion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...which would be another way of saying that few voice actors are notable. czar 23:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After a bit of a flip/flop I can see now that much work has gone into the article, she passes
WP:ENT with now biographical info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep She has a lot of reliable sources not just from convention info, but also has several interviews and articles relating to Erika Harlacher and how she started her voice over work. So she definitely passes
WP:ENT.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Per
WP:PRIMARY. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

As with musicians the biography section usually has something where the artist talks about their own work, theme and inspirations. Similarly with actors and their portrayals of characters. Much is this is sourced by interview. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD we look for interviews from notable outlets as an external measure of the subject's public esteem. Doing lots of interviews with low-grade sources is more a sign of niche importance than notability for an encyclopedia. czar 23:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment requesting admin decision rather than flipflopping of a non admin closure.. Regardless of his thoughts on the article, the nominator is testing the boundries of good faith by using words like "brigaded" (further up) and accusations of bandwagoning because they aren't getting their own way. We get it, they don't think the article should be kept, but it's becoming about the nominator getting what he wants and not the merits of the arguements. The article needs improvement but it's substantially improved. I think there is an argument for keeping it for now and improving it. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we can be clear about these merits of arguments, we're talking about (1) an article that exhaustively cites every minor mention of this individual yet (2) cannot cite a single reliable source that goes into any depth. The policy-backed merit for keeping is what? If she is notable, where's the coverage? czar 23:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe a point of dispute has been reached in the discussion that a closure of no consensus is the most appropriate course of action. Are all sources of the grade I would use in an article? Not exactly. Has a serious effort been made to improve the article with what is available? Yes. I think leaving this article age and mature might be a better option at this point. Esw01407 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per
INHERIT, on its own terms, is inapplicable here; from INHERIT: "[F]our of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances . . . ." Rebb ing 18:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- @Rebbing, yes, when the actor's role is the subject of significant coverage... czar 20:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong. The guideline says a voice actress's notability is presumed when she "[h]as had significant roles in multiple notable . . . productions." It doesn't say that the roles need to have had significant coverage, merely that they be "significant roles" and that the productions themselves be notable. That much appears to be satisfied in this case. Rebb ing 20:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, and there's context: how "significant" are these roles when nothing has been written about them in any depth? The secondary guidelines are in service of the basic notability guidelines (note "likely to be notable" vs. "are presumed notable"). This article, as it currently stands, is exactly what you get when you string together primary sources and passing mentions. Maybe two of the article's lines about reception are even about her. ENT#1 alone is not a reason to keep this article. czar 01:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - My assessment is that the characters listed in the lede—
        the convention is to use indented bullets created with repeated asterisks (****) when replying in deletion discussions. Thank you. Rebb ing 02:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        
        That's a very literal read. Any daily log of AfDs will show that it is not conventional to use multiple asterisk indents for single-threaded conversations. I'd wager that most editors find it hard/annoying to read. czar 05:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Seems like enough coverage to meet notability. I'm basing this on other AfD discussions which show wayy less notability but still are kept. The article needs to seriously cut down on the biography section though. NikolaiHo 03:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for Pete's sake, there are 62 sources and this individual has multiple credits, if any voice actor for video games is notable at all, this one clearly is. NACTOR met. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jane Holland. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Number One (book)

)

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

Does not appear to meet either

WP:GNG or WP:Notability (books). The Cornish Guardian article already cited is the only article I can find on Google News, I can't find any reviews of the book published in reliable sources by googling, and the book does not appear to have won any major awards, have had any other notable works based off of it, or be by a historically significant author. In fact, the author herself appears to be barely notable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect perhaps as the few sources are amusing but simply not enough for solid independent notability to an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the author's page. I couldn't find any coverage other than this. This wouldn't satisfy
WP:NBOOK. Redirecting is a much better option and considering the article's current length, this information can be easily merged to the author's page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Delete--
^"talk" 10:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Djiboutian Americans

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

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

This is a tiny immigrant group (numbering fewer than the 300 people required for a precise figure to be reported by the US census), with no significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find. Fails
WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too small of a group to come up with decent sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Djibouti is a transit point for many other Horn Africans, as well as many American citizens who come from the Horn. Djibouti is arguably the most closely allied country to the US on the eastern shore of Africa. Several US citizens who do not have Djoubitian nationality received their green visa lottery card within the country after residing there for lengthy periods or even being born there. The increased bilateral relations between the two countries means this nomination is premature and we ought to see what the relation holds in store for the future. Djibouti is arguably the only country that deals that extensively with the US in military, political, economincal and social contexts. All these points more than negate questionable demographics and merely cement the encyclopedic nature of this article.Ninefive6 (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then I would argue that the article is premature, not this discussion, Ninefive6. Our notability criteria require significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Cn you point us to any? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contains nothing of significance. Engleham (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as it's still questionable for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no real content in this article. The only source provided is a table from the U.S. Census Bureau indicating that the population of this group, as of 2000, was too small to be specifically reported. Some of the issues referenced by Ninefive6 above would be better discussed in
Japanese American. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - virtually no sources online.
Just to be sure, I did a few other searches on Bing and Google, and found nothing reliable or relevant. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep.
talk) 17:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Vijai Sardesai

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

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

Contested PROD. Reasoning by Mr. Guye was "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also promotional." I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an MLA (Assembly Member) is enough for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Meets
WP:NPOL as someone having held "national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" and a "member or former member of a national, state or provincial legislature" AusLondonder (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

While the
verified. Keep and flag for cleanup; I've already stripped the circular references. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Twitterature. MBisanz ^talk 11:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Twitter

Weird Twitter (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)

Social media phenomenon with questionable notability. I am not sure if this meets
WP:GNG and think a discussion on this is needed. Laber□^T 21:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as article creator. When I was deciding whether or not to write the article in March, what led me to decide it was notable was the range of sources available, including in-depth articles from NPR, Buzzfeed, Motherboard etc. The term has been in use for several years now - for instance this New York Times article (mentioned in passing) from 2014, this Washington Post article from 2013 and this one from 2012. Searching Google News shows ongoing references (with some false positives) regularly every couple of days. Blythwood (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Per Blythwood and, if you check this screenshot of Google Insights [4], you'll see that it's a new term that became popular since 2009. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: If I interpret the chart right, it seems that most people who entered the term are false positives who searched for the Twitter account of "Weird Al Yankovic" (if you look at the bottom of the page), which explains why the graph seems to roughly reflect the popularity of Twitter in general. Please correct me if I interpreted this wrong. Also this graph. --Laber□^T 07:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Twitterature. I highly doubt there will ever be enough material to sustain a proper article. Twitterature already exists and is the perfect article for this fad or whatever the hell this bizarre "alt-lit" phenomenon is. As I've commented elsewhere, lately Wikipedia articles are becoming more and more like the Twilight Zone or Outer Limits. Encyclopedic sanity is in order. Laval (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
talk) 22:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Twitterature as best connected to that, unlikely for its own article yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--
^"talk" 13:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Casual (software)

Casual (software) (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)

Barely notable software product. No references to attest to the importance of this software. Judging by the text of the bitbucket project, it appears to be the first ever release by a small group of developers. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG --Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant
WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. An interesting open source project I hadn't heard of before. That said, see no evidence of coverage in
WP:RS at the present point in time. SJK (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as not yet convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The Gospel of Simon: Revelation of the Sacred Mysteries

The Gospel of Simon: Revelation of the Sacred Mysteries (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. This is a self-published book from Lulu.com, see "publisher" website: "Currently available for purchase from Lulu Books". Therefore does not meet
WP:BOOK. Skyerise (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree/Delete. This also might be considered "original research" in violation of
talk) 20:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The Gospel of Simon: Revelation of the Sacred Mysteries is a published book. It presents original research and the research of others. The proposed article merely cites the book and is not an attempt to present the research itself.Christopher Carpenter (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Christopher! Just a bit of explanation: books are not inherently notable because they exist (
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even good enough for use as a reference on WP, let alone a dedicated article. It's a pity that there is no speedy deletion criterion which covers this. St Anselm (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NB CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If this came from a reputable academic publisher, I might have voted to keep it. However the article appears to be little more than an ADVERT for a rather NN book. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WorldCat finds no records of this book. LadyofShalott 21:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One quick note for
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Gnome deities. Of note is that List of gnome deities redirects to Gnome deities. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaerdal Ironhand

Gaerdal Ironhand (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 character does not have any third party sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of gnome deities; list of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities likely only has space for the name, whereas this has space for some discussion. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of gnome deities. He's mentioned there, but it's only a single line. The content is sourced to primary sources; that's enough to validate a merge, but it's not enough to establish notability. I don't see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A Google Books search reveals nothing better than novels and game books. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of gnome deities per NinjaRobotPirate.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 07:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vipul Narigara

Vipul Narigara (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)

As the subject appears to have played at the semi-pro but not highest level per [5], he appears to fail
WP:NCRICKET. Happy to be corrected if anyone more knowledgeable than myself about Indian cricket wishes to differ. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as questionable for the applicable notability, the article certainly also contains nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Direct (musician)

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

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

Non notable arist. More views does not equal notable. Nothing I can find that gets this above
WP:GNG --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Arguably as notable as other artists on Monstercat, whom have wikipedia pages. --albion97 ^(Talk) 19:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Notability has a special meaning on Wikipedia! Check out
WP:GNG - most notably, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - Your article links no significant coverage in any reliable source. Only links to Direct's music (and an interview, which can't be used to establish notability). For Wikipedia to have an article, it needs third party sources about the person in question! --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as simply nothing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--
^"talk" 13:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Angelica Leight

Angelica Leight (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 new age artist. None of the presented sources mention her in the printed text (the audio sample may). Apart from that, I could not find any sources. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the page, Angelica Leight is not an artist at all, but a fictional character of an artist that is the alleged author of a fake parody website. Her persona is not seen anywhere outside the website, so she is a non-notable fictional character. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per findings of Passengerpigeon. No wonder nothing I searched for exists. This is a hoax in disquise. Fylbecatulous talk 03:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this page, this is not a "hoax in disguise". The character is a satiric artwork and is performed by the creator, Lynden Stone. I have amended the page to reflect this including deleting the category "Australian women artists" and including the category "Fictional Australian people". I have also added the link to the crosseXions catalogue essay by curator Beth Jackson where Angelica Leight is mentioned on page 3. Angelica Leight is also mentioned by Beth Jackson in the radio interview (link provided). Gusaroo (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Gusaroo[reply]

As amended, the article is even worse. Even Lynden Stone appears not to be notable either. No Google hits except Facebook, LinkedIn, their personal webpage and whatever the MIT Press Journal is (that you have to register and sign in to access). The article makes a mockery of encyclopedic content.This should have been speedily deleted... Fylbecatulous talk 13:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing for any applicable notability here, article is not convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whether or not the page is moved can be decided elsewhere. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scranton General Strike

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

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

This is a term found almost exclusively on...wikipedia. The article is based on an obscure, POV-ridden source. This is properly part of the 1877 railroad strike article. POV fork. Anmccaff (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To expand: the title is a phrase found just about exclusively on Wikipedia itself, in this article. Both scholarship and contemporary accounts saw this as part of the'77 Railroad Strike.
Next, the subject is treated adequately, fairly completely and honestly in the
Railroad Strikes of 1877
piece. This duplicates better work, and is a POV fork.
The most important problem is the first. Wiki shouldn't show ideas that don't have sources outside Wikipedia itself, and this is clear
WP:OR. The term just isn't used elsewhere much. Anmccaff (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You'll have to make your case about POV but I don't think there's a
WP:NUKEANDPAVE argument here for deletion. I agree this event hasn't been discussed separately from the other strikes of the time but there's perhaps too much material to merge it all back into the main article. This article needs work but I'm not sure deletion is the answer here. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep and RM. The name is ORish, but "
WP:RM rather then here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

As I think on it more, I suspect that is wrong, too, in a sense: the Scranton troubles really weren't about the railroad strike, except as it facilitated problems between some of the mine operators and some of the miners. A better article might be on labor problems in Scranton, taken over time. Either way, the title is OR. Not a single cite brought in used it except as a descriptive, and the violence, the actual subject of the article, began after the strike became particular to steel and mining. For this article as it stands The Lackawanna Avenue Riot would be a better title.Anmccaff (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep: Four of the five sources are specific to Scranton, which establishes the notability of the event in itself. There is clearly enough material to justify a standalone article. There are no valid reasons for deletion; and whatever concerns may exist about the best title, AfD is not cleanup. --RexxS (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two are not specific to Scranton, and the ways that the other three are are directly opposed to this article.

the first NYT piece explicitly states that the wider strike was make by workers who were well paid, and intimidated others into participating. It also states that, contrary to the implications of the article, the Scranton mayor was assaulted, and that force against the mob was justified. The entire article stands against the wiki piece it is being mendaciously used to support.

The final Times cite refutes the article almost completely, and points out that the claims the article advances were found to be civil and criminal libel. No support there. Anmccaff (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These seem a lot like arguments for changing the content of the article (perfectly fine), and not necessarily for whether it is notable.
TimothyJosephWood 15:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Except for the riot and shooting, which occurred -after the strike began breaking, i.e., when it was no longer, in any sense, general, this incident is a part of the '77 Railroad strikes as much as any other, and should be covered there. Anmccaff (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect whichever is needed, as this seems convincing enough to at least keep somewhere. Asking DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. sufficient sources for notability , as also with many of the other railroad strikes of that year: they each are appropriate for a separate article. What the name of this article should be can be discussed separately. . I note that the judgements of the 19th century NYT on the meirts of the strike is a POV statement; that they covered it shows notability , but their conclusion should not be used out of historical context. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is notable enough and well sourced. And yes a historical marker prepared by a historical site is a genuine RS --the text is what matters and it's good. Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new full-length scholarly monograph on the labor history of Scranton, that gives heavy emphasis to this strike. Azzarelli, Margo L.; Marnie Azzarelli (2016). Labor Unrest in Scranton. Arcadia Publishing. Portions the book are online at Amazon.com. That should lay to rest fears that the strike Is poorly documented or little-known. Rjensen (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man. No one raised the notion that the strike was poorly documented or little known, just that the documentation generally does not fit the wider strike itself as separately notable. The
Lackawanna Avenue Riot is the notable part of the article, and the railroad strike had already ended in Scranton then, and workers were returning to other places as well. The violence this article centers on happened after, and perhaps because the widespread strike had broken. If this deserves a separate existence, it should focus on, and be named for, the part that is separately noteworthy. Anmccaff (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, and this is not a trivial point,
Dover Press is dependent on dead authors. Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

TimothyJosephWood 12:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Given that there is a suggestion to take it to RM not yet discussed, that would be precipitous. Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this AfD does not preempt taking the issue to RM.
TimothyJosephWood 17:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The Railroad Strike(s) of 1877 was a broad movement, this is legitimate coverage of a specific local aspect of that movement, in my estimation. If there is POV in the piece it can be addressed via the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--
^"talk" 19:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Tomislav Spahović

Tomislav Spahović (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 mixed martial arts fighter. Does not meet
WP:NMMA. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA with no top tier fights and fails GNG with no significant coverage. The article's only source is a link to his fight record at sherdog.Mdtemp (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an MMA fighter he's won about half his fights while not even competing in second tier promotions. No top tier fights means he's failed to meet
WP:NMMA. My search found no significant independent coverage, at least in English, and the article's only reference is marked as a dead link. Papaursa (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chris Barfoot. MBisanz ^talk 11:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo American Pictures

Anglo American Pictures (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)

CSD declined due to an assertion of notability. Not seeing it. I don't believe that this company is notable. Fails GNG IMO - not finding any RS. Gbawden (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting the needed notability improvements, nothing for independence. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Redirect Since it would definitely not overwhelm, I suggest it be mentioned at Chris Barfoot, and this article redirected there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Barfoot as a valid search term. Does not meet WP:N, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Özcan Özdemir

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

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

This is a more or less orphaned article about a very minor person in the Turkish (and maybe international) film industry. It is referenced to nothing but IMDB where his acting credits are all for for bit parts like "Truck driver (uncredited)" and most recently "Soldier (uncredited)". This is no good when it comes to establishing notability. IMDB also gives him three credits as a lighting technician, which is also no good. There is nothing to suggest that he has won awards or who written the book when it comes to lighting films.
There is no corresponding article in Turkish Wikipedia. The author seems to be interested in only this one person and shares a name with him, albeit spelled very slightly differently. This raises suspicion of autobiography and vanity.
Key points: Not notable and not verifiable due to no RS references. DanielRigal (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for an imaginably better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infographics UK Ltd

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

FireWatch (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Software company with no assertion of notability, reads like an advertisement. The article creator is a new user with a surprisingly firm grasp of reference formatting and article organization and his/her only contributions are to this page and its product
WP:DUCK applies. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Adding FireWatch (software) to AFD since it suffers from all the same problems. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rewrite if notable, but it doesn't seem to be. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that FireWatch (software) is also nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an ad, no indication of notability. We're not the yellow pages, after all. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--
^"talk" 20:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Bagz Ogam

Bagz Ogam (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
McGeddon (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

FYI: Appears to be same entry which was already 4x deleted before (+ title protected against recriation on 07.05.2016). --Gunnex (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article on a non-notable subject. (It also seems likely that it was created by a block-evading sockpuppet, in which case it would qualify for speedy deletion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "
talk) 11:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable, nothing convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Knott

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

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

fails
WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NHOCKEY, true, but the nomination does not address whether he fails WP:GNG. And he may not. I was able to find a few quick articles on him. [6] [7]. This may not be enough, but given that he was a high drat pick, there may be more relevant coverage from his junior days as well, which I haven't had time to search for yet. Rlendog (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That Tribune article is worthless, but the other one could serve as a the cornerstone of a GNG challenge.--
WP:WAWARD) 05:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think the Tribune article is worthless. It is an article primarily about Knott in a major newspaper. I also found an article about Knott in a less prestigious (but I think still relaiable) source here.

Fails
WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Not all high draft choices pass
WP:NHOCKEY. A number of high 2nd rounders do, consistent with the fact that they were often considered as possible first round picks and may get additional coverage for being their team's first or 2nd pick. But once you get below the top half of the 2nd round it seems to be pretty infrequent. Of course there are a few players below that who have significant coverage - maybe they were a star in juniors but deemed too slow or small to be worth a #1 or high #2 pick, or maybe there is something else that generates extra coverage, but only a handful of such players if that seem to have such coverage each year. Rlendog (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as still questionable for better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. The sources shown by Rlendog are articles about a local teams draft pick which is typically considered routine coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't routine because most draftees (except first rounders) typically do not get full articles even in the local papers. They get more like a sentence or two saying that the team selected so and so in the Xth round, maybe adding what junior or amateur team they played for or some other piece of color. But that said, I still don't know that those articles are sufficient. Rlendog (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Danielle Foote

Articles for deletion/Danielle Foote (2nd nomination)

Danielle Foote

Danielle Foote (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 former reality TV show contestant, fails
WP:GNG. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes
WP:NMUSIC: she made the Australian charts with "Underneath the Radar". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. If you had information that this person was notable under another name, why didn't you add it when you removed the PROD? IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Constance

Stella Constance (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. References are trivial or self-published, TheLongTone (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its
WP:TOOSOON, more productions needed before an article Atlantic306 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - short film producers are
run of the mill common. I don't see how this person stands above the crowd. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This person is presently not sufficiently
notable. --Dcirovic (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not notable, and an autobiography. Peter Sam Fan 13:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly the author is the article/subject. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard | 14:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @Gareth Griffith-Jones, Dcirovic, Bearian, Dthomsen8, Atlantic306, SwisterTwister, and TheLongTone: See the article again and my talk page. Peter Sam Fan 18:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Any reasons to change my opinion or the opinions of others should be stated here, not elsewhere.DThomsen8 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the page history and the result, which is to make the page even worse by what appears to be COI editing by the subject herself.
Wikipedia is not a web host or resume bulletin board -- it is a private charity -- so you can't use us to publicize yourself. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5cero6

5cero6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:BAND. Could only find two news articles, both in Spanish [8] [9]. Has music video clips on youtube. Not a notable band and no significant coverage. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources in English, just Wikipedia mirrors. They appear to exist, but coverage seems limited and local. Article has been unsourced and orphaned since creation. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I basically also only found the Nacion link, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HESFES

HESFES (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've attempted to copyedit and track down some reliable sources, but have unfortunately come to the conclusion this article does not pass
WP:GNG -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage in the Daily Mail is trivial, and no google news hits. PhilKnight (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Clubjustin (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (copied from this AfD's talk page) I disagree with the proposed deletion -The Daily Mail source has been removed and other reliable sources have been added to the HESFES page editing, including : Juno Magazine^[1],Ed Yourself-The home education consultancy^[2] and other Home Education publications^[3].Pamelajefferson (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 11/05/16[reply]

Comment I have copied the above keep !vote from this AfD's talk page (diff) @Pamelajefferson: please place any further discussion here, thank you -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Button Gwinnett (band)

Button Gwinnett (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)

The band, their sole album, their sole single, and their record label have no external references online (other than those using this article as a base). The only two sources used in the article are two out-of-print music compendiums. The article includes a purported cover of the album, which was modified from https://www.flickr.com/photos/52844469@N05/4898777348. Martey (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since notability is not temporary, the fact that the available sources are out of print has no bearing on these proceedings. However...I have a copy of the Martin Strong discography right here in front of me, and Button Gwinnett doesn't even have an entry in the book. I'd feel more comfortable if someone had the opportunity to check on the Larkin reference (it's not readily available at my local library), but we may have a hoax on our hands. Chubbles (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Delete: If it couldn't be found by a search engine, then it probably does not exist. Search only returned a 18th century statesman and something with a computer game. However, do note that infobox including album art are added by another editor 3 days after the last edit by article creator. I'm going to request a CheckUser here. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 15:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And request sent. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 15:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much would be coming that way - Pending more evidence pointing towards notability, I'd say if it couldn't be found by several good search engines, it probably
does not exist. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 02:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I can't find any online sources apart from [10], which is a very passing mention on the obituary of someone not mentioned in the article. I can't find anything for the quoted record label either. I think that even if the refs given are valid, they are not quite enough to assert notability. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 15:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Two sources have been found, but voters have strong arguments why these do not raise up to notability, and the arguments were not answered.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Openride

Openride (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 article is orphaned, I think it does not meet the notability guidelines, has no citations, and its external links are dead Uniphil~enwiki (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 05:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep - I did find these: [11][12]. GAB^Hello! 21:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Delete - one article in Wired isn't enough to establish notability. Sorry about that. GAB^Hello! 15:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: GAB, the first link you included is actually not about the OpenRide software project from the German tech institute, but a completely unrelated startup in California that has also taken the name OpenRide. Uniphil~enwiki (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has atleast 2 reliable third-party sources last time I checked. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 11:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 11:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 07:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as has some sources such as

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2016/04/18/sacramentostartup-wants-to-be-airbnb-of-carpooling.html

http://www.gizmag.com/openride-mobile-service-organizes-carpooling-on-go/12823/

http://www.wired.com/2009/09/hitchhiking-phone/

Not sure how good of a source the second link is, though. I'm on the fence for this one. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon 09:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple independent sources. The Gizmag source states at the bottom that it is 'via Fraunhofer Institute', suggesting it is just a rehash of a press release. This leaves only the wired.com article as significant RS coverage, on its own insufficient to establish notability. The 'official site' is now a deadlink, suggesting that the project has been abandoned and no additional sources are likely to emerge.Dialectric (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The German project appears to have gotten a flash-in-the-pan bit of interest that quickly died, and it appears to be defunct. Information about them is completely swamped by the more notable and still ongoing American project by the same name, to the point where it looks as if the unrelated U.S. company has bought the original web address used by the German project. I agree that this present article should be deleted. Whether or not the American firm needs its own page or own section in some current page is a separate matter. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up any additional coverage other than what has already been discussed. I agree with
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Real-time locating system. Will leave the history intact in case anyone wishes to merge any information. J04n(talk page) 12:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Locating engine

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Locating engine

Articles for deletion/Locating engine (2nd nomination)

Locating engine (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)

Still can't see a single source for the topic (a quick look for refs was bogged down by automotive engines) - article is more of a cut down personal essay. Merge request gone stale (merge editor is presumably the creator with a new account). While AfD isn't cleanup, the merge/deletion of this set of essays around the topic
WP:TNT seems most appropriate. The original concerns and findings in the first AfD are still valid, 8 years on. Widefox; talk 11:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Scholar shows valid uses of phrase "locating engine" (in roughly the sense of which the article speaks), e.g.:
Son, Sanghyun, et al. "Design and implementation of a real time locating systems over IEEE 802.15. 4a radio for port logistics." Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG), 2010 Seventh International Conference on. IEEE, 2010. Online

Lee, Hyun-Soo, et al. "RFID-based real-time locating system for construction safety management." Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 26.3 (2011): 366-377. Online

Caceres, Mauricio, Francesco Sottile, and Maurizio A. Spirito. "WLAN-based real time vehicle locating system." Vehicular Technology Conference, 2009. VTC Spring 2009. IEEE 69th. IEEE, 2009. PDF

De Paz, Juan F., et al. "Mitigation of the ground reflection effect in real-time locating systems based on wireless sensor networks by using artificial neural networks." Knowledge and information systems 34.1 (2013): 193-217. PDF

Lai, Chin-Feng, et al. "OSGi-based services architecture for cyber-physical home control systems." Computer Communications 34.2 (2011): 184-191. Online

Zhang, Yunzhou, et al. "Research of portable Information Terminal Based on MIPS processor and Windows CE." Advanced Computer Control, 2009. ICACC'09. International Conference on. IEEE, 2009. Online

Jang, Hyunsung, et al. "Robustness of distributed RTLS for dense large-scale environments." 2010 Seventh International Conference on Information Technology. IEEE, 2010. Online

Kim, Hakyong. "Performance comparison of asynchronous ranging algorithms." Global Telecommunications Conference, 2009. GLOBECOM 2009. IEEE. IEEE, 2009. Online

SJK (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at those indicates the topic as
WP:SPINOUT and isn't in itself notable. Widefox; talk 08:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with RTLS as this is part of it and the RTLS article does not have this yet. As the core of what makes RTLS work, it should fit there nicely. DeVerm (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Real-time locating system and possibly merge if editors think any content is worht keeping. Seems to be the same topic, or a non-notable subset. Sandstein 07:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at best. SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puget Sound Diving Locations

Puget Sound Diving Locations (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:NOTTRAVEL. Might be moved back to its previous sandbox location to salvage some stuff, but the subject itself would be something more suited for WikiTravel/Voyage/whatever-it-is-called-nowadays. HyperGaruda (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I note that the author last worked on this article less than 10 days before the deletion nomination. It appears to have potential to be a reasonable article if fleshed out, albeit maybe with some refocusing, and at the very least this information could be merged to some other article such as Recreation in Western Washington or something like that. Jclemens (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this is basically a travel guide. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are not a travel guide. Sandstein 16:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Peru

Ambassador of Iceland to Peru (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)

there is no point of having an article for non resident ambassadors. And there is no evidence these ambassadors did anything significant in Peru LibStar (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unneeded Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still currently questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. Bharatiya 29 14:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete- another contentless microstub in the endless "Ambassador of Country A to Country B" cookie-cutter series. Are we going to have 40,000 of these for every possible combination of the 200 nations of the world. These "articles" are an exercise in combinatorics, not encyclopedia building. Useless. Reyk _YO! 20:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- ...also, why was this relisted a second time? Consensus was clear already. Reyk _YO! 20:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I performed the second relist because the delete !vote stating "Unneeded" is ambiguous, and could refer to any Wikipedia content. The !vote was not policy or guideline based. AfD discussions are based upon consensus relative to the strengths of arguments per policies and guidelines; it is not a vote count. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KBS historical drama

KBS historical drama (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 list was copied from
List of programs broadcast by Korean Broadcasting System#KBS1 Saturday-Sunday dramas (21:45). I don't think a spinoff article is needed at this time. Random86 (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting the applicable independent notability for its own article, clearly unsourced. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unjustified
content fork. Perhaps a category may be worth consideration for the dramas with an article. — ξ ^xplicit 03:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. There is no need for a content fork at this moment. For grouping historical dramas, the Template:KBS Historical Drama already exists. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No further comments after two relistings. Nonetheless, the lack of independent sourcing is an issue that has not been resolved. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Synaptop

Synaptop (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 high-quality sources for this company/product indicates a lack of notability. Search on Google Books and Google Scholar return no relevant results. Search on Google News bring back a handful of hits, but none from highly respected sources. SJK (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, good point. But the reason that Google lacks content is that our content is protected behind a strict paywall. Articles are published in Flash and are not Google-searchable.
The Globe and Mail is Canada's largest newspaper so I think it is a reasonable source to cite. — Preceding
talk • contribs) 17:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
We have thousands of news articles in our archives and publish dozens, six times a week.
We sell all content for $30 per month to 9,700 customers.
Thanks,
Woodbentley — Preceding
talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment @
information published by the company itself
(e.g. company website, press releases) is insufficient to establish notability. Looking at the sources currently on the page, I see:
"Synaptop: A virtual OS to share apps and web browsing with friends".

"Synaptop on Dragons' Den".

"Synaptop's beta encourages "collaboration on the Cloud"".

"Synaptop launches theatre app to let you watch movies with friends online in real-time".

"Synaptop: Developers".

References (2) and (5) are self-published, so can't be used to establish notability. That leaves us with references (1), (3) and (4), which are from thenextweb.com, marsdd.com, and techvibes.com. Of the three, only
The Next Web appears well-known enough to have a Wikipedia article; but still, the article contains no information usable to establish its reliability (e.g. if any of its staff have won, e.g. journalism awards, that has gone unnoticed, nor is there any indication they have any special expertise e.g. relevant academic positions; it is not associated with or sponsored by any respected institution such as a professional association such as the IEEE, etc.) None of these are well-known or highly respected sources – they are not major newspapers, they are not peer-reviewed journals, etc. Given that, I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to establish this company/products notability. If you have better quality sources than those currently in the article, please share the details. You mention the Globe and Mail – I think that is a respected enough newspaper that a detailed article on this company in it would support notability (although I think we'd want more than just one newspaper) – but beyond asserting it covers this company you haven't provided any citations or quotes to demonstrate it actually does. SJK (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Referance (2) could easily be replaced with a different source that is not self published, as it's a reference to Dragon's Den. I've updated the referance to CBC's website, which gives the same information. 76.9.216.84 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dragons' Den (Canadian TV series) is a reality TV show. I don't think appearing in a reality TV show counts for much in establishing notability. (It's not the evening news.) SJK (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as there's nothing suggesting better for the applicable notability and the notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. If there were a consensus not to have an article, the result would probably be a merge/redirect to the album. Whether that should be done can be done on the article talkpage, so there is no need for the AFD to remain open. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from the album Giving You the Best That I Got

Just Because (Anita Baker song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

This song hit the charts at the time of its release. However, that's all it happened, or so it did. I read that a demo was tried by another artist, but the information would be too short to help the article hold on any longer. I added information to the parent article, Giving You the Best That I Got (album).
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons as above:

Lead Me Into Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Nonetheless, I've not found a demo attempt on the nearest above song. George Ho (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for such articles to be deleted. Redirects will suffice but I am indifferent to whether these are redirected or kept. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there's contents but it's still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
Lead Me Into Love except that it would be preferable to redirect it rather than delete it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:NSONGS standards. --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know what you mean by "too small" to hold such valuable information. If you mean that the article doesn't contain enough content to justify being kept as a separate article, I have already mentioned a book above which, I understand, contains additional information about this recording which could be included in the article. If you mean something else, I'm not sure what that is. I've also added another source to the article as well. Regarding
WP:NSONGS, "Just Because" apparently has at least one "non-trivial published work" which can be cited; it was ranked on national or significant music or sales charts; and it was part of an album that won a Grammy for Best R&B Vocal Performance, Female for 1989 (the title track, "Giving You the Best That I Got", had won the same award for 1988). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@Metropolitan90: Would adding info based on that source help make the article stronger much? Compare this to Giving You the Best That I Got (album), which is also small. George Ho (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it certainly wouldn't hurt. I haven't seen the book itself (although I am familiar with its format), nor is enough text visible on Google Books to use it here. But the book is owned by numerous libraries (some of which are in the city where I live), so it should be possible to access it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are U Capable

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

Fails
Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions

Delete as nothing suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NSONGS as indicated by nominator. Content of article already entirely covered by article on parent album. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 02:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna Wright

Deanna Wright (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:NACTOR Actress with a career of minor roles. Her only role of any note was a minor role in a soap opera. Interestingly, IMDB can't determine the number of episodes, but it looks like a low number. After the unsourced material is removed, it's nothing but a filmography. No evidence of significant coverage by third parties Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NACTOR. No evidence of anything more than just a handful of guest tv roles over a relatively short period of time; a recurring stint on a single soap; and a part in a straight-to-video movie. Also, article was created by inactive SPA, who knocked it out over 3 days, then promptly split. Nice, short, acting career; but really nothing that meets notability. X4n6 (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nothing at all for solid independent notability improvements, for either WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to be 7 episodes in Passions soap opera. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a RS for the number, but even if it is 7, out of 2,200+ episodes......Niteshift36 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added one source, but I'm not seeing notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somewhat regretfully – Wright's only notable credit was her 3 years on Passions. Nothing else suggests meeting
WP:NACTOR, and she looks to have retired from acting post-Passions. So there's simply not enough notability here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Samoali

Chicken Samoali (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 finding sources to even
made up. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Attempt at searching for "Pakistani chicken sandwich" turned up these^{WP:GNG regardless. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 10:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]}

References

^ http://www.junomagazine.com

^ http://edyourself.org

^ http://www.educationotherwise.net

^ http://www.food.com/recipe/pakistani-chicken-sandwiches-342548

^ http://www.pakirecipes.com/recipe/Chicken-Sandwich

Delete per nom. - Takeaway (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too cannot find anything to even verify its existence, non notable local delicacy Seasider91 (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely a
hoax and NN. Eye snore 13:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. -Dcirovic (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also find no reliable sources and few sources of any kind. Appears non-notable. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I don't think it's a bad-faith article, and certainly not a clear-cut hoax, and I'd like to see the page creator, Asad mayo, make their case for it. But with what we know at the present time, there is no reason to keep this article. Ibadibam (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete and I would've frankly pursued that G3. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have considered the sources that JWNoctis put forward. The first one is just a mention of her participating in a protest. The two others are more substantial, but not sufficient to override what is an otherwise clear consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Hobbs

Christina Hobbs (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 claim to notability besides a political candidacy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say these references^{WP:BASIC. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 10:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]}

References

^ https://australianmining.com.au/news/protesters-arrested-at-maules-creek-coal-mine-again-2/

^ http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/greens-candidate-christina-hobbs-welcomes-2016-senate-fight-against-zed-seselja-20151021-gkfc11.html

^ http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/nepal-continues-to-face-urgent-shelter-and-aid-crisis/6609388

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As always, candidates for office are not eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a compelling claim of preexisting notability for something prior to their candidacy, then they have to win the seat, not just run for it, to earn an article on the basis of the election itself. So I'd be willing to reconsider this if a lot more substance and sourcing could be piled onto her work as a consultant and/or an economist — but the sourcing that's present here now simply doesn't cut it. Of the seven footnotes here, two are just unnecessary reduplications of two of the other five, two are
WP:GNG claim is covering her specifically in the context of her candidacy. All of which means that this is not the volume or quality of sourcing it takes to support a credible claim of preexisting notability for anything besides the candidacy itself. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after July 2 if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Candidates for political office are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not American, therefore of no interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.155.208 (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with it, no. You might want to check where the nominator lives, just for starters. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now, nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy in creator's userspace. If she wins, she's notable; no sense making the creator do the work twice. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not impossible, but are not likely either. This is definitely not a case of "this person will be elected anyway so why delete in an election campaign". The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Deegan

Denise Deegan (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)

Actually solid PROD material but I'll AfD if it gets removed, nothing at all actually convincing of notability here and my searches found nothing better also. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was tipped off that the subject may be notable since she is the author of the play WP:CREATIVE #3 or 4c as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as the author of a very well-known work, satisfying
WP:CREATIVE. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per the above AusLondonder (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This author satisfies
notability criteria. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cañita (brand)

Cañita (brand) (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 solid PROD material but I'll AfD instead as precautions, my searches frankly found nothing at all that I had to search if this actually existed and it has, I found their own websites and a few several press releases. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Searches turn up no reliable sources. The only references are the product website and blogs, etc. that restate the description from the product website and each other. Apparently there is a rum brand using the "Cañita" name that has many more mentions than this agua fresca brand. (Good catch for a stub that has languished unsourced for 10 years.) Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Key Witness

Key Witness (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)

My searches found nothing at all and that's not surprisign considering it was only active for 4 years, unsigned and simply no other information. The best there is, an Exclaim! review, and that's it. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Nothing here constitutes (or even really claims) an
WP:GNG. Given the two hatnotes, however, the title should be recreated as a dab page for those two films (as well as Key Witness (book)) rather than being left redlinked — but the band definitely has to go. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep and I should note Azuki mentioned his withdrawing at a message to me (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liz in September

Liz in September (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 enough sources. —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search brought up that the film has been reviewed in various RS, so it passes NFILM. There was also some foreign language coverage, which I've added as sources.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Meets, and actually exceeds, every criteria set forth in WP:N(films). Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FLAVORx

FLAVORx (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 at all actually convincing of any applicable solid independent notability and improvements, I simply found a few expected coverage links....Nothing else convincingly better. I also should note I myself noticed this was actually accepted in November 2011, which I would not have considering the current appearance. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 23:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC). @Sam Sailor: Keep. After looking at the improvements to the article that User:Sam Sailor made, I have decided to change my vote to keep. Tom29739 ^[talk] 23:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Question @
WP:BEFORE did you perform? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:BEFORE doesn't apply, and the article did not have any reliable sources. Also, why does it matter that I was using a mobile to perform the edit? Using a mobile doesn't affect my ability to comment on AfDs. Tom29739 ^[talk] 17:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC).[reply
]
Since my question was replied to with
WP:NRVE. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:HEYMANN to see what it brings. May I ask the debate not be closed in the meantime? Thank you. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Twenty+ year old company, the quote "leader in flavorings for medicines" and widely mentioned in medical literature. I have added c. 15 {{Cite book}}s, see below for a selection, but you could go on and on. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bertie Charles Forbes (2002). Forbes. 1-3. Vol. 170. Forbes Incorporated. pp. 158–. That was the easy part. Flavorx (pronounced "flavor-ex"), launched in 1995, was a big hit with independent pharmacies. People were driving 20 or more miles to get their prescriptions filled at the drugstore owned by Kramm's mom and dad, ...

Bruce Barringer; Edward D. Hess; Charles F. Goetz (27 February 2012). Entrepreneurship Lessons for Success (Collection). FT Press. pp. 501–.
ISBN 978-0-13-303894-1
. In 1995, he decided to incorporate and named the business Flavorx. To move the business forward, he partnered with one of the largest flavoring companies in the world to help develop custom flavors that could be safely mixed with medicines ...

Rural Futures News. New York State Legislative Commission on Rural Resources. 2000. pp. xlix–. Launched in 1995, the business has grown to employ 25 people in Maryland. Children, adults, and even animals can choose from over 42 flavors — like creamsicle, watermelon, bubblegum, etc. (a taste for every fancy). FLAVORx can be ...

Veterinary Forum. Vol. 18. Forum Publications. 2001. pp. 59–. FlavorX (Bethesda, Maryland) launches the FlavorX Veterinary System, for helping veterinarians entice animals to take medicine. With this system, veterinarians can compound ...

Nancy Keene (1 April 2015). Your Child in the Hospital: A Practical Guide for Parents. Childhood Cancer Guides. pp. 42–.
ISBN 978-1-941089-97-2
.

Melody Petersen (1 July 2010). Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. 46–.
ISBN 978-1-4299-4403-8
. This medicine-flavoring service, offered by a fast-growing company called FLAVORx, was advertised prominently in most of the pharmacies I visited. At the Kmart pharmacy in Marshalltown, Iowa, FLAVORx had erected a five-foot cardboard ...

Catherine E. Burns; Ardys M. Dunn; Margaret A. Brady (9 April 2008). Pediatric Primary Care - Pageburst on VitalSource. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 1743–.
ISBN 1-4377-2650-X
. When prescribing pharmacologic agents or recommending OTC drugs, it is important to be ... of the drug, the usual dosage, adverse reactions, and the indications and contraindications for its use in children. ... For an extra cost, some pharmacies will sell flavoring products that increase palatability (e.g., FLAVORx). ... Factors that affect compliance include the following: continues to be a relevant document in today's health management.

Loyd Allen (30 January 2014). Ansel's Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Drug Delivery Systems. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 104–.
ISBN 978-1-4698-7194-3
.

Stan L. Block; Christopher J. Harrison (2005). Diagnosis and Management of Acute Otitis Media. Professional Communications. pp. 118–.
ISBN 978-1-932610-03-1
.

Keith J. Slifer (21 October 2013). A Clinician's Guide to Helping Children Cope and Cooperate with Medical Care: An Applied Behavioral Approach. JHU Press. pp. 208–.
ISBN 978-1-4214-1112-5
.

Stephen E. Wolverton (2012). Comprehensive Dermatologic Drug Therapy. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 779–.
ISBN 1-4377-2003-X
.

Anne Spurgeon; Nancy Keene (1 September 2016). Childhood Cancer: A Parent's Guide to Solid Tumor Cancers. Childhood Cancer Guides. pp. 255–.
ISBN 978-1-941089-93-4
.

Stephen Wilson (21 July 2015). Oral Sedation for Dental Procedures in Children. Springer. pp. 123–.
ISBN 978-3-662-46626-1
.

Ernest D. Chu (30 November 2010). Soul Currency: Investing Your Inner Wealth for Fulfillment & Abundance. New World Library. pp. 77–.
ISBN 978-1-57731-773-9
. ... FLAVORx Inc., now the leader in flavorings for medicines ...

Keep per
WP:GNG through multiple reliable sources and an article that looks fairly neutral with well-cited content suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - the article needed improvements with respect to sources to verify the information and notability. Its formatting which @Sam Sailor: has addressed makes it a better article too which doesn't deserve deletion. Irakakiku (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey White

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Lindsey White

Articles for deletion/Lindsey White (2nd nomination)

Lindsey White (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 that the 1st AfD is for someone else or else I would've G4. As for this article, simply none of this suggests better for WP:CREATIVE and examining the article found nothing else convincing and my searches also found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteable artist[13] with a long carrer and international exibitions of her work and more than enough independent news sources[14] from reliable sources, but the article really needs cleaned up. (Funny note: In 2013, one of her art works was named TWISTED SISTERS, how ironic is that!) Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi @SwisterTwister: In the span of a few hours you've nominated for deletion the articles of two notable artists (Fred Cray and Lindsey White) and one of Mexico's most prominent architects Bernardo Gómez-Pimienta. Granted, all of their articles need work, but is that the reason you're nominating them? Or, are you an expert in this subject seeing things others aren't? Just wondering, and hopefully, willing to learn your evaluation process as it would, most certainly, save me a lot of research time. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several museum shows, inclusion in two books, reviews by artforum, artslant, sfgate meets the requirements for
talk) 19:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – Notability established by the 37 References and Notes cited in the article. Cheers! {{u|
Talk} 20:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Incomprehensible. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing demonstrates notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that sourcing adequately demonstrates notability. Should not have been nominated. —Prhart com♥ 13:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Gómez-Pimienta

Bernardo Gómez-Pimienta (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 largest part here is the Fellowship but aside from that, I simply found a few several links at Books and News, nothing else solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prize-winning architect covered in sources such as the International Architecture Yearbook, Modern Architecture in Latin America and Concise Encyclopedia of Mexico. Andrew D. (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Talk} 19:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep To find one of Mexico's most accomplished architects [15][16] here in an AfD is, actually, and at least to me, beyond belief and would like the nominator to explain under what exact WP deletion policy this article was nominated for in the first place as I may be missing something. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi @SwisterTwister: In the span of a few hours you've nominated for deletion the articles of two notable artists (Fred Cray and Lindsey White) and one of Mexico's most prominent architects Bernardo Gómez-Pimienta. Granted, all of their articles need work, but is that the reason you're nominating them? Or, are you an expert in this subject seeing things others aren't? Just wondering, and hopefully, willing to learn your evaluation process as it would, most certainly, save me a lot of research time. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In 2008 the American Institute of Architects only named 13 Honorary Fellows from around the globe, and Gómez-Pimienta was one of them.^{Talk} 19:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]}

References

^ http://wayback.archive.org/web/20110723031654/http://info.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek08/0314/0314n_hfaias.cfm

Note I've started an extensive rewrite of this article and could use some help in: adding portals, adding picture from WP:es (see talk page for link) and putting it into one of those box things, etc. Anyone having additional references they would like in this article, please leave them on the talk page with a message to me and I'll include them if you'd like. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Senseless nomination. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, senseless to the point of being disruptive. Why do we put up with this sort of thing? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won many (> 80), some very significant, awards.
talk) 18:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Sources demonstrate creative notability. Should not have been nominated. —Prhart com♥ 13:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Cray

Fred Cray (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)

My searches simply found nothing actually convincingly better and this can also be said for the current article. Notifying DGG who would be locally interested and frequently comments at these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A highly notable artist whose works[17] are displayed and sold by the Saatchi Gallery is nominated for deletion? What am I missing here? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Saatchi Art website casts its net very wide and does not imply notability per se. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, ANYONE can create a profile on the saatchi website. Having a profile there does not imply that your work is in the collection of the Saatchi Gallery. That doesn't mean Cray isn't notable, he may well be, but based on the references as they are now he isn't. It should be easy to find better sources.
talk) 22:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Question Hi @SwisterTwister: In the span of a few hours you've nominated for deletion the articles of two notable artists (Fred Cray and Lindsey White) and one of Mexico's most prominent architects Bernardo Gómez-Pimienta. Granted, all of their articles need work, but is that the reason you're nominating them? Or, are you an expert in this subject seeing things others aren't? Just wondering, and hopefully, willing to learn your evaluation process as it would, most certainly, save me a lot of research time. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on galleries and exhibitions. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Keep As the article stands now he is not demonstrated to be notable. Merely having work exhibited is not an indication of notability unless someone actually writes about it. As it is, the sourcing for the article demonstrates who he is and what he does but does not demonstrate he is notable because of it. From a brief check it appears there *should* be better reliable secondary sources out there, but they are not in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Only in death: As per WP:CREATIVE, this artists works are included in the collections of, at least, 15 major entities[18], including: Museum of the City of New York, New Orleans Museum of Art, New York Public Library and the Pfizer Collection. He has, also, been critically reviewed by the New York Times[19]. Can you please expound on your reasoning as to why he isn't notable please? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat my first sentence: "As the article stands now he is not demonstrated to be notable." There is nothing preventing you from adding reliable sources to the article as an AFD goes on in order to improve its chances - this can result in people changing their votes and/or a keep decision. I will note however that primary sources do not demonstrate notability. In this case Fred Cray's website is not actually a reliable source for where his work is included in other galleries collections - either the gallery itself or a secondary source would be needed to verify that. The NYT review is a good source and should be added to the article, but it by itself is not enough (for me) to demonstrate notability. Another one or two along those lines would be enough (for me) to switch to keep. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Only in death: Then my respectful question to you would be, why did you vote to delete this article instead of improving it as I'm in the process of doing? After all, isn't that what we're supposed to do when we find an article like this? And as to your "primary source" comment (do notable artists like this really lie on their CV's?), I just included it in this discussion as a reference, but in the article lead rewrite I used this one[20]. So, am I missing something here? Just wondering. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because in general its not other people's job to do the legwork. As for the ISENY link, it appears to be just listing his resume from his website. On an individual basis I would not class that as a reliable source absent further corroboration. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Only in death: So let me understand this, a Japanese 501c-3 non-profit organization[21][22] that's been around for 20 years[23] and in 2015 received a commendation[24] from Japan's Consul General isn't a reliable source for you? Hummm. And as to your comment that "its not other people's job to do the legwork" as it pertains to improving WP articles I'll reply to you (maybe) later after these very confusing words make sense to me. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not when they appear to have copied his resume directly from his own website in a section titled 'Resume' with a link to his website at the bottom, no. Its quite simple, if you can find multiple reliable secondary sources that demonstrate his notability (along the lines of the NYT piece) then its an easy keep. Absent that, its a judgement call. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Only in death: Well, here's my "judgment" then if this is the criteria you're looking for: There is absolutely no way on Gods-green-earth that any notable artist such as this would EVER lie about their works. Also, there is no way any Japanese institution of any kind would EVER allow their name to be associated with an artist who lies. Your confusion appears to lie in the FACT that they both say the same thing, which is completely understandable when viewed in the light that they are both telling the truth. So, and if, you can prove (by using reliable sources of course) that either of them are lying, or have ever lied, about anything, then logic assumes both are truthful. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's sourcing requirements are that 'facts' are reliably sourced and verifiable. This is a *basic* tenet of wikipedia editing. It is not 'well prove it isnt'. The reason for this is that otherwise Wikipedia would be full of ridiculous unprovable either way info masquerading as facts. Also you have a misunderstanding of logic. 'X cannot be proven to be false, therefore X is true' is not logic. Its belief. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Keep as article has been updated with more reliable references. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Based on publications, exhibitions, and references. Cheers! {{u|
Talk} 21:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – As above mentioned, the notability just isn't there. There is not enough evidence to support his notability. If all artists that have their work published in a gallery have a Wikipedia page, then this site will become more of a Facebook. Needs to be deleted. NikolaiHo 21:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi @Nikolaiho: As WP policy for creative professionals states that notability is established by the artists works being "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums", and this artist is represented in 15 of them, would you be so kind as to explain for everyone what WP policy you're using to vote for deletion please? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Picomtn:Granted, the fact you brought up has been fulfilled. Without quibbling about trivialities though, this artist hasn't demonstrated any of the other criteria:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

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.

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition.

Though technically, this subject has fulfilled the last requirement, he seems not to have demonstrated any other fulfillment. I guess it is subjective but in my judgement, he hasn't gained sufficient evidence of any other accomplishments to have an article. To me, he seems like one out of a gazillion other artists whose work is on display. NikolaiHo 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nikolaiho: You are right that this artist "has fulfilled the last requirement" of WP policy for creative professionals, but what you don't appear to understand is that's all he, or any artist, has to meet. You seem to mistakenly believe that an artist must meet every criteria, this isn't so, they only have to meet one to be considered notable, and this one does. Please note too that this isn't a subjective interpretation of this policy by me, but an exact one explained to me by @DGG: (whose is one of WP's top experts on artists). Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Picomtn: Hello again. I do understand that that is all the artist must fulfill and I have expressed that before. That is why I said this is subjective matter and I am here stating my opinion about him. The guidelines are not like a strict rulebook, judgement has to be made by each editor and it is their opinion whether the subject is notable or not using WP policy for creative professionals as a reference when deciding. So once again, yes, he has fulfilled one requirement and that's great, but none of his artwork is a great attraction. In fact, many of them are simply in the museum's collection and are not on display. I know his work is part of a collection and I do understand that he meets one requirement. But that is all, and I don't think this subject is going to get any more attention than he currently has. The fact that this man's work is safe to say, not a popular subject and never will be, is enough reason to nominate him for deletion. Also, if you reply, can you please post a reference to all of his artwork which are "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". NikolaiHo 21:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Nikolaiho: You are entirely correct that WP guidelines are "not like a strict rulebook" and that editor subjectivity is, most certainly, allowed, as in any crowdsourcing project like WP, where anybody can make the rules. However, in making/changing these rules the WP consensus process should be followed. So, and yes, you are entirely free to hold this articles subject to a WP standard that doesn't exist, but I believe your argument would be sounder if you could articulate it better. For instance, this articles subject currently meets all WP notability criteria for creative professionals (this is an objective fact), so can you please expound on your reasoning's for coming to an opposite opinion? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 22:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi @Mduvekot:! First of all, I am extremely sorry for requesting evidence even though you already provided a very ambiguous page showcasing his artwork which in in the storage of some museum. I see this unknown man happens to fulfill a single requirement which some people made up to help users best decide whether an article is notable enough. Indeed Wikipedia needs to have a webpage of this man, because this professional encyclopedia must record the tale of some unknown man who has done next to nothing. Other people who have made great contributions to the world have had their articles deleted but this American multimedia artist needs to be recognized for his "lush, gaudy and ethereal Technicolor spirit photographs whose works are now contained in the collections of many major art institutions, including the Brooklyn Museum, the Center for Photography at Woodstock, New York Public Library and the George Eastman Museum"(no period?) Well I must admit, this man must be recognized in the world for his artistic works so my verdict on this page is no other than a keep! NikolaiHo 00:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Nikolaiho: You need not ever apologize here (or anywhere on WP for that matter) for requesting evidence, that's what's expected of all of us. The changing of your delete vote to keep, though, is, at least to me, perplexing as I, for one, was listening to your argument, but wanting it to be more substantive and articulate. Yes, too, your frustration is evident, but need not be as the only changes ever made here are initiated by people, just like you, and nothing ever really disappears here, remember that. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Picomtn:Well hi again. I just got a bit emotional because that guy up there responded in a very harsh tone and I think he's a bit of a meanie. After all, the existence of this article has zero effect on me as once this discussion is over, I will forget about it and never remember the man again. It's just that I think it's quite unfair that I've seen other very worthy articles being deleted but see this one with nothing substantial being preserved and defended by so many. I also want everything here to remain and it is great that nothing ever really disappears here. From now on, I'll just let the admin do the deciding as I have said all that I have wanted to be heard. It seems like the keeps are winning currently and I have done my part against them. So have a nice day and say "hi" to me on my talkpage. NikolaiHo 02:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've rewritten the lead for this article adding 4 separate references from the major collections his art is now a part of. Thanks.Picomtn (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The requirements for notability have been met, and it really is that simple. If additional information is available, it can be added later. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not necessary to meet all
talk) 15:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I am in agreement with DGG and Mduvekot. The article subject has significant coverage in numerous reliable sources and therefore passes
WP:GNG. The article should be retained as notability has been established in this case. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Sources indicate the article passes creative notability. —Prhart com♥ 13:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
Medopad. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Dan Vahdat

Dan Vahdat (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's company,
Medopad, appears to be notable, but the sources here are about that company and only mention Vahdat in passing, not in significant detail. I have been unable to find sources about him, so I think this fails our notability requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - As noted above, subject's company is notable but he is only mentioned in passing in a few RS. Meatsgains (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've initially suggested redirecting to the company itself but that's unlikely any better as it's vulnerable to starting again (I'm willing to suggest Redirect but it has to be protected) and there's simply nothing to convince keeping these risks. Delete as there's nothing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article should stay He is co-founder and largest shareholder of a very successful company with market cap of $100M within a challenging space of healthcare. His company and both co-founders are not into creating too much of publicity, please feel free to amend the article as you see fit --Mhdv2011 (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)— Mhdv2011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to
Medopad, the company he founded, because the sources discuss him in the context of the company.
A redirect (with the history under the redirect) is preferable so the redirect can be easily undone if reliable sources in the future discuss him in detail. SwisterTwister's concern that the redirect would be undone without new information surfacing can be handled by fully protecting the redirect if that issue arises.
Cunard (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Merge~~ Redirect to
WP:PRESERVE appropriate content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Changed my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was also going to swing to merge but after examining the sourcing more closely this in the Telegraph is the only reliable source which mentions him and only states his name. The economist and new scientist don't even mention him and which university he attended is sourced to a paper he was an author of - verifiable yes, but that's not the way to source biographical content. I'd be swung if some reliably sourced content could be identified. SmartSE (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant reliable references about him specifically. Delete or merge into article on company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyMtChai (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG by a mile. I don't think a redirect is needed here either. Google news gives a total of 7 results on searching for the subject's name of which there are hardly any independent sources. I doubt people will search for him. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.
WP:CSD#G3 hoax - references are dead or about something else. JohnCD (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Jinn Foon

Jinn Foon (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)

Sources & Links are dead-ends, & there's no presence online. Fitindia (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Tunisia

Ambassador of Iceland to Tunisia (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. Iceland has never had a resident ambassador to Tunisia so creating an article about a non resident position that has done very little in Tunisia is hardly encyclopedic. Let's see if the usual suspect turns up to this AfD. Keep !voters must demonstrate actual coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not all diplomatic positions are notable.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 07:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No useful Google hits, and this isn't even a stand-alone position so
Ambassador of Iceland to France article. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete- another contentless microstub in the endless "Ambassador of Country A to Country B" cookie-cutter series. Are we going to have 40,000 of these for every possible combination of the 200 nations of the world. These "articles" are an exercise in combinatorics, not encyclopedia building. Useless. Reyk _YO! 19:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish genocide

Turkish genocide (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)

There's no definitive understanding of what "Turkish genocide" is. It is a vague expression that can only be clarified by saying "Turkish genocide of Armenians", "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims", "Turkish genocide of Assyrians" and etc. In other words, there's no
Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Seems like a reasonable disambiguation page. The phrase usually refers to the case of the Armenians but, as there are other notable possibilities, it is sensible to allow for them. Andrew D. (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, at least to me, follows the WP disambiguation policy exactly. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now agree with the more substantial arguments against this article as it pertains to WP policies and guidelines regarding same. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not follow WP disambiguation policy exactly. A disambiguation page exists to deal with "conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject". But in this instance the phrase "Turkish genocide" is not used even once in any of the articles the disambiguation page links to. Where is the ambiguity? Where is the conflict? There is none. So, where is the justification for having this page? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vagueness is why we have DAB pages. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with Andrew Davidson, that Armenian genocide is the primary topic. As such, I suggest we move the dab page to Turkish genocide (disambiguation), and redirect this page to Armenian genocide, with a hatnote there pointing out the dab page. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It has no valid function as a disambiguation page. The phrase "Turkish genocide" is not used in sources dealing with the linked subjects
Assyrian Genocide, and Greek genocide, and the phrase does not appear in any of those articles. The phrase exists in Armenian Genocide denialist propaganda of the more crude sort. This is indicated through the numerous times that this page has been hijacked and filled with that propaganda: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] (to give just a selection - there are many more). This page has since the month of its creation been repeatedly used to place propaganda onto Wikipedia. The page's status as a disambiguation page means that this invalid content avoids the normal AfD process for articles and so can be reinserted again and again. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. "Turkish Genocide" would normally be taken to refer to the genocide of Turks by some other group, not genocide committed by Turks. The title should be protected against re-creation. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Tiptoe and DGG. The title should be protected against recreation. --92slim (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and lock as still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I understand the intent behind making the disambiguation page, the wording is indeed backwards, and I'm also persuaded that its existence is an unhelpful troll magnet. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, can be restored for userfication or merging on request--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp.

Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp. (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)

Unremarkable event. Microsoft receives thousands of lawsuits. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From http://microsoftgendercase.com/, the case appears to still be live, but has not achieved any particular coverage yet. If the case achieves some notability then Sexism#Occupational_sexism could be relevant whether or not the subject warrants a full article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Merge to List of class-action lawsuits or List of gender equality lawsuits or both. Content could be preserved by the article creator; once a decision is handed down, it could come back to prime time; but that could be a couple years from now. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing else outstanding here and nothing else to suggest a better improved article. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable about this particular case. Fails
WP:GNG as per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Sherman

Yung Sherman (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)

Well I can't do a blp prod on this-though the sources are unreliable, anyway singer with questionable notability, it almost feels like a possible COI for some reason. Wgolf (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are quite keen on deleting articles. That's a necessary evil in many cases, but I do not think this is one of them. Starting in 2012-2013, Yung Sherm rose to prominency in the underground hip-hop community with a small crew of swedish rapper/producers.
I do not know if you have an active interest in Hip-Hop but this article definitely is relevant to underground Hip-Hop culture enthusiasts. The article is in its infancy but I am sure many contributions are to come, and those will reinforce the articles credibility.
My vote is keep the article URANUS MY PLANET (talk) 15:38 30 april 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Fails
the general notablility guideline. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 04:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nothing convincing for the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to meet any notability criteria, including
WP:ARTIST. - Aoidh (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough sources with in-depth coverage of the subject to show that he passes
WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Bishop

Howard Bishop (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 seem to rise to the level of
WP:NACTOR. Note: article creator has left an argument for keeping on the article's talk page. —swpb^T 19:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as clearly not yet convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Slapping a delete notice on a page just eleven minutes after it was first created can be either an incentive to give up, or to plug on and enhance the content. The article creator has clearly researched further and found a number of notable productions which Bishop acted in - and not just as a walk-on, walk-off parts. (I skimmed through the video of
talk) 13:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I refer anyone interested further to the article's talk page?Yadsalohcin (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bishop clearly passes the multiple significant roles in notable films criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with previous poster that Bishop passes criteria 1 of
WP:NACTOR of having prominent roles in notable films, notable meaning having wiki articles. Passing WPNACTOR only needs one of the three criteria to be met. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The community here appears roughly evenly divided between those who think the news coverage is sufficient and those who think it isn't. Both sides have some merit. The type and quantity of coverage needed to establish notability is an unsettled area, but in any case the content is verifiable so I see nothing that mandates a deletion when consensus isn't present. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Viola III

Frank Viola III (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 does not meet GNG or baseball notability guidelines. It primarily claims that he is notable because of his connection to his father and brother.. but notability is not inherited. Also, article history seems to imply that the article was created and heavily edited by either the subject or someone connected to him. Spanneraol (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to to Frank Viola.--Yankees10 15:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the page as an off-shoot of the Frank Viola page. Since there was sufficient content on the original page and more than sufficient ref's, I figured the page could stand on its own. I'm not sure why you'd delete all the content and simply have a redirect - unless someone is going to take all that content and transfer it back to the Viola page as a separate section. Also as to Spanneraol's comment about someone connected with Viola having heavily edited the page, if you look at the edit history the Frankiev16 editor that I assume Spann is referring to has only edited about 100 char's - which is about 4% of the total page - and the edits were benign. Most of the edits that have been performed since I created the page have been to insert a infobox, external links, and cats - all which improved the page and which have been performed by about half a dozen editors. I guess if the reason to delete the page is because the pitcher isn't particularly good, that has merit to a point. But the rest of the arguments are essentially baseless. Ckruschke (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Keep references look fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The references all seem routine to me, though the MLB.com Dickey one is pretty close. Another one of that quality and I'm open to changing. Wizardman 21:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to father for now as he's still questionable for solid independent notability for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Perhaps the intro section can be added to his father's page, but there's no need for all of this to be there. If anyone has a Baseball-Reference Bullpen account and wants to copy this info. over there (if it's not there already), that would be the much better place for a bio like this one. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there are sufficient sources showing in the footnotes to merit a GNG pass. Knuckleballers are a rare breed in the world of baseball and I think that it would be prudent not to be overly obsessed with the lack of major league innings here. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor This page doesn't come close to passing GNG, despite the keep! votes from the creator and one or two others, and there's nothing in the bio itself that's notable. It's just a recap of basic biographical and statistical information that could be gleaned from visiting the player's (very sparse) Baseball Reference Minors page, plus a silly Bernie Sanders endorsement. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Breastfeeding in public#Public breastfeeding in the U.S.. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Applebee’s Lactivist Nurse-in

2007 Applebee’s Lactivist Nurse-in (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)

Significance questionable, event was 9 years ago. Also promotional language. Laber□^T 02:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing actually convincing this can become a better applicably notable article aside from its happening. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This got a bit of coverage: [37] from Lexington Books). However, it's already summarized at Breastfeeding in public#Public breastfeeding in the U.S. If it were redirected there, I don't think we would really be missing out on much. I'm not really familiar with this stuff, though, so I'd be curious to see if anyone can show lasting impact from the event. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:ONEEVENT as insufficiently notable to support its own article. I agree with NinjaRobotPirate that the summary in Breastfeeding in public#Public breastfeeding in the U.S. adequately covers this event, such that a separate article is not needed. "'[N]otable" is not a synonym for 'famous.'" Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ONEEVENT is about individuals, but this article is about a movement comprising a series of almost 100 events involving many people. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Breastfeeding in public#Public breastfeeding in the U.S. Well, if there are no arguments to the contrary, I think our existing coverage is probably sufficient. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Agua para el Pueblo

Agua para el Pueblo (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, fails
WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The debate was relisted three times and there is still no clear consensus among the contributors.
(non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Širom (band)

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

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

Notability not asserted, PROD removed by author without notification. Laber□^T 11:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all better, newly founded with nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the moment I only found [42] and [43]. From what I see, doesn't seem like it will pass
WP:GNG --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Notified WikiProject Slovenia --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the first reference cited in the article ([44]) and both references found by Lemongirl942 all constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (radio station, journal and newspaper with national reputation, respectively). — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. And currently provided sources are not enough, either. `Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, what would constitute enough in-depth coverage in your opinion? There is in-depth coverage by a national radio station (Val 202, part of Radiotelevizija Slovenija), plus short, but targeted articles by "one the most influential political magazines in the country" (Mladina) and by the national daily broadsheet newspaper (Delo). By what criteria is this insufficient? — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - "short, targeted articles", in my humble opinion, are slightly better than tangential mentions. In lieu of in-depth coverage, if there were quite a few of those, say 7 or 8, that would suffice. But as I said, my searches turned up nothing, and the existing sources don't meet the burden of
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Inclined to agree with Yerpo. The cited references are not trivial in nature, and so the subject appears to just pass
WP:MUSIC criterion 1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat discography

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

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

This is a list article of an online record label's back catalog. The standard on Wikipedia, as I understand it, is that record labels generally don't have list articles of their entire back catalogs (there is not a Rhino Records discography article for instance), but should instead populate categories. In this case, it would be Category:Monstercat singles and Category:Monstercat albums. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also concur with the nominator, nothing suggesting better notability changes. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. We are not a directory, and this, in my opinion, falls squarely into that category, esp. since most of these bands/albums/releases are simply not notable. 207.93.13.145 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If anything, this page should be a list of albums released by Monstercat themselves, not a list of songs. Other than that, the Monstercat Discography section should contain a table of Monstercat albums. Blue Adventure (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Jaydeep Pathare

Jaydeep Pathare (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 appears to be a relief group volunteer. While some mention in local sources, no indication the subject satisfies
WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nothing currently convincing of the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MCskill ThaPreacha

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

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

Promotional article for non
flooded with refs but lacks good sources. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I have been asked to come here as the reviewer who accepted this at
WP:AFC. Our criterion for acceptance s that broadly, the article must have a better than 60% (some say 50%) chance of surviving a deletion process. If I made an error, so be it. If I was correct, so be it. Typically, I take no part in deletion discussions for drafts I have accepted. This response is simply to acknowledge that a major contributor to the article has reached out to me on my talk page. Fiddle Faddle 21:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Hi, I'm a major contributor to this article. MCskill ThaPreacha is a well respected and NOTABLE underground rapper in Nigeria where the Hip Hop Culture is still relatively young. MCskill has seven hip-hop projects and has been able to work with artistes worldwide. He recently featured on the March/April 2016 print edition of Germany’s Juice Magazin Juice alongside heavyweights like Drake, Rick Ross, Pusha T and more... This article was written from a neutral point of view and i believe if not all sources cited are good enough, at least 50% should be good enough for this article to survive deletion. I hope it does. MustaphaNG (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have not gone through the stated sources in this article but I have at least found two reliable sources which cover him [here] and [here] Eruditescholar (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. MTV Artists is not an independent reliable source. It is a "platform that puts the power directly in the hands of the artists". Read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page you linked. "This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form." In this case matching content from official MCskill Tha Preacha [45], His facebook page, MyNotjustok, Soundcloud, coast2coastmixtapes. It's his promotional bio. The second is just a reproduction of a press release, see on his official site here and reproduced elsewere, see here, here, here, etc. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, i have to say Pulse Nigeria is a very reliable source and that makes them a target of their posts being often copied by other news and music blogs. I have added two new independent sources here and here plus two other independent sources previously on the article here and here and I believe just because some publications on the subject are positive doesn't mean its promotional, its simply the truth written at the time of publishing. Even this publication by top journalist Ameyaw Debrah also cited in the article here is a very credible source. MustaphaNG (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Doby is a pr agent. Hype "Magazine" is one of his PR vehicles. He is not someone to be taken seriously. Last One. By Debrah? or just reposted by Debrah? [46] You claim it's by him but this post dated January 23, 2012. [47] has much of the same promo wording as seen in a post on Multikrafts dated January 18, 2011 [48]. The copying and reproduction of PR releases goes on and on. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this, this and this? Plus i wanna know, if a credible platform reposts a news or any sort of information, does it make the information or subject less credible? To me, it means the subject is notable enough to be on the platform but i still need your opinion on it. MustaphaNG (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
upcominghiphop "Helping upcoming artists and producers become professionals" "Nigeriansounds Media is a Company which specializes in distributing Nigerian Music to the whole world" "Dearartiste is a music promotion, publicity and talent management company, that focuses on bringing up and ..." So not independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm new on this whole deletion process thing but I've seen a policy on here that says a biography of a living person only needs atleast ONE reliable source and what you're saying now is this article does not have any reliable source even when Pulse NG, Nigerian Sounds and Ameyaw Debrah covered the subject which you claim are reposts and doesn't matter. These platforms according to you are not reliable and your reasons still baffles me. Upcoming Hip Hop wrote extensively on his song that had features from four countries and its still not reliable because they help upcoming artistes? No one forces anybody to write an article or a story on a subject, at least not where I'm from. This is not cited in the article but I pulled this off the subject's Official website. His feature on the March/April 2016 PRINT edition #173 of Germany’s popular Hip Hop magazine Juice. There's screenshots from the magazine, interview in English (as hard copies on sale is in German). You should check it here. If the Nigerian Rapper MCskill ThaPreacha wasn't NOTABLE, he DEFINITELY wouldn't have been featured on an international magazine like Juice. I mean, which top media house would want to do a story on someone that's not notable or someone that WON'T increase sales? The answer is NONE! Now, this is an offline source as the magazine is only available for sale and none of its contents are accessible online. I hope this convinces you on the subject's notability. MustaphaNG (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just Mcskill talking about himself. Answering stock standard type questions. No independent writing. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as the article is still questionable, we can wait for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i had to go through the stress of purchasing the Juice Magazin Edition #173 and also went through the stress of using google translator for the article written on MCskill ThaPreacha before the interview, there was an article on him on page 72 but its quite unfortunate its an offline source which i can't cite sources on but either way, i still maintain the rapper is relevant enough to have an article on Wikipedia because according to Wikipedia policies, biography of a living person should have at least one independent source and I'm 100% sure this article has that. MustaphaNG (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MustaphaNG, if you have a print source that is a reliable source, you can cite it in this article. Even though Wikipedia heavily relies on online sources, offline sources are no less legit than online ones. It may help to use Template:Cite magazine. --Iamozy (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of the article has not been discussed in significant detail. A Google search of the subject doesn't yield positive results in terms of the subject's significance. Having said that, the Juice magazine feature is notable. One can argue that one reliable source doesn't equate to significance. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article looks promotional + I cannot even find the subject's name on some of the sources cited. Obvioulsy fails
WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Couldn't find the subject's name on some of the sources cited? Why not include those sources for us to see? Because i see subject's name on every source cited. MustaphaNG (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one here has no mention about him, then this one is a broken link. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources to show that he meets
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Commercial Center

International Commercial Center (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)

Whilst this maybe notable for being a 100m tall building, this article does not assert why it should be to warrant an article in addition that there are no source to claim verifiability and it is written in a promotional manner. Donnie Park (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Entirely rewritten with 4 inline citations and WikiProject templates, this skyscraper should be kept. No promotional tone.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am satisfied with this version as it is~~, but then the problem therein is
WP:INDEPENDENT as none of the source are. Donnie Park (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Worldwide reliable amd independent source: Emporis collects information about buildings worldwide. Our website covers technical information on all kinds of buildings, whether skyscrapers, high-rises, halls or stadions. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIRECTORY for every tall buildings out there. Donnie Park (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and Draft instead for now perhaps as this could be acceptable but is also still questionable for better. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep - Same as above. WikiPedia needs better coverage of Central Asia.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to give you a rebuttal in the form of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, do you have magazines or newspapers better than those offered as source, if so, I'll be happy to have this passed as notable. Also, why are you voted keep this twice. Donnie Park (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Dthomsen8, you can't !vote twice. I'm striking your second !vote (and your comment doesn't address notability). Prhartcom (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've been looking up the articles of every semi-notable building I can think of, and none of them have references either. For example, see Blue Sky Tower, the building down the street from this one and the tallest building in Mongolia. I don't know why we're picking on this one, in particular. I can't even imagine a secondary source reporting on a building. Prhartcom (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
WP:NOTDIRECTORY is not a challenge to its reliability elsewhere, else Wikipedia would not have detailed and accurate information on many buildings. There may be newspaper articles about buildings in Mongolia, but Mongolian is not easily searched.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. None of the references appear to show coverage beyond directory-type information. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gigulate

Gigulate (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 site attracted a flurry of attention when it launched but the coverage in mainstream sources ([49] [50]) was brief. Since 2009, I'm unable to find any coverage which demonstrates that the website is worthy of inclusion. SmartSE (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better and there's nothing else convincing for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mojoflo

Mojoflo (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)

Failure to meet
WP:BAND. —swpb^T 13:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Apartment

Invisible Apartment (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)

Unreferenced article on 'visual novel' of dubious notability... TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was only able to locate one review of the subject, which I have since added. Most other coverage of the topic, so far as I can tell, appears to be either primary sources or mentions on discussion forums. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for the applicable notability, current coverage is not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources I could find to infer notability of the subject. Irakakiku (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. In three weeks of discussion we only have one argument for deletion that goes beyond simply stating that he isn't notable, while the arguments for keeping are more convincing. Michig (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Säfström

Erik Säfström (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 athlete + not referenced Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid enough independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See
WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Once again, another top-level professional Swedish bandy player, it seems, with reliable sources found via Google or the Swedish wiki article, such as this ("Erik the best in the World Cup..."), or this (about his team captaincy), or this (about his contract negotiations], etc. It would probably help if we had a
talk) 19:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep
WP:NSPORT states that someone is presumed notable if they "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." This is clearly the Olympics for Olympic-sports and I think the world championships for major non-Olympic sports. The popularity of Bandy, such as being listed as the 2nd most popular winter sport, would make anyone competing in their world championships notable. This individual did, so keep. RonSigPi (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets
WP:NSPORT with his inclusion in the Bandy World Championships. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – The sources presented herein demonstrate that the subject meets
WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Leaning Delete – I don't see how bandy is the second most popular winter sport (per RonSigPi), in fact, I am certain that fact is incorrect. To bad there isn't a WP:NBANDY. I still don't feel that he has enough coverage to gain notability, the article would unlikely ever make it past stub class and the only thing holding onto him being on Wiki is his participation in the world cup, which isn't that convincing to me. NikolaiHo 03:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am not saying it is 2nd most popular, the Bandy article says so and provides two references. I have no idea if its 2nd, 5th, or 10th most popular. My point was that it clearly is popular, even if not in English speaking nations. RonSigPi (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't redirect since the one "redirect" opinion doesn't say where to. Sandstein 07:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of EDGE networks

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of EDGE networks

Articles for deletion/List of EDGE networks (2nd nomination)

List of EDGE networks (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 list is neither notable (
WP:AIM). Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as still questionable for better improvements considering this is noticeably unsourced. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator has started extensive editing since nominating, improving article. I also see other recent edits indicating that the list is maintained.

Redirect as all 3G and 4G networks support EDGE as well and I can't find a single network that supports EDGE but not at least 3G DeVerm (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only removed content that would be deleted anyway because of
WP:NOT there will be almost no content left. This is a point to think about! This is not in conflict with this proposal. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by editing, you are contributing to the article. If you want to delete it, you should not actively contribute to it. You can't delete parts in anticipation of AfD outcome. On
Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#unreferenced_section:_how_much_time_before_deleting_the_section.3F. In short: it is not clear how to exactly handle this, but you should not delete unreferenced sections when you don't know if they are false (when they are false then delete); instead, you can discuss this on the talk page of the article. Remember that there is no deadline on WP. For the outcome of this AfD I do not see much, if any, difference with your previous attempt, so assume the outcome to be the same as well. DeVerm (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
See it as you like. The result I can derive from your comment and agree with is the following: For the future I'll wait 3-4 weeks after tagging sections before removing content. If there is no opposition or reaction/improvements during this period concerning the tagged content I'll proceed. If articles don't seem to comply to
WP:NOTE is further not related to a "deadline", it targets all articles and treats all content equally. I don't mind if this proposal fails. All that counts are the respective wiki guidelines that have been cited so far and as far as I can see there is nothing wrong apart the slight concern that a recent timespan might have been to short. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please don't do that. We are trying to make WP better and the primary method is to make articles better. Before tagging: "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (from
WP:NORUSH gives specific guidance over the deletion of content. I quote: "Wikipedia is not paper and has no need to work towards a deadline. There is no finished version expected soon, and it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to our standards eventually. And if it takes a long time for that process to work, so what? Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so. There is no publication date and Wikipedia does not have to be finished today. It merely needs to have improved on yesterday. Perfection is neither desired nor achievable." DeVerm (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment To demonstrate my objection to tagging with the intent to delete, I have undone one removal of sections, removed the template as well and added a cite as required. It took me only seconds to find the cite about China Telecom offering EDGE service; if you had done so then you would have known the text was right, just unreferenced but with references available... so not have deleted the section, right? This is why it is recommended to see if there are references before deleting. The burden to add them is not on you, but you can wait for others to add them when you know they exist.

Now this may come as a surprise but I actually don't care for this list either, so I am going to change my !vote to delete, explaining my reasoning there. DeVerm (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, the main point is not only
WP:NOT. Seen from the latter point the answer is that it would be either easier to list all networks that do NOT support EDGE (which aren't very many) as it is easier to maintain and manage. It is also not worth the work to spend on and so far there is not too much work that has been spent on this list so far. In the context of EGDE beeing state-of-the-art, this list simply does not make any sense. The other option I see is what you just proposed. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPcorn

PPcorn (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:WEBCRIT. SmartSE (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just more PR blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The above rationale is ambiguous, and also does not address the rationale presented in the deletion nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage found to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The accurate summary of the discussion is probably that the users do not agree on whether the available coverage is sufficient, with the majority on the keep side--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual Tension

Ritual Tension (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)

PROD removed from creator of page. Non-notable band that lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, nothing on commons, some Google hits (amazon, last.fm, discogs, if the latter passes WP:42). –Be..anyone 💩 03:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as my searches are not finding anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as according to the reception section, the band has been reviewed by the New York Times, Spin, Melodymaker and others meaning
WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The content in the Reception section is entirely unsourced. The only quotation that can be verified is from the New York Times. Below is a list of "receptions" and links to the articles that I could find.

Spin (no source): “Then there are the bands who aren’t part of any movement. They are the leading edge of the underground... Ritual Tension make noncommercial music outside of even punk’ s accepted norms. It takes some listening to figure out how to hear their sound.”

Melody Maker (no source): "This is music at the end of its tether, trapped, bored, dangerous... Magnificent."

Reflex (no source & ambitious): "All three records are indispensable. This is modern without training wheels.”

New York Times: "The rhythm section is fluid but packs a punch, and Andrew Nahem’s guitar work is distinctive and full of energy.”

Away From the Pulsebeat (no source & ambiguous): "Odd that shallow folk think of them as a ‘noise’ band, considering the razortight precision of the rhythm team... Just lovely."

Trouser Press ~~(unreliable source)~~: "Recorded in 1988, the excellently self-produced Expelled is the finest display yet of the band's offbeat musicianship. The dissonance is so vibrantly arranged and performed that it actually becomes catchy.”

Is coverage in one New York Times article satisfy notability requirements? Meatsgains (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
have doublechecked and you're right about the sources, which is odd considering the reception section, but are you sure Trouser Press is an unreliable source, as its not on the musicprojects list of unreliable sources [51] ? Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I may have jumped the gun in assuming Trouser Press is an unreliable source. I initially went to their website's home page, which claims it "began with the contents of all five Trouser Press Record Guides, those highly opinionated review books of alternative rock. Thanks to many fine contributors, the site now includes loads of new and updated entries." There is no indication of any fact-checking, editors, etc. Doesn't seem reliable enough. What do you think? Meatsgains (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have just enough verified coverage for GNG. With more from the rception section being verified and accurate it's fairly reasonable to believe the others could be too with access to physical publications.

The Trouser Press has had multiple incarnations, some more reliable han others. This particluar entry seem to have been included in The Trouser Press Record Guide [52], [53]. It's published by Collier Books which appears to be a reputable publisher [54]. So a reliable source.

Here is the Spin ref [55].

Don't nkow much about this book Emissões noturnas: cadernos radiofónicos de FM. Any good?

This [56] has a review of a 12".

Here is some more. [57]. Don't know how reliable, same may come from properly published books, some might be just his website. see Piero Scaruffi and [58]. This one may have been in the book The History of Rock Music duffbeerforme (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I posted on
WP:RSN to gather other users' input on whether or not Trowser Press is a reliable source. I have also stricken out my comments above noting it is "unreliable" for the time being. Meatsgains (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Looks like Trowser Press is reliable. [59] Meatsgains (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that as its useful to know. I'm very, very far from being an expert on RS. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note now that I have made many improvements to the article since it was proposed for deletion. These include: updating and providing verification of sources of critical appreciation (and please note that there was much good press, especially in Europe, that can’t be cited because it is not online); I added an infobox, as well as two graphics; I bolstered the external references; I cleaned up any of the comments that seemed whimsical (such as in the bios), making the article more factual in tone; I added the page to categories. I hope you find these improvements sufficient to a have the considered for deletion tag removed. I would add with regard to the significance of the band, that three full LP/CD’s are in circulation, as well as one EP; that they were at the level of playing Saturday night headliners in Manhattan clubs such as CBGB and The Knitting Factory for years; and that according to my communication with band members, they are collaborating again, and making plans to release new music in the near future (noted in the singer’s biographical details). If there are any other improvements that you might suggest, I am certainly receptive. I do plan to contact other similar bands who have pages on Wikipedia to link to this page, but after the deletion tag is removed. Thank you for your consideration. Bettina F. Rage (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits as they did improve the overall quality however, the reason I put this page up for deletion in the first place is based solely on the lack of independent reliable sources. Most of the information currently included on the page is unverifiable. For example, the entire History section, which is the bulk of the page, only includes one reference. The AfD discussion will close in the next week or so. In the meantime, I suggest going through the sources Duffbeerforme noted above and including any that would be relevant to support the page's content. Hope this helps! Meatsgains (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably a weak-lish one. I suppose you need to be fairly well acquainted with the New York music scene to write "CBGB" without
WP:42. I've added a few {{cite book}}s, nothing fantastic. It is maybe another one of these cases were a short-lived band quit before the mid-90's rise of the World Wide Web, and sources may be available in print, but not (yet) digitized. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@Sam Sailor:Hi… Your flagging of the self-published sources makes sense, although I thought of some of the links as verification rather than self-promotion, for example linking Marc Sloan to his website, which verifies that he has worked with many other well-known musicians, or the link to Yoga Teacher Magazine which Ivan Nahem founded – perhaps not the most relevant fact, but goes to his continued visibility. Would a solution be to put the band member websites in the External Links section? However then the links don't seem quite so relevant to the band. Anyway if it is the sense that any of this is inappropriate and the article would be better served without those links I will certainly take them down... Also, I have to add I’m confused about the statement about not linking CBGB – it is linked to in the first paragraph of the article.

It is a very valid point that much of the buzz that surrounded the "New York rock scene" and this particular band pre-dated the digital age, and therefore is lost. Encouraging reviews, particularly in European music mags (e.g. Sounds, Melody Maker, NME) are not being cited because they’re not online, although material copies exist, of course. However, I would argue that if it’s a question of verifying the existence and the reception of the band, we have the citation of a positive review in the East Village Eye (a well-regarded paper of that time) of the debut performance, and then the New York Times article locates the band in the midst of a promising underground scene of the time, after the release of the first LP. Ivan’s participation in Swans and on the album Greed can be verified on the album’s Wikipedia page. The Trouser Press article has been verified above. The albums, which are still available, verify their status, as well. All the other reviews cited, plus the fact that now, in this digital age, there is a fan page for the band on Facebook, and the news which may or may not be relevant that band members are making music together again, hopefully will persuade you and readers that the band existed and was appreciated, and deserves a place in Wikipedia. In any case I am grateful for all the assistance in improving the article. Bettina F. Rage (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Clitoral vibrator#Types. Sandstein 07:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly vibrator

Butterfly vibrator (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)

NN, vintage 2013 merge debate closed (DEPROD reason). –Be..anyone 💩 02:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if needed. Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice amount of coverage seen at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect to
Find sources AFD}} links and assert, per ipse dixit, that there's coverage out there, I have no doubt that this subject falls short of GNG. However, I agree with Mark viking that a redirect would be helpful: this article averages over 100 page views per day. Rebb ing ~~17:41~~ 18:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Clitoral vibrator#Types where is it briefly discussed. I found one academic paper Clinical and research concerns with vibratory stimulation: a review and pilot study of common stimulation devices where these devices are studied, which is enough for verifiability of basic facts, but not notability. This is a plausible search term, so I recommend a redirect to the more general article where is is mentioned. --Mark viking (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:SPLIT back out if this changes. ~Kvng (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
There is already Butterfly strap-ons in Types, if "merge" boils down to "copy image + redirect" it's okay for me. The suggested merge target page desperately needs anything it can get, otherwise it's the next AfD candidate. @SwisterTwister: also okay for you? –Be..anyone 💩 07:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the increasing recognition of the clitoris as a primary source of pleasure for women, and the accompanying shift towards the clitoris by sextoy manufacturers, it would be a disservice to our notability guidelines. Hawaan12 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find it notable.--Musa Talk 11:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Clitoral vibrator § Types as above. This sex toy is simply one of many common styles - notability not sufficient for exclusive article. -- Callinus (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge in to Clitoral vibrator#Types .... I'd imagine there's many vibrators all of different styles etc .... not sure what makes this so special, Anyway merge is the best option .–Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Didn't realize it was already mentioned there. –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clitoral vibrator#Types. No sourced content in the article and it is already mentioned in the target article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A consensus to merge or redirect has been established, although specifically which one is unclear. — Music1201 ^talk 02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clitoral vibrator § Types seems to be a suitable outcome. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orfeo Music Festival

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

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

This might be a geography issue, but I found four GNews hits for this festival. A more general Google search turned up little beyond personal websites and "I'm going to Orfeo" mentions. It may have an impressive staff roster, but it doesn't seem to be notable. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is also likely a
paid work; I'd asked the editor to declare their COI but he wasn't forthcoming beyond the one article that was repeatedly being spammed and I left this note. As for this one, the references within are entirely to the people involved and not the festival, a general search didn't seem to lead anywhere either. The own work images are the same as those on the festival's twitter account too. —SpacemanSpiff 10:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not support by enough credible/reliable sources to support its notability. Also this reads like an advertisement (which makes sense in the context of a possible
Aoba47 (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than a few trivial mentions uncovered during searches, no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've also explored PROD instead, nothing else convincing for any applicable notability and if there is, we can wait for better. My searches found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, and much improved. --Mojo Hand (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaz Khan

Shaz Khan (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)

Actor without significant credits; would have gone PROD BLP but there's an IMDB link in the article. Fails both
WP:GNG. Also looks like it's either autobiographical or created by an editor with a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As per nominatior. It looks like the IMDB entry was created by the same author as a promotional push. Both have the same essay-like feel to them.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He had a lead role in Moor, a much talked-about movie which was Pakistan's submission to the Academy Awards. Thanks to which, detailed, reliable sources are easy to find: [60], [61], [62], [63]. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to (Moor (film) as he altogether seems best known for that, his IMDb-listed works show nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes the
general notability guideline as evidenced by the sources in the article and cited above by Biwom. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. More than one starring role in major films, enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. --Michig (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is now sufficiently sourced to verify subject meets the
basic notability guideline for people. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Airport Hotel

Cork Airport Hotel (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)

Absolutely unremarkable hotel. For the life of me I can't see where the 'implicit notability' the editor who removed my speedy claims to have seen. TheLongTone (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment TheLongTone You didn't see it because it wasn't there. I agree, really no claim to "Implicit Notability". ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest you both look at
WP:CCS. Adam9007 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I suggest that you, Adam9007, look up 'credible' in a dictionary.TheLongTone (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't care about the spirit of things, do you? Adam9007 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as I also concur none of this suggests better applicable Wikipedia notability, simply a local hotel with no outstanding notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Averna (company)

Averna (company) (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 company. The article was deprodded by
talk) 14:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as none of this actually suggests applicable notability, it's a conceivable PROD except for the actual likeliness better sources existed, something of which I'm not seeing. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We dont need articles of companies that didn't do anything notable Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Winder

Catherine Winder (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 does not meet
WP:GNG or any of the more specific notability guidelines. Of the two independent sources, one is routine "business executive leaves her job to 'pursue new opportunities'" coverage, the other is based on an interview about Clone Wars that covers Winder herself only in passing. Google News finds passing mentions about Winder's work on the Angry Birds movie by the dozen, but I haven't found a single additional instance of coverage that extended beyond half a sentence or a short quote. Huon (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks any sources that could be used to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at all for WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE, nothing convincing of the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I started this article, though very early on in my Wikipedia life. The article already cites two independent reliable sources, and after a brief search I was able to find several others (including this, this, and this. I also found several articles about her (not just passing references) on Lexis Nexis that apparently aren't available online, including a 571-word story in
there is no deadline for such expansions and that's not a reason for deletion. — Hun ter Ka hn 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - her film work appears to have gotten some attention from reliable sources. The article needs a lot of beefing up - perhaps through userfication? Bearian (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like there are more reliable sources out there that simply have not been farmed, but she appears to be notable enough. RockyMtChai (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yahel Sherman

Yahel Sherman (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 PRODded it with the following:

No indication of notability. All references are to subject's own pages (his own site or his facebook), or directory entries. My own search on ("DJ Yahel", his performing name) finds almost nothing; only seven Google News Hits ([64]), all of which are passing mentions. Google hits (apart from news, [65]) are all merely mentioning a scheduled performance, or are to the subject's own pages: home page, facebook, soundcloud, youtube, etc.

PROD was declined, with the only reference added to support notability being this interview, which appears to be pretty much a blog. It's actually not a news site; its "news section" is pretty much just uploads of songs and other audio and video files, "a selection of recently uploaded Songs, DJ Mixes & Music Videos for your enjoyment". TJRC (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the content of the article is weak, and that existing english language references are limited, but I would argue that the article should be improved rather than deleted. This artist is prolific, touring all over the world and not just performing, but headlining large events. Another point towards notability is that "his Facebook following" is 150,000 people. Perhaps the disconnect here is that most of the online references about him are written in Hebrew. cooldavid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cooldavid, it's not that the references are in non-English. I mentioned 7 Google News hits above, and of those seven, only one (the internetdj.com interview) is English. But look at all the others, they're just passing mentions, regardless of language, mentioning that he performed, for example.

Your points about the size of his following, him being prolific, etc., are really not an argument that he's notable; they're an argument that he should be notable, that he should be getting more coverage in reliable sources. But we don't base inclusion on whether we think a particular subject should be notable; we base it on whether the subject is in fact notable.

If you do have reliable sources, regardless of language, that indicate his notability, please provide them; I would be happy to support retention in that case. TJRC (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability standards. Insufficient coverage, more like an ad. VanEman (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better and there's currently nothing convincingly better to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Yahel is a very known notability and he is in wikipedia for a few years for a reason. As for interviews, Yahel's likes to have a very private life (unlike on his early stages) therefore he's rarely doing any media. He got 150K followrs on Facebook for a reason. He is a very known producer for many years, like Armin Van Buuren and Tiesto. He had also been working with Tiesto (while Tiesto was still producing Trance). Yahel is also connected with the very known Infected Mushroom and DJ Skazi too. 2 Days ago Yahel was to join them on stage in a show to thousands of people on a huge event celebrating 20 years to Infected Mushroom. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Culture/Get-infected-451105 Vincent De Moor^[1] in on Wikipedia too and Yahel's is much more known than him. AnimalLiberation (talk)

The only mention of Yahel on the Jerusalem Post article is "During the third and final set the party will really take off, as Eisen and Duvdevani will invite DJs Astrix, Yahel and Riot Universe to join them onstage." That's it; no other discussion of Yahel. That's the kind of "passing mention" I referred to above; it does not indicate notability. Being "connected to" another entertainer does not make one notable: see
WP:NOTINHERITED
. Such a connection might merit a mention in the other entertainer's article (assuming the other entertainer is notable and has an article), at most.

Whether Vincent de Moor has an article is irrelevant. Each article is deleted or retained on its own merits, not on the basis of another article; see
WP:OCE. It may well be that the other article should be deleted, too, for all we know, or there may be some substantial differences between the subjects that merit keeping one and not the other. The focus on this discussion is on the Yahel Sherman article. TJRC (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The subject looks notable from the article content but there are almost no citations at all it is therefor difficult to evaluate. Caseeart (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Vincent de Moor". Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I did a google search on the Hebrew version of his name (יהל שרמן) and several additional interviews and articles came up, which leads a bit more credence towards not deleting the article on the basis of notability. Perhaps a Hebrew speaker could take a look and see if the article can be fixed with content that can be properly sourced? cooldavid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to retention if any of those sources pan out and show him as notable; nor to relisting this for another go-round to allow some time for that. You might want to find a relevant WikiProject to ask for help. I note that the Hebrew Wikipedia entry he:יהל_שרמן is completely unsourced.

My own Google search on the Hebrew word, adding "DJ" (and "-wikipedia" to miss most Wikipedia copies), doesn't seem to find anything that looks like a reliable source as that term is used here at Wikipedia, but that's admittedly hampered by my being unable to read Hebrew. But they appear to be the same type of sources found in English-language searches: Facebook page, discographies, passing mentions. TJRC (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Discussion has been open for weeks now with no significant improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see a lot of discussion about his coverage from social media, blogs, and other kinds of things that aren't reliable sources. I'm sympathetic to electronic indie type artists trying to break through, but notability just isn't well-established here. When he does get noticed, it's something like this aforementioned article that only touches on his musical work in passing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm torn on this has he does seem to meet #5 on Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. However, just because you meet one (they only one he meets) doesn't mean it belongs. I google news him a the only post found is from 2007. Nothing else. Since, it's a BLP it has to be delete. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Grange Festival

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

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

Non-notable event, fails
WP:EVENT JMHamo (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as per the nomination and a search didn't yield much to establish notability. Oposattta Kamata (chat) 04:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grange Park Opera astro (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now as it's certainly questionable for solid independent notability, nothing convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Redirect but the target should be The Grange, Northington. It looks to me as if this "Festival" is a new opera company established to perform at The Grange, Northington, after the Grange Park Opera moved to a new venue. @Astro interest and SwisterTwister: Are you in agreement with this target? --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Actually, the topic passes
WP:GNG per sources that are available about it. See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

References

The Guardian

The Telegraph

Grange Park Opera plans 700-seat woodland La Scala. The Stage.

New opera festival at Grange estate unveils first season. The Stage.

Southern Daily Echo

Grange Festival announces key appointments. Opera Now (paid circulation print magazine, [66])

Hampshire Chronicle

Dorking and Leatherhead Advertiser

"Michael Chance, the new artistic director of The Grange Festival, tells John Goodall about his plans ..." (subscription required). Country Life.

Hampshire Chronicle (short article)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources presented by NA1000.
SSTflyer 14:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per NA1000. FiendYT ★ 00:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A consensus to keep the article name has been established, although a consensus to either keep or redirect has not been reached — Music1201 ^talk 02:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent sources found by North America. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Desjardins

Sarah Desjardins (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, quite a few references but not specifically about the subject Benboy00 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is referenced entirely to the
WP:NACTOR. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she can be substanced and sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nothing better for WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER, only a few works and nothing for the convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing, IMHO, WP:NACTOR. I'm surprised that Romeo Killer, a made for TV movie, doesn't have its own article. Bearian (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like being three credits above "Town Person #3" is not a huge acheivement in a made for TV movie, and doesn't count as a significant role (does that movie even count as a notable film?) Benboy00 (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A person doesn't pass NACTOR just because one editor asserts that she passes NACTOR — she passes NACTOR when
reliable source coverage is present in the article to demonstrate an NACTOR pass. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there are no secondary or tertiary sources at all specifically referencing the subject, then it's a clear delete. Otherwise keep and refactor using proper sources. My main concern in these cases are potential BLP issues which arise when relying too much on primary sources, as well as the possibility that when no reliable sources are available, the article may be a product of a publicist or agent. Laval (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the barest passing mentions in Variety and the LA Times; nothing in THR or EW. Definitely fails
WP:NACTOR. Note to participants: Being a staple supporting player in Lifetime-type TV movies does not guarantee "notability" at all, believe me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show that they pass
WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Axiome

Axiome (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 since 2011. Article topic lacks
?) It had no meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets (since C-drik is half of the act). czar 13:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 13:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - no sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for any applicable notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the
additional criteria for musicians. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Velapene Screen

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

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

Article topic lacks
?) It had no meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 13:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 13:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as everything still questionable for the needed notability, article contains nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails the
additional criteria for musicians. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majesco (insurance software company)

Majesco (insurance software company) (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)

As my searches found nothing better at all aside from a few several press releases, there's no actual convincing coverage. I should note that this was accepted as THIS in May 2014 to which I certainly would not have accepted it myself. Apparently it may have been a subsidiary of Mastek but I see nothing convincingly solid to suggest moving there thus delete seems best. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes
WP:CORPDEPTH
:

Coverage in 2014 by Gartner, and apparently again in 2015 where they named it "visionary".

Coverage at Seeking Alpha.

coverage by Indianivesh

Coverage by HDFC Securities

2011 Coverage of its "STG Policy" by Celent (which apparently gave it various awards in subsequent years).

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For publically-listed companies, searching for the company code (in this case "MJCO") with the terms "analyst" or "analysis" will tend to reveal coverage.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets
WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

References

Business Standard

Business Standard

The Economic Times

The Economic Times

Live Mint

Insurance Journal

Keep The number of references is stunning once the search is done right as per Hydronium. DeVerm (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CINE

CINE (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 do not see sufficient evidence of this award's notability to warrant an article. The references given do not support the claim: the first is to "Idealist", which is a company description written by the company; the second is to a yellow pages listing (which also doesn't happen to mention the company); the third reference does not contain a link— that would be fine, but I could not find evidence of that reference's existence, never mind what it might say about CINE; the fourth also contains no link and then also does not appear to exist; the fifth, sixth, and seventh lack independence; the eighth and ninth also contain no links, and for the second time I could not verify their existence— the Judith Havemann article MIGHT have made a case for notability, but I could not find her name mentioned with the word "CINE" anywhere except in this article; the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth all fail independence (the list of "notable winners" derives entirely from the 12th source— and while the list of such people may be accurate, that does not make the award notable any more than if I gave an award to every best actress ever to win an Oscar and then claimed I was notable for having done so). KDS4444 (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as its age and history suggests there's enough including archived to find better information, my searches found a few and this will still need better attention. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per the organization and its awards having the coverage to meet
WP:ORG. as SwisterTwister states, this needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - CINE is a widely known org in the doc cinema field and beyond; and well regarded -- It would be silly to delete the article --
talk) 00:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Body of Work (album)

Body of Work (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A single reference to Allmusic does not constitute evidence of notability. Article requires either multiple independent reliable non-trivial discussion from secondary sources, redirection to artist, or deletion. KDS4444 (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esics

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

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

Unreferenced, incorrectly titled stub article about an investment-related topic in Australian business. While I feel that the topic is potentially encyclopaedic, the current state of the article risks providing our readers with unverifiable investment advice and should be quickly removed. Possible CSD candidate. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination's assertion that this is unreferenced is blatantly false as the page clearly contains links to relevant pages maintained by the Australian government. For another take on this technical topic see Tax Technical. Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whip into proper shape. Add decent refs. Move to ESICS then move to (or create redirect from) early stage innovation company. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve as needed and I nearly would've closed it myself. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rabindranath Mukherjee

Rabindranath Mukherjee (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)

Insufficiently sourced biographical article. There are no references which allow us to verify the notability of this subject. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In a one minute search, I was able to find this biography on the website of the Indian National Science Academy, that country's top level scientific body, which verifies that he is an elected fellow. I agree that the current version of the article is poorly referenced, but we should not delete such biographies of notable scientists. Instead, we should improve the referencing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cullen's evidence gives a clear pass of
WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Cullen's solid analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_May_8&oldid=1142621273"

[10] "Vincent de Moor". Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[1]

[2]

[3]

JW

Noctis^{talk to me}

reply

[1]

Girl Number One (book)

Djiboutian Americans

Gaerdal Ironhand

Direct (musician)

Scranton General Strike

Locating engine

Songs from the album Giving You the Best That I Got

Dan Vahdat

Yung Sherman

2007 Applebee’s Lactivist Nurse-in

Širom (band)

Butterfly vibrator

Esics