Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 August	10 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Miss New Jersey USA. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Pogorzelski[edit]

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

Pogorzelski's lone claim to fame is being a state beauty pageant winner. This is not enough on its own. The sources are all pageant publications, extremely local papers or one is a university newspaper from a university she was a student at. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe we can consider beauty pageant winners to be cases of BLP-1E? Carrite (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree 100% with everything the nominator said, it's exactly what I was thinking as I read the article and looked at the sources. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss New Jersey USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 15 August 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott La Rock[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO. Almost every reliable source about this person is an obituary, which isn't enough to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search shows that La Rock is discussed in several books about rap music. Some of this coverage is in depth. Books are not obituaries. It is understandable that coverage of a notable person who died violently at a young age will emphasize their death. This is not incompatible with notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well, La Rock was the DJ on Boogie Down Productions' LP Criminal Minded, which Rolling Stone originally listed as 444th on its "Greatest Albums of All Time." While the record was considered a standard-bearer for the creation of gangster rap, La Rock's violent death was also the reason for KRS-One moving from that kind of content toward "conscious" hip-hop, a style in which he was also a pioneer. La Rock's murder has been featured on Celebrity Crime Files^[1] and was the subject of a variety^[2]^[3]^[4] of reflection by hip-hop critics and fans 25 years after the fact.Querenciazine (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable artist, there are many many sources online besides obituaries. Just because they aren't in the article doesn't mean they don't exist. Nominating editor should do a Google search before making a statement like that. No doubt, article can be improved by using more sources, but deletion? Not even close. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 12 August 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 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Madi[edit]

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

Although I appreciate and see the user's contributions, there's still nothing to suggest this position sets any independent notability for his own actual article. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable city offical.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why it seems non-notable. When I went to create the article I thought he was still the Director of Urban Design for the City of Toronto working under Jennifer Keesmaat. In this role he would warrant an article, and this role in general, in Toronto at this time, is notable. Upon starting my research and bringing in citations I realized he has just left the position, only last month actually. There is someone new acting in his place while the city looks for a replacement. Beyond a change in his public LinkedIn profile, a job posting on the city website, and the new employee being listed on the Toronto Urban Design website there has not been press about this departure. I still feel that his connection to Keesmaat and his participation in many important city planning initiatives is notable but without being in the role I thought he was, I guess it makes sense to delete the article for now. --RhyUrbanPlan (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A search for Harold yields coverage more for Jennifer Keesmaat, the former colleague. She seems to be a notable Toronto city planner, per GNG. However, I'd say Madi just falls short, at this time. Maybe userfy until such time as Madi nets more reliable sources? Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Director of urban design" isn't a role that would confer an automatic inclusion freebie on a person just for existing. (Even being the head of city planning is no guarantee of inclusion — Jennifer Keesmaat gets over on how sourceable she is, but a lot of her predecessors don't have articles because they didn't do the job in anything even approaching the "high media visibility" way that she does.) It could potentially get him into Wikipedia if the sourcing here were a lot more dependent on reliable source coverage in media and a lot less on primary sources, but it's not a role that entitles him to an exemption from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can locate much more media coverage about him than has been shown here, but nothing written or sourced here now is enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's little more than a job description. Not notable. Bermicourt (talk) 08:56, 14 August 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 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MecSoft Corporation[edit]

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

Actually deleted in 2011 where I also suggest deleting, and since chances are it's not symmetrical to then, we're at AfD again; searches are not finding anything actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with original deletion and current nomination. Non-notable software company, fails WP:CORP. No secondary coverage found, just some listings and press releases. MB 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches are only turning up press releases, or trivial mentions. Nothing which rises to the level required by either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just couldn't find any proof of notability in reliable sources. There are voluminous pickups of the company's press releases in the trade press, so raw searching is a bit like searching for one good part in a pile of bad ones. The company's 'press' section on their website has nothing but press releases either. Found one instance where the company re-published the content of an interview that was done with their CEO, but that's not much use either. BoyRD (talk) 23:58, 14 August 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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Palmer (real estate developer)[edit]

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

PROD removed with the basis GNG is enough but my concerns still exist, the fact he's simply getting attention from those events such as donating to politics and also his controversies, I'm not seeing how there's actually enough for substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note that I am the page creator, but between his long coverage in various local news sources as a major real estate developer, and the (admittedly not as long-lasting) coverage from national news sources about his role as a major political donor in the presidential election, I think that he meets the "significant coverage" prong of GNG, and I don't think he runs afoul of any other GNG issues. Orser67 (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage he gets clearly passes GNG. He has been covered in detail by the New York Times. Even though he is in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Times coverage is also enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The coverage of Palmer is not just that some people do not like the way he builds housing developments. The basic fact of the matter is he has been responsible for a lot of housing development in the Los Angeles area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually helping for establishing his own convincing notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG, additional refs: The Guardian, LA Magazine, Reuters, Bloomberg, The Daily Beast, NYT (2000).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not meeting by what I said with my nomination, attention is only for either his political donations or his clients, none of that is substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- "Donald Trump’s biggest donor, giving $2m to a pro-Trump group known as Rebuilding America Now, according to Federal Election Commission data. Palmer, estimated to be worth $3bn..." suggests notability to me. Sources presented at the AfD are substantial enough to keep the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:BASIC pass, per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:29, 16 August 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 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dark chocolate! (animated film)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this short film that appears to have been shown once. Earlier versions were tagged for CSD and then PROD but PROD removed without explanation by author. A single reference is nowhere close to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something seems to exist. I see it's been greenlighted by Amazon Studios?. Anyway, it clearly fails GNG and NFILM -- really nothing to be found that helps with notability. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is simply WP:TOOSOON for an entry. The film exists and can be seen, but existing does not give notability on Wikipedia. From what I can see, the series was just submitted to Amazon Studios for consideration, but it doesn't look like it was actually greenlit for a series since there's nothing on the development slate. As far as the award nomination goes, the film festival looks to be fairly minor by Wikipedia standards so even if it'd won it wouldn't have been considered a notable enough award to count towards notability on here. I wish the director well, but it's just a bit too early for this director's work to be on Wikipedia. Maybe at some point in the future this can change and he can mention in an interview that his earlier attempts to be on Wikipedia were met with deletion. (I really want someone to mention this so we can include it in an article!) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 10 August 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 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, marketing company in search for exposure. The Banner talk 21:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the bad taste shown in adding so many red links (even in Categories) :-). But seriously, this is nothing but a WP:PROMO and I cannot find anything substantial on this company. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there appears to be some walled garden / COI editing going on. Please see Ramesh Parasuraman which I just proposed for deletion; it was created by the same editor. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be an article created by a fresh editor without much knowledge about Wikipedia that's why many red links. But the Company or Organisation seems to have partnership with many Multinational Companies and it has only its short introduction, so doesn't seems to be only for promotional purpose. Allied Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. would be allowed but the editor need to make necessary changes to the article. Top Infos (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article Ramesh Parasuraman may be an supporting article for Allied Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. as that person is MD of the company. But Ramesh Parasuraman article doesn't seem to meet the guidelines and feels as Promotional Article. Top Infos (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: borderline A7 and G11--not notable, no claim to importance. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Necessary improvements have to be made in this Article by the editor. Apsara2016 (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "partnerships" with notable companies means they are one of a notable company's many suppliers or sales agents. This is inherited notability of a particularly absurd variety.The sources are basically PR. Thee is no reason to think thearticle is improvable, for the firm is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:46, 16 August 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 Mammon (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caarcrinolaas (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the appropriate section of Mammon (Dungeons & Dragons). bd2412 T 21:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mammon (Dungeons & Dragons)#Vassals per the above. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:06, 11 August 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 Olympics on Seven. Jujutacular (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Rio Today[edit]

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

Non-notable and nonsensical. Ethanlu121 (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~: The program is the primetime centrepiece (flagship show) of Olympic programming in Australia on the Seven Network, so it is notable, but without references it obviously can't remain. I would note too this user has a history of creating articles without sources (The Love Game (game show), Everyday Health (Australian TV series), The Music Shop (TV series) as examples) and despite talk page notices, templates, edit summary points, etc the user does not appear willing to engage or abide by Wikipedia policies. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Going by the description this is basically a primetime repackaging of Games event highlights for Aussies that are currently working during Rio/Americas primetime. The title says this obviously won't be seen after August 22 there, and it's basically just Seven's coverage summarized for primetime viewers otherwise. Nate • (chatter) 02:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mrschimpf: In fairness, they do more than just highlights: interviews, commentary, behind-the-scenes, etc. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's not much different from what NBC and CBC does then; but looking at it further, I'm going to change my !vote and switch to a redirect to Olympics on Seven as a plausible redirect. Nate • (chatter) 04:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Redirect: A redirect to that article does make sense, I change my vote also. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Olympics on Seven. As others have said, it's not notable on its own but it's a plausible search term. Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 17 August 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 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atta Community[edit]

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

Advertising of an company still in its start-up phase. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 20:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a completely non-notable startup business venture. The article is an overt advertisement crammed with meaningless promotional jargon such as "Atta's goal is reinventing the way organizations motivate, engage and empower people by making them socialize, team up and progress and it helps organizations to solve business challenges with gamification, teamwork and personalization." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- badly self-promotional article on a start-up company, and my searches turn up nothing substantial; practically nothing at all. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 12 August 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. The only people arguing to keep (and there are plenty of those) are the article's creator, a bunch of WP:SPAs, and somebody with obvious COI (who, at least deserves credit for disclosing this). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Claro[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Still nothing actually convincing as not all of these sources are actually acceptable, I still my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fairly blatant COI promo. Quis separabit? 20:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Aust331 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears it may have significant coverage in reliable sources Metaphorical analysis (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I just saw Quis separabit? and I do not personally know subject. I am a music enthusiast and not so much a writer. This is my first attempt at contributing. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in the interest of full disclosure I was hired to help someone with an interest in this article to navigate through this AFD, I am not voting one way or the other since that would be a Conflict of Interest. Instead I want to point out a few things below. MPJ-DK 13:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to call everyone's attention to the "Tampa Bay Times" article that's one of the sources listed. This article alone constitutes "Significant Coverage" as the article is exclusively about her. It is a newspaper with an editorial process in place and as far as I know Natalie Claro is in no way associated with the Tampa Bay Times. Why is this important? because this source alone qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - And that last bit is a direct quote from The General Notabiliy Guideline. Which is the general guideline, even if individual projects impose other guidelines the GNG is the primary guideline.
The "Jamsphere" article - Published by a Music Magazine (independent, reliable source) and it is focused on her, not just an aside mention, but an article all about her.

So I believe by those two sources alone it establishes that the GNG is met, there is significant coverage, by independent reliable sources that are totally independent of Natalie Claro. I am pinging everyone who voted "Delete" with the reason that the article does not establish notability just to be sure they're aware of the GNG criteria and the article meeting them. @Aust331:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A heretofore regional, non notable subject, possibly a case of WP: TOO SOON. Written by a WP:SPA contributor, it reads as if it’s purpose it to further the career of the subject rather than being based on objective reportage. Note to User:Metaphorical analysis. The key wording you are overlooking in the criteria for WP:NMUSIC is: "May be notable if..." This means that to simply meet the criteria is a start, but not an automatic qualifier. The sources you are citing above are not indicative of significant coverage. The Tampa Bay Online (a.k.a. TBO) article does not carry the same weight as the Tampa Bay Times proper. Rather, it is an online only service owned by the Times that promotes stories of local interest. The interview with the subject (which consist of her talking about her pursuit of a music career) is the equivalent on a notability scale with that of a quarterback for the local high school who talks about his amazing yardage stats and how he hopes to turn pro someday. When assessing such a reference, its helpful to be aware of WP:EDPN. The other independent reference, JamSphere, is of dubious merit. All other references, as noted, are from user generated sites. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:ShelbyMarion You are partially right about the TBO, however the content was also printed in the Tampa Bay Times Newspaper. Yes, they utilize there Tampa Bay Online source for all their articles. I understand that those of you who edit and determine whether a page should be deleted cannot be everywhere, but there are many similar pages not nominated for deletion, however is given the time for corrections and updating, and support from other editors. In reference to WP:SPA contributor, I think all editors start somewhere and usually with topics they enjoy. I am here to contribute just like the more experienced editors Metaphorical analysis (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Purplechocolatebunny Hi there, I was also asked to help someone with this article, so I must refrain from voting as well. Excuse me if I'm not using Talk correctly, I'm still a bit unfamiliar with it. It appears to me that some of these sources are good, though it could use more; but the writing of the article seems rather subjective. The subject seems fairly relevant to me as this is a person of notability within the music scene of a major metropolitan area. Additionally, other independent sources citing her notability do exist. If the article is rewritten & more sources added, will that make a difference? User:Purplechocolatebunny 5:33 UTC 13 August2016 —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not "more" but "better" sources are needed. If you can provide them it would help this article. Independent for independencies sake is not enough. Avoid citing music websites/blogs whose primary purpose is promotional, even if they are independent of the subject's (or subject's management's) involvement. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the guideline says "significant coverage", which they are, it says " iindependent" which they are, it says "reliable sources" which a newspaper and a magazine with an editorial process are. Notice it does not exclude "regional sources". So " better" in wheat sense? And a magazine about music should be avoided? Is Sports Illustrated to be avoided for athletes? MPJ-DK 12:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, reread WP:MUSIC and note the emphasis on the words: “may be notable…” To think: “Hey, a newspaper and a magazine have an article about a person. They qualify for a wikipedia article” is a flawed viewpoint. Please consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is a difference in significance between an article of reportorial nature that appears in a major metro area, picked up by a wire service and carried elsewhere versus a personal interest profile (one that contains her promotional booking information, no less) that runs in the “Northwest News” section of the paper (yes, I do research these kinds of things.) Or consider Rolling Stone verse a source like Rock at Night, a website where the bottom of the main page openly solicits content with the sentence: “In a band? Have news? Want to submit an article or photo?” One is a credible source with independent editorial oversight. The other is questionable in that it openly solicits content from those who are looking to use their vehicle as promotion. This is the kind of thing that makes it a bad source. And there are many music websites just like it. Their merits need to be weighed individually. Likewise, any kind of social media numbers (page hits, file downloads, video views, etc.) can never be used as an indicator of notably, primarily because it is easy to acquire/purchase “hits” for those wishing to promote their own notability. That’s not a accusation in this case, rather a statement of why wikipedia discounts them. So, yeah, I take all this into account before I vote delete. My position, contrary to yours, is that the subject has not displayed significant coverage that would convey notability. Look, I have no skin in the game regarding Ms. Claro’s aspirations. I’m assuming she has talent and I wish her luck. But lets call it as it is: a performer in the business for only a short time, largely self-produced and financed (per her own statements on social media) and who, with a single exception (performing at a weekend festival in New Jersey) has yet to significantly break out beyond her native region. I agree that being regional in nature is not an automatic disqualifier. But her performance schedule past and present, per her website and social media, are at venues that are unlikely to add weight to an argument that she is a major figure in the Florida music scene. But, as I stated in my original post, she may get there someday. Just not yet per evidence provided. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNC is not subservient to specialized criteria, thery supplement the GNC as a guideline if the GNC status is borderline. GNC is met, nothing can restrict that. MPJ-DK 15:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are overlooking the phrase "may be notable..." which is up front in the first sentence as a declarative for WP:MUSIC. We are in agreement with the criteria for GNC. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metaphorical analysis I have to agree with MPJ-DK In fact WP:MUSIC clearly states that this article meets the Wikipedia's criteria. This is what it states: Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. Notability on this article is not a flawed view point. After reading some editors bios it has come to my conclusion that some editors have their own opinions and criteria. It doesn't say in in WP:MUSIC that you have to have global, national or regional notoriety. It gives specific requirements and they are met here. After the requirements are met, it seems that it is opinion of others whether to delete or keep. I am learning about wikipedia, and I am learning that it is also organized by opinion. As I stated before there are 100's of articles/pages that have been unfinished, unedited with no citations on Wikipedia, yet those pages are still standing. So if I had created this page, and limited the information perhaps it wouldn't be on AFD today. I am no way taking this personally, but it sounds to me that some others here are doing just that, basing their vote on their personal opinion. Being that "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes per hour." You are determining a persons nobility on their income status meaning a musician should only be provided a wikipedia page if they are signed by a major record label, and that they should have a Grammy. Some people have achieved a milestone, and all milestones can have credibility. The comment about WP: TOO SOON is clearly just opinion. Wikipedia states "if an actor cannot meet at least one of them, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered" HOWEVER, again Natalie Claro does meet one of them. Some of you are discrediting newspapers because articles are in a certain sections of a paper. The article is completely defined about Natalie Claro, and just because the writer disclosed means of contact doesn't make the article any less than the next. A newspaper that is from a major city, and delivered on doorsteps is just as powerful as any other newspaper. You are discrediting everywhere because of your personal stance and not facts. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have completely read through this discussion. Everyone has good points, however Wikipedia has criteria and we need to stick to this. It appears from reading both sides, that this page should not be deleted. FairlySavvy (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep After going through all details I must say that this article has less third party independent media. Only MTVs link seemed lil good but they had brief mention. The TBO link was fine and detailed for notability. More such links are required to establish the notability. Other links are mostly of social media such as facebook and tumbler which should not be used. The subject might be notable for other links not mentioned. So an in-depth online research should be made before reaching to any conclusion.Natalia.chase (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Natalie Claro have enough sources which proves the independent notability of her as per encyclopedia Guidelines.As per the other content which require significant coverage there has to be added secondary sources to prove the notability.yes she meets the criteria of the musician but article bust be improved as per references. "Tampa Bay Times" and "Jamsphere" these two article clearly shows. Imvaio123 (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In reference to Jamsphere. The magazine is print and online. From what I can see has been global since 2012. They have articles about indie artists to the grammy winners. Not sure why some are lead to believe that its "of dubious merit". Most sources receive press releases daily, and to discount an international magazine doesn't make sense to me. So, i think we have WP:CONTEXTMATTERS covered. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hopefully we can get more neutral voters to take part in this discussion beyond User:Metaphorical analysis (who’s first article is the article in question, account created on July 28th, 2016), User:FairlySavvy (account created on August 12th , 2016), and MPJ-DK and Purplechocolatebunny (who have been asked or paid to contribute to the debate). Aust331 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I am new to this but so were others at some point. Everyone has their first edit, their first article or first discussion. I don't see why my words or vote should be discredited. I'm here to help just like everyone else. FairlySavvy (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale behind the acceptance of the article was that the subject was found notable for "Tampa Bay Times" and "Jamsphere". As a matter of fact it has adequate third party and worthy references to meet The General Notabiliy Guideline. Her interview by Raven on "Rock at Night" shows her significant coverage in reliable sources. However the subject does not fall under Too Soon because it is considered only if the sources do not exist. Therefore I feel that the subject should not be denied space.Isabellabrice (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In early age she makes career and launch successful album like "Stumble" and "Baby Bug", she won prize as best local singer & songwriter. so this page should not be deleted.Dainy 123 (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy per WP:TOOSOON. It is early in her career and so far she has not achieved the notability required by WP:BIO or the track record required by WP:NMUSIC. The references do not meet our criteria as Reliable Sources, with the exception of the one item in the Tampa Bay Times; we need multiple reliable sources and we need a little broader coverage than just her hometown paper. It's possible that in a year or two she may meet the criteria, but she doesn't now. I'm sure the closing administrator will take note of the huge flood of "keep" !voters here who, while not strictly special purpose accounts, still seem suspiciously attracted to this AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Metaphorical analysis I'm just curious why "suspicious" and opinions are how we decide a Wikipedia page. We need to weed out opinions, votes and just use the facts. It seems to me that some people have made this argument about winning the discussion rather than addressing the guidelines, and if the article in question meets the threshold or not. Wikipedia has guidelines and keeping an article out that is deserving is just as bad as allowing one that is not. The guidelines are not meant for interpretation by editors rather should be followed specifically. Saying that criteria is not a Reliable Source when Jamsphere has been published globally since 2012 is just an opinion. Saying that the subject does not have a long enough track record, or not notable because sources are not widespread, is also opinion. We should be focused on WP:MUSIC which is very specific versus WP:BIO Metaphorical analysis (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (a weak one) Pageviews often correlate with notability and she's getting about 60+ a day which means I'll keep checking since it might be her fan club. There's some in-depth coverage here (although not a news source I am aware of) and some coverage here and a press release here and a search of Florida media found mostly press releases like this press release. Sometimes I look at what I call image consistency -- to see if it's one person or many -- suggests one person with quite a few images -- so there is promotional work going on. One video had 28,000 views which looks like her most popular one; other videos didn't really register much, so my sense is she's got a good voice and a circle of friends and well-wishers working to promote her, perhaps who help her design her covers but haven't yet figured out that she needs more reviews on Amazon? She has a good singing voice and she's pretty and I'd like to find a way to keep her in Wikipedia but I don't think the sources are there yet, but when they are, post a note on my talk page and I'll refloat the article so it doesn't get deleted, maybe in a year's time; right now I think it's too soon--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with context to the above user if she has a good fan follower there should not be any issue regarding notability i believe that subject is notable See references #1,3,5,13, they itslef clears the evidence, I must say referencing should be done well as contents.Weather the guidelines itself not clear between the admins. When we look for the resources, none of the resources of subject are irrelevant.And it is well said it is not the question weather to keep or delete and winning debate, it is to help wikipedia.Wikihow1 (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right. This should be about helping wikipedia. However, see my comment below. The evidence suggests this discussion is more about helping people who wish to promote Natalie Claro.
Note to admin Evidence of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, WP:MEATPUPPETRY and/or WP:VOTESTACK, or some variation thereof. Natalie Claro posted on facebook that this page was going to be deleted “unless someone convinces them otherwise.” A followup post by a 2nd party reads: “I created an editor page on wikipedia to save your page, but we might need more people to go there to create profiles and vote keep.” See: https://www.facebook.com/natalieclaromusic/posts/51583970528221 As noted by others, there are several new editors who have created accounts after this article’s nom, and their first action was to log into this discussion. It’s also worth noting there are older editors arguing keep who have never before participated in ADF discussions. Apparently, out of the blue, they have decided to come here and make their single ADF input to keep this article. Two of them, in fact, have not participated in wiki edits of any kind for over a year. What are the odds they would suddenly show an interest in saving this article while otherwise showing no interest in the ADF process? Considering there is evidence of help—paid or otherwise—being solicited (fairly disclosed by users MPJ-DK and Purplechocolatebunny) one has to question if any of these “keeps” are being entered in good faith. Every single one seems to have been compromised by an overzealous misuse of WP:CANVAS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin I hardly think a 16 year old girl has these intentions other than sharing with her fans what's going on is her life. I don't see vote stacking occurring because as it appears it looks like there are the same amount of votes happening. And regardless, it's my understanding that you the admin will read the discussion and the arguments/facts presented and the VOTES of keep or delete have no bearing on your decision. If editors cruise in and out of Wikipedia, I believe that is just their choice. I'm new to Wikipedia by means of creating a user name, and I have been envolved with several AFD since. This nomination attracted me because i just see editors on the attack rather than truly justifying their comments. They all at some point in their discussion agree that this article meets the guidelines, but then contradicts themselves with TOO SOON. Come on people, let's be serious. We are all here together to participate in information for the public. There is value in Natalie Claro and you all see it. It's time to make a decision based on the facts and put a stop to ShelbyMarion overzealous opinions FairlySavvy (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - - one more thing user:ShelbyMarion takes such interest in this article that I question his credibility. For someone so active in the Wikipedia community I find it odd and questionable that his only focus has been on the deletion of this article and the subject Natalie Claro since it was nominated, and no other articles or editing has he shown interest in. Perhaps he is the one who has been paid to Vote delete. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=ShelbyMarion&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1 FairlySavvy (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for linking to my edit history so that the admins can see that my work here is consistent with my statement on my profile page. I generally check in once a week or so and do a quick perusal of ADF to offer my help to make wikipedia better. My greatest value to the wikipedia community is that my background in marketing, advertising, publishing, design and promotion gives me special insight how the creative arts community is marketed, and I root out non-notable creative types who attempt to abuse wiki for promotional purpose. I'm fairly adept at spotting press that is the result of promotional muscle because for about 6 years I was a partner in such a company. The small, independent music press is especially easy to get coverage. Trust me. We used to hype “the next big thing” for every artist who partnered with our client. It was pretty routine getting editors and writers onboard. Anyway, during my check in last week someone’s argument on the Natalie Claro page caught my attention, so I weighed in as necessary, largely supportive of the idea that this young artist is possibly on track to achieving wiki notability but was not there yet based on weak sources. The next time I checked in (today) I see it’s still going on. Unlike many editors who simply google a word and vote keep or delete based on hits, I actually click on most links to see if there is indeed merit. When I saw there was such a vigorous defense to save this page, I double checked my work. That’s when I saw the incriminating stuff on Ms. Claro’s Facebook page. But now that the WP:SOCKPUPPETRY has been outed, I see the post has been removed. Not to worry: I have encountered this kind of thing before and learned to make a screen cap of the post to back up my argument should the closing admin ask to see it. As for me being paid to edit, I LOVE the suggestion.PLEASE DO!!! Anybody…I would love for someone to pay me for this! :) Anyway, that’s about it for my periodical check in. I’m off for the weekend. When I come back next week I’ll be curious to see if the discussion is still going on. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a question that just occurred to me….and surprised it didn’t jump out at me until just now. Given the statement that this page is created and maintained independent of Mr. Claro’s involvement, how is it that she is aware of its nomination? And, more revealingly, how is it that within an hour of being outed for SOCKPUPPETRY, she knows to remove the incriminating post from her facebook page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyMarion (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Comment' wonderful for you to answer. I will continue to question your credibility due to your method of attack. Wikipedia is a public tool. You can't miss that it's been nominated for deletion since its in a big huge box at the top of the article. Second which subject wouldn't follow a discussion that is about them. Most people would know their is a Wikipedia article about them. And I'm sure they visit it often when they first learn. So how would she not see that it' could be deleted. How would a person not see the link to the discussion and follow it. And which 16 year old wouldn't possibly feel like they caused a problem with your method of attack. Of course they would delete something that they are told is WRONG. That indeed was your message to the subject. So carryon now, and go after some other artist pages. I read your bio and understand your story of frustration of the contstruction worker pursuing music, and how much you disliked him having a Wikipedia page. I guess we all have something that drives us to Wilipedia and yours happens to be hate. This is a public forum and we all have the right to participate. Calling people SOCKPUPPETS. Is rude and shouldn't be allowed by any editor. Those are guidelines that will be decided by an admin. What you are doing is just name calling. And if she sees this I encourage her to replace her Faceblook posting because she has the right to share her current affairs with her fans, and it's not a crime. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki. We are all here to do just that. I repeat there is absolutely no reason for you to be so rude. Every editor whether new or old or infrequent has a right to edit and discuss. Let the admin decide. FairlySavvy (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metaphorical analysis So many comments here, and I think its getting a little rough. I strongly feel we need to keep this discussion on the article and refrain from attacking the subject. So let's get back on track here. I have made an edit to the article to include a citation from the Tampa Bay Times, although it is just a mention I do think it helps. I'm glad that others helped with edits to the article, because this is what helps new article contributors learn. The article now has a strong foundation to build on with solid citations and credibility. It is time for the admin to make a decision and everyone here to comment needs to stay focused on the article and guidelines. Thank you Metaphorical analysis (talk) 13:03, 20 August 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 Xanth. In my earlier relist statement, I was hoping to get clarity on the rest of the series. I didn't get that, so I'm just going to redirect the one title. No prejudice against bringing the other books to AfD immediately. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luck of the Draw (Xanth novel)[edit]

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

I had originally redirected this to Xanth the series this book is a part of as this article has no sources and nothing to show it is notable. My redirect was reverted, it was redirected a second time and that was reverted. The edit summaries indicate that I should bring this here. There is nothing to indicate that this book is independently notable and I can not find any sources to support the article. Currently article is basically just a plot summary. A4032 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge all Xanth novels except ASfC to Xanth: I completely agree with A4032. The series is clearly notable, but this book is not. Of all the books in the series, the only articles that say anything beyond just that the book is in the Xanth series, and possibly a plot summary or character list, are:

Cube_Route (mentions that it contains the shortest known published pangrammatic window, a stretch of naturally occurring text that contains all the letters in the alphabet),
A Spell for Chameleon (seems uncontroversially notable: this article has proper refs, and the book has a movie adaptation)

None of the other articles has a single citation to an independent source, or makes any claim of independent notability. It would suffice to have a single-sentence plot summary per book in the main series article. --Slashme (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, unfortunate that a lot of article creators do not heed WP:BURDEN, that said, found this: Kirkus Reviews - "The novel stands alone quite well and doesn’t require readers to be experts in the Xanth mythos to understand the basic story. However, newcomers should be warned that Anthony’s work is not for everyone. .. Anthony’s prose, and especially his dialogue, can be clunky and artless at times."[1], Library Journal - "Anthony tells another rollicking story that simultaneously deals with the issues of physical aging, life choices, and second chances. VERDICT This is sure to please longtime fans and also serves as an introduction to readers who may be new to the beloved series."[2], Beloit library review - "Only a few pages in, readers can tell the author is as committed to transporting the reader into a new setting as he is to making the next pun."[3], also on the longlist of the David Gemmell Legend Awards and the Ravenheart Awards [4], so close to notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per Slashme I think merging the bulk of the Xanth novels into a single, stronger article makes the most sense here. Artw (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is odd. The Amazon entry for the book says "PIERS ANTHONY is one of the world's most popular fantasy authors and a New York Times bestseller twenty-one times over." At least those books of his on the bestseller list should've gotten some coverage somewhere. Dream Focus 19:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be uncommon with serial works. The first entry in the series and the series as a whole have much more coverage, hence the merge suggestions. Artw (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's good consensus here so far to redirect this one particular title, but there's also a suggestion here that this should apply to the entire series. I'm uncomfortable with this consensus covering the entire series based just on the existing disucssion. So, relisting this for a week to get further clarity (or not) on the rest of the series -- RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xanth. Kirkus is a "pay to play" book review publication. The publisher pays hundreds of dollars and Kirkus cranks out a review. These reviews may be of some value to professional book buyers but do not establish notability. The third reference appeared on BookSpotCentral, which simply posts reviews provided by publishers. This is also not an independent source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I am throwing a keep because this AfD should not cover ALL the Xanth novels. Several at least are notable on their own (there is one about a kid that ran away and visited the author in florida in the 1980s and was covered widely in the press). The individual titles aren't covered much because it is essentially a pulp series but the prolificness? of the author shouldn't be a detriment, and merging them into one article is going to be much larger than 32 kbytes.--Savonneux (talk) 05:11, 10 August 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 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Abel[edit]

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

Not notable, or at least not yet notable, an apparently promotional bio, , listing every essay she has every published,and a long quotation describing her philosophy. Written by ed. with COI, who seems to be adding similarly over-detailed bios of all her associates. I think some are notable, but even those are excessively detailed.) DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable religious figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, because as excessively long as this may be, there's still nothing for any actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. The Boston Globe references are just articles that she herself wrote. Yoninah (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes no claim of notability and the sources provided are nonsubstantive and do not provide the in-depth coverage about the subject required to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite serving as vice president of both an important Jewish organization and her synagogue, Ms. Abel just hasn't been the subject of significant media coverage. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the same person who create this article is a new user who also created a series of other weak articles or articles for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Esther_Levy_JOFA about other people involved with the same organization.--Jayrav (talk) 20:47, 14 August 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 01:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Warren “Greg” Triggs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no indication of notability as most are related or social media The Banner talk 19:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very poorly sourced BLP that needs a total rewrite. In theory, this actor might be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 12 August 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 Procedural close. Article was speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erand Hoxha (Actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT - a list of minor roles. Sources are self-published or consist of passing mentions of films that source had a supporting role (as an "extra") in. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I've speedy deleted the article under WP:G5 as it was created by a confirmed sock account. Note the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erand Hoxha (actor). Both titles have now been salted. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:56, 9 August 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 Miss New Hampshire. Redirect is always prefferred over deletion so am closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Glickman[edit]

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

Glickman was Miss New Hampshire and Miss New Hampshire USA, neither of which are enough on their own to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We appear to have articles on multiple other Miss America and Miss USA contestants from the years Glickman participated in. Plus, per WP:ANYBIO she "received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The clear consensus is that Miss New Hampshire USA is not a "well known significant award of honor". The outcome of a whole lot of discussions has been to delete these articles. A lot fewer articles exist for 2005 winners than it appears at first, because some have been redirected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Miss New Hampshire. My searches did not come up with anything much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At a previous discussion on a winner of a Miss USA state award in 2005 this was pointed out "See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss New Hampshire as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 15 August 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 01:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobuo Abe[edit]

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

No significant coverage identified in reliable sources. To merge to Nakagin Capsule Tower as suggested would give WP:UNDUE weight, as there is no indication of the size of this individual's role: who knows how large the "senior management" was? Even to be useful as a redirect, there would need to be some evidence that this person is significant. —swpb^T 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge and keep the bluelink. This person played a role in the Tower, so it may well be a search term. If a merge would place too much importance on what we can't source, then a redirect would preserve the article history and allow it to be spun out if someone wants to improve it later. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)} [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —swpb^T 15:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nakagin Capsule Tower. I couldn't figure out how to do a merge without creating an WP:UNDUE issue. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And please do not redirect or merge. There is not one reliable secondary source which proves that the subject is even linked to the Nakagin Capsule Tower. This is a failure of WP:V (forget notability) and we do not redirect if we cannot even verify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this documentary verifies the connection. ~Kvng (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that the subject played a role in the building of the tower. We have a source [5] indicating that he was interviewed for this documentary. That is not equal to playing a major role in building the tower. In fact, I found this trailer of the documentary with a reasonably detailed summary and it doesn't mention the subject at all. So I don't see why we should keep a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried to find sources in Japanese, but whoever wrote this article seems to have put his name in backwards. I fixed it, but nothing I could find appeared to have anything to do with this particular Nobuo Abe. There is no Japanese WP article on him, he's not getting hits on the Japanese Nakagin article, he's not mentioned in any English article on the tower or the firm, and I'm going to also point out that he was ~31 years old when this project started, and thus highly unlikely to be considered for senior management at that age in a Japanese firm. I think someone is embellishing here, and without sources, there's nothing asserting notability. Also, just as an FYI, the editor who created this was blocked for copyvio. MSJapan (talk) 05:23, 13 August 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 01:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Investment Shujog[edit]

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

PROD with the basis of 2 but everyone here knows those two listed sources are entirely unacceptable as they are an interview and then a few mentions as part of a donation supporting. SwisterTwister talk 15:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and I don't see a claim of significance here either. In addition, it is very clear that the article is being used for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is largely promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- SPA/COI editing, along with its sister company Impact Investment Exchange Asia (IIX). I'm not seeing sources beyond PR. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 16 August 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 01:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-Nihilism[edit]

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

I'm struggling to find any meaningful content not already covered by Anarchism or Nihilist movement. Also contains no secondary sources (thus fails WP:GNG) -- cannot find many references to the subject on Google. Specto73 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is possibly trolling. I don't see any scholarly accounts of the philosophy/movement, and while I could envisage an article on the topic if a few sources can be found, this is not it. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonnotabilism-neologismism. Made up term. Carrite (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable (and probably not existing). --T*U (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be 100% original research.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:47, 12 August 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 01:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March to Rome (disambiguation)[edit]

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

No links to this disambiguation page; first page redirects to third page. Second page is already linked in the third page's hatnote. Wiktionary entry does not exist. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:2DABS. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary - neither entry has this title, which redirects to the historical event and does not need a dab page. PamD 11:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have cleaned up the dab page uncontroversially, so it's not the page the nominator was commenting on. PamD 11:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No valid entries, two possible 'see also' entries only, with similar but not identical titles. Boleyn (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot see the point of having it. It's main usage would be to redirect users to March on Rome, but the search engine already anticipates that if one enters "march to Rome" and it redirects the searcher to "March on Rome". Irondome (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom BlueSalix (talk) 01:25, 13 August 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11 (with Balaji Sreenivasan deleted under G8). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aurigo Software[edit]

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

This is a highly promotional article about what appears to be a company that does not meet notability requirements. The article was written by editors with a declared or suspected COI. Most of the references fall into several categories: 1) closely associated with the subject such as aurigo.com and LinkedIn profiles, press releases by the company, 2) dead links, and 3) links that contain no information about the company. A related article about the company's CEO, Balaji Sreenivasan, which has similar issues is currently listed for speedy deletion. Deli nk (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. If this is deleted, please also delete Balaji Sreenivasan as G8, as I have redirected it here. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Appears to have coverage in reliable sources but the Wire sources need to be dialled down and it largely rewritten from scratch to rid of possible promotional writing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld, for trimming the article significantly to remove promotional content. The article is now referenced to 3 dead links, and a regurgitation of an Aurigo press release - insufficient to establish notability, in my opinion. Deli nk (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as it is currently it should be deleted, but I think enough could be gleaned from some better sources to make it stick. I'll look more into it tomorrow but am always relunctant to work much on something where there is obvious paid editing work at play.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: would it be a good idea to update your vote? it's still listed as "keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical advertorial and replica of a corporate web site; "Customer and Success Stories" is especially telling. The sources are otherwise insufficient to meet GNG and not up to the level of CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:00, 9 August 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 09:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TeamAWESOME![edit]

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

Local college band that never achieved anything like national status. A search for sources fails to turn up anything except for an unrelated game app. Fails WP:MUSIC Karst (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 2607:FB90:D8F:B1:1D32:C7C0:4208:FAEA (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to establish notability, and no other criterion of WP:NBAND appears to be met. --Michig (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom.Aust331 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 18:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:GNG and WP:NBAND not met. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 19:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 22:33, 9 August 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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Frisch[edit]

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

Frisch's work has attracted a measure of attention among those engaged in circumcision activism, but as a biographical subject he is not sufficiently notable per WP:PROF Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think Alexbrn summed it up right. The article appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. The person is notable within circumcision activism circles, and the name comes up in some news articles about that topic, but I wouldn't say they've made a large enough impact on the non-academic topic of circumcision or autism to have their own BLP yet (c.f., Mark Regnerus who made waves for his "gay parenting" study and the related marriage equality SCOTUS ruling). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The attention that Frisch gets places him in almost a fringe position, and so we would need much better sources to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only does Frisch's high h-index (over 50) allow him to meet WP:PROF#C1 easily, but it should also be noted that there were at least three secondary reliable sources in the article [6] [7] [8] before Alexbrn (the nominator) removed them. Everymorning (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:PROF cautions "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." So some better evidence of "significant influence" is necessary. I'm not seeing any. Alexbrn (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Add'l RS coverage can be found, among other places, at the following links: [9] [10]. Everymorning (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets wp:NACADEMICS - has two articles with over 700 cites, and many more with hundreds of cites. I added a short bibliography of his works to the article. LaMona (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which criteria of WP:NACADEMICS have been met, in your view? Having articles with lots of cites is just day-to-day academia. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in reliable sources identified above mean that WP:BASIC is passed, any deleted rs should be quickly restored to avoid vandalism suspiscion Atlantic306 (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't that coverage of studies that Frisch has been involved with, and not of him as a biographical subject for which (so far as I can see) we have nothing? No well-sourced article on Frisch can be written, other than a COATRACK for the content of his studies. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PROF is totally independent of the GNG, and does not require that anything be written about the person. It is not a supplement, it is an independent guideline--as it says on the guideline , a persona may be notable by GNG or WP:PROF or both, and either one is sufficient. All we need is enough verifiable information to write an article. The facts of a career are verified by an official CV, which has is one the most consistently reliable sources available, though not strictly independent. The independent verification is the absolutely objective fact of the published work. (Similarly for other professionals, the interest in the person is their work, not their personality, unlike, say, performers; its the work we have to have sources for.) Alex, your argument is completely against deletion policy and a reject of a settled notability guideline.

The key question for the main criterion is whether their work is influential. The principal measure or that in the sciences is the degree to which their work is cited. That's what academic notability isallabout, and if it is there, nothing else matters. The only point that needs discussion in such a case is whether the publications show sufficient citations. This depends on the field, and iit is certainly true the h value, especially h value not taking account of the field is a poor measure of it. What does measure it is the distribution of citation. Looking at google Scholar [11], which is accurate enough, I see his highest cited paper has been cited 755 times . The 2nd highest is 717, then 589 321 300,, 282,,,, with 31papers having over 100 citations each. Even in his fields of epidemology & experimental medicine, this is an incredibly strong record. Having articles with this many cites -- most of them not dealing at all with circumcision but anal cancer, proves notability as a scientist. It doesn't matter what his non academic influence is. He may or may not be notable as a circumcision activist. But that is irrelevant. He's notable as a scientist. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that invocation of "settled" as an argument. WP:NOR states "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." Frisch seems to lack these. Granted his work may have influence in which case we might have an article on The work of Morten Frisch (even then, good sourcing may be hard). But, without sources that is what this article will become anyway - a coat rack at that. Is it right that a scientist inherits notability from the science they've done to the extent that such an inheritance alone is sufficient to grant them notability as a biographical subject? Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 12 August 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 Concrete sleeper. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of manufacturers of concrete sleepers[edit]

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

Does this really exist? Wikipedia is not a business directory. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, no sources found that discuss this group, this article was split from the Concrete sleeper article in 2014, any notable sleeper manufacturers can be included back there. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into main article. If the list grows, it can be spun out again with minimal effort. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Concrete sleeper. WP:NotADirectory probably applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:16, 9 August 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 01:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Magee[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Icelandic first division. However, this league is confirmed as not fully pro (see WP:FPL), meaning this does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NFOOTY as not played in a fully pro league as yet, when he does he will qualify. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:46, 10 August 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 01:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle (Dannic song)[edit]

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

Non-notable article. AnonymousMusician (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NSONG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 23:02, 10 August 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Krop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced and advertorially slanted WP:BLP of a person notable only as a single-market television journalist. The sole source here is an article in her alma mater's alumni magazine, which is (a) deadlinked, (b) not widely distributed enough to singlehandedly carry WP:GNG as an article's only source, (c) not a fully independent source, and (d) being cited only to support that she's occasionally had bit parts in TV and film playing a fictionalized version of herself. Sourcing (and neutrality) repair might be possible here, so I'm willing to withdraw this if the article actually sees enough improvement to satisfy WP:JOURNALIST and/or WP:GNG, but nothing in this résumé-like article entitles her to an exemption from having to be sourced properly. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local TV journalists are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep pending sources. Looks like the article hasn't been updates since about 2008, and it survived an AfD 10 years ago. THough my position is opposite of Bearcat's, I share his desire to see someone do some research here. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's sourcing and inclusion standards have evolved significantly since 2008, and with very good reason are now much stricter than they used to be — and consensus can change. So what happened in an AFD eight years ago is in no way controlling on what has to happen now; an article has to meet much stricter quality standards to be kept in 2016 than it used to. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - After some digging, I think there is enough sources to keep the article. Here are some examples: [12] [13] [14]. It is also telling how she receives coverage in both Canadian and American news articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those are sources that would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after WP:GNG had already been met by stronger sources — The Georgia Straight is an alt-weekly, and both BC Living and BC Business are web magazines with no substantively non-local readership — but none of them are in the class of sourcing that can carry the passage of GNG by themselves if they're the best you can do. And you say she "receives coverage in...American news articles", but you haven't shown any evidence of that (I suspect that you merely misunderstood the geographic implications of the name "Georgia Straight" — it's named for the Strait of Georgia that separates Vancouver City from Vancouver Island, not for the US state.) Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in-depth here and here and in-depth here (and there are many others) -- which show that she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Bearcat, Montanabw, and TheGracefulSlick: Have you seen Tomwsulcer's sources? Do these change your votes? Possibly final required relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. She also has had a number of cameos in films such as X-Men. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameoing in films doesn't confer notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, except that celebrities, even minor celebrities, are often invited to do such walk-ons because they are audience-pleasers, Bernie Sanders did one once, and I once saw Barney Frank walk on as a Congressman in Fiorello! - very cool.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources brought during this debate do establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 15 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Frangipane[edit]

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

Found this while wading through the underlinked backlog. Article seems to assert some notability (author of many books, founder of an online "school") but there are no third party references provided. All of the subject's books look to be vanity press stuff. No reviews of the books to be seen anywhere, no compelling results for the subject on Google News. No academic papers, no major awards. This doesn't pass WP:BIO and very few other articles link here. A Train^talk 11:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note on sources I ran a proquest news archive search, there are sufficient articles about this minor preacher/author him to source, write and demonstrate notability. sources I saw are book reviews and articles re: his activities in general circulation media. bios profiles may exist in ,ore specifically Christian, alumni, or denominational RS. someone would have to do a rewrite. if no one is willing to undertake that, then delete as WP:DEL4.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frangipane is a notable Evangelical Christian preacher. Articles on notable people should not be deleted just because they are poorly written, they should be revised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I'll gladly reconsider if you've been successful in finding sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: as E.M.Gregory said, the problem isn't the quality of the article, it's the absence of sources. I'd happily help revise the article if some reliable sources for Frangipane's notabilty turn up. A Train^talk 18:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable pastor and author. GS (which is notoriously low for religion cites) has 58 citations for The Three Battlegrounds I know ghits don't mean that much, but when we get 100,000 for an unusual name in direct quotes, we really ought to keep. St Anselm (talk) 10:09, 16 August 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 close. This is not a debate or an issue for the AFD process. In the words of the nominator, this was "not a discussion about the notability of the subject", but is an issue with BLP violations and a potential hoax. While of massive concern, if these problems are legitimate then a seven-day debate is not the correct course of action. AFD is not "Articles for possible TNT", as is the proposal.

Per the AFD guidelines: "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." I do not see that any debate has taken place, as the article has a clean talk page, so no attempt at discourse appears to have taken place. Even if it had, this would not be an issue for AFD unless an editor wishes to nominate Mey for deletion due to notability concerns. Any hoax should be brought to CSD if it has been present from creation. The fact that even the nominator feels that Mey is eligible means this AFD is malformed.

I'm afraid that I can't really suggest a course of action from here because I do not speak Indonesian and thus cannot make the improvements to the article myself. But, my advice to Lemongirl942 is to reduce the article to a minimum using the information you have found, reliably source it, and then any BLP issues in former revisions could be removed via oversight. An alternative would be to, as you suggest, delete and start again. If this has indeed been a hoax since the beginning, I would suggest that you nominate it for CSD. KaisaL (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mey Chan[edit]

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

I am requesting a TNT deletion for this article. This was recently started and the version from the beginning contains a bunch of hoax claims. For reference, see the article on the Indonesia Wikipedia id:Mey Chan. The article creator seems to have added hoax claims to the personal life and also other facts. These seems to have been taken from multiple articles and put into this one. There is literally no good version to go back to and it would be a waste of time to put this back together. This is a new article with almost no substantial content apart from those by the creator, the edit history is not useful and I suggest accordingly TNTing it. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on, I am specifically requesting a WP:TNT. This is a discussion to delete this article as it is. It is not a discussion about the notability of the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for a TNT specifically because this is a BLP and it started out as a hoax. Some of the claims are outrageous and it would be much better for this to be deleted. The article creator has now been blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Article is poorly sourced, may require cleanup, but subject is notable per google news search results on Indonesian language google. Article is comparatively new at English Wikipedia, placing maintenance tags would be better option than hastily deleting it. Hitro talk 11:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not sourcing or notability. The problem is the blatant hoax. I'm specifically asking for it to be TNTed it was started by a now blocked editor and even the basic data in the article is incorrect. There is not one good version of the article to go back to. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm specifically concerned because this is a BLP. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If claims are cited then they become factually accurate, so basic problem is sourcing. I am not able to read Bahasa Indonesia, so per WP:BEFORE, I can not call it a hoax without analyzing online resources when there are numerous references available in reliable sources. Hitro talk 12:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously advocating on keeping this massive BLP violation of an article? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, this is not the way to prove your point. This is a discussion, let people place their opinions, community will decide on the outcome and I will respect that. If you were sure that this article should have been deleted speedily, then why did you bring it here? Hitro talk 13:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under WP:G3 to enable any interested editor to start again. This article is an awful mish-mash from various sources that appear to have been translated from Indonesian by an automated translation service. Starting again, totally from scratch, using information about the real Mey Chan (See https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mey_Chan) is the only sensible option. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying article is poorly translated so delete it under WP:G3, what kind of logic is that. :) Hitro talk 12:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have had a quick look at both articles (this hoax version and the original one from the Indonesian Wiki) before you made the ad-hominem comment calling my logic into question? If so you would have seen that the date of birth, place of birth, number of children and career details in this english language version are all fabricated. A speedy deletion under WP:G3 is the best option. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your comment, I reckon, you are completely sure that the information available on Indonesian language article is true. You compared two articles and declared one a blatant hoax, just because you may not read or write the other language. So, instead of deleting it, we should consider improving the article. Any Wikipedian with the knowledge of Indonesian language can rectify the errors and source the claims. We have several maintenance templates and WikiProjects that can call for help. If you can not improve the article then it does not mean nobody can. Have you read WP:BEFORE? Please read section C of the guidelines. This is a complex case, speedy deletion can not be the best option here to get rid of the article. If this article is to be deleted then it should be deleted by a deletion discussion. Hitro talk 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BLP. The claims are frankly outrageous and are a BLP violation. Nothing in this article is factually correct - the infobox, the name, the personal life, the achievements - every single thing is incorrect. I want this to be deleted as fast as possible before it can be mirrored. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl942, I encourage you to remove all unsourced claims from the BLP. If that results in a stub, so be it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in perspective For editors from the West, I will give an example. This is like creating an article titled "Miley Cyrus", saying that her real name is Madonna Louise Ciccone, that she was born in 1965 to a devout Mormon father, she released a bunch of devotional songs dedicated to the Mormon Church, then joined a band and now she now has 2 children aged 15 and 19 who also have their own Wikipedia pages and another one was born in 2003. (If this is not a blatant hoax, then I don't know what is)--Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Domovina (newspaper)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. An obscure, long defunct newspaper. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing actually suggestive of its own notability and article. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find sourcing by looking in the article:

"Novo doba". Biblioteca Nacional Digital de Chile. Retrieved July 20, 2016.
Biblioteca Nacional de Chile. "Domovinawork=Catálogo de la Biblioteca Nacional de Chile". Retrieved July 30, 2016.
Asociación Nacional de la Prensa. "La prensa de las colonias extranjeras". Retrieved September 22, 2012.
Biblioteca Nacional de Chile. "Novo doba". Catálogo de la Biblioteca Nacional de Chile. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
Martinić Beroš, Mateo (1978). La inmigración croata en Magallanes (Third ed.). p. 67. Retrieved July 26, 2016. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)

As per WP:BEFORE B6, a better article is available on the Spanish Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable and defunct foreign-language paper in Chile. Quis separabit? 20:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG, per Unscintillating above. I additionally state that we should have a really, really low bar for inclusion of articles about historic newspapers. We are a comprehensive encyclopedia after all, and this is our fare. Fight the notability fight over My Little Pony characters, businesspeople on the make, or semi-professional athletes... Carrite (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, even without some "National Library" references it doesn't mean that it should have an article (in that case, we could create millions of article only based on the folders kept in a library archive). And we should avoid some statements like the previous one made by Carrite because it has nothing to do about this article or this theme; there are two different things, and if Carrite have some kind of aprehension about My Little Pony or what else, then this deletion request it's not the place to make such statements ;) --Sfs90 (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' -- defunct newspaper with only nine years in existence. Sources do not suggest this could meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:5, the encyclopedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". This is the type of content that would be in some almanacs. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 9 August 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 // 10:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I struck my delete vote, as this article is worthwhile to keep for historical purposes and sources presented appear to signify notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reliably documented, defunct newspaper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 15 August 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 01:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Khalid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2016 JNU sedition controversy which started on 9th February 2016.

Google news search results before 9th February shows no headline news about this student. The "Umar Khalid" in the news before 9th February is a terrorist named "Umar Khalid" who is not this student.

This article is a perfect example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS.

In previous AFD most editors who voted keep are active in Indian political articles.

The problem is that those who are active in Indian political articles, they will not vote according to WP:NPOV.

Those who talk about geo bias in Wikipedia, Tawana Glenda Brawley is still in the news since 1987, but we don't have any biography article on her. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's the difference between Kim Davis (county clerk) and Umar Khalid? One is an American. One is an Indian. WP:GEOBIAS. Clearly ongoing coverage AusLondonder (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so interested in Kim Davis (county clerk)? Your user page has also mention of Kim Davis (county clerk). Copy Pasted the same comment from previous AFD. Then delete the policy of WP:BLP1E as it is a joke with votes like this. If coverage creates notability then create a biography about Gregory Villemin as he is getting coverage from 1984. 1.39.38.37 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kim Davis attracted the attention and support of the Pope, her actions lead to change in the law in Kentucky, and may have been a key factor in the outcome of the 2015 elections in Kentucky. Also to compare an elected county official to a student is a horrible analogy. This article here violates both one event and not news guidelines and so should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His only claim to fame is for getting arrested in 2016 JNU sedition controversy. 1.39.36.74 (talk) 01:19, 5 August 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 // 10:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Now Kim Davis (county clerk) gained international media coverage the single sex marriage issue,arrest,court case ,the support of the Pope and debatable impact on the 2015 elections in Kentucky and Governor Matt Bevin changed the law relating to marriage certificates.It has a lasting impact hence was kept .While Umar Khalid's arrest is only claim to notability in the 2016 JNU sedition controversy and there is nothing beyond it.Now in cases of an event only those which passes WP:LASTING or have lasting impact are kept and hence Omar Khalid's arrest has no lasting impact and fails WP:LASTING.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:59, 9 August 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 19:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. V. Ramesh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-Notable Civil Servant. Fails WP:BIO WP:POL Uncletomwood (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – well-sourced article on a senior civil servant in India. Difficult to see what the objection could be. Unanimous keep in first afd. 400 hits on the first search above, including a wide range of solid publications. If only the notability of LDS officials could be established so easily. Oculi (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Oculi. Meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article's citations are mostly made up of dead links and passing mentions in non-notable media. The only usable references I could find included [15] and [16], which do not help the article meet necessary notability requirements. Aust331 (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reference 1 & 3 404 error, 2 gateway timeout, 4 subject not referenced & not authoritative site, 5 host not found, 6 dead link, 7 subject not referenced, 8 & 9 document not found, 10 subject not referenced, just calendar list. Looks like the authors threw references against the wall and hoped something stuck, but it has not. No notability demonstrated.--Rpclod (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a good article, certainly, but he does seem to have held some pretty senior posts. Enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. one of the many recent articles on mid-level executives in the IAS> Not notable--the equivlent positions are not consideedn toable in any country, and the refs are the usual mix of pr & notices. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think a principal secretary in a state government could possibly be considered "mid-level"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is indeed. Senior would be only the Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary/ DG of Police (Head of Force) and DG/ Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/ Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Uncletomwood (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that editors requesting retention can answer a query. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting administrator note - Oculi, AusLondonder, Necrothesp: Can you provide any sources that establish the notability you claim? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED. An office in the civil service is not inherently notable unless it can be shown that the subject has done something to distinguish themselves. More importantly, the sources have to specifically be about the person. It would be easy to find google hits when the subject has a common name and often announces government decisions. But notability needs to be shown independently of these routine news. As far as I could see, I did not see anything to distinguish the subject from a run of the mill civil servant. The coverage has been more about stuff related to his office than actually about him. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is just another IAS officer and nothing special about him. Thousands of bureaucrats in India have done what this man is doing. Claims are highly exaggerated and glorified. Article fails GNG and BLP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, to be honest, I do not see any notability. Obviously any person who held mid-level government posts is well sourced since his transfer to different positions is documented, but other than that it looks to me like run-of-the-mill career.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 24 August 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 01:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vigliotti[edit]

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

The article is unsourced, and I find no evidence of "notability" for the family as such, or of any member of it except Ray Vigliotti who already has an article. : Noyster (talk), 08:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has a list of a bunch of Vigliotti who passed through Ellis Island early in the 20th-century. It is unclear even if they were related to each other, or how any of these people are related to Ray Vigliotti, or why we should mention them unless we are going to create lists that include everyone who passed through Ellis Island.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Clearly a bit of NN family history, combined with some general stuff on the part of Italy that they may have come from. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 14 August 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voonik[edit]

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

Advertorial and unconvincing article for a 3-year-old or so company with none of the coverage sources ever not being about the following: news about funding, partnerships or financing, interviews, trivial coverage such as interviews and business profiles or PR or PR-like mentions; my own searches are essentially finding this as well, even after searching Indian news sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company has been in existence for over 3 years with 8000+ news links, across important publications like The Times of India, Hindu Business Line, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Economic Times, Financial Express etc. These are not PR or paid publications at all. The company is one of the popular e-commerce players in India. The tone of the content maybe re-written to be in-sync with Wikipedia guidelines, but the page be kept. Becktea (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A company's age is not associated with notability. See also WP:NEWCOMPANY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, although a bit on the weaker side. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The e-commerce website has 10 million registered users with 8 million app downloads, making it an established and notable player in the market. Angreza (talk) 09:30, 13 August 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 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minisketch[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obscure minimal techno label which was wound up in 2009 – founder Squillace is still very much active in the scene but has moved on to other things. Fails WP:CORP, all the artists fail WP:MUSICBIO, all the tracks fail WP:NSONGS, and as the label no longer exists, the official website doesn't either. Richard3120 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable record label. Fails NMUSIC#3, no notable artists, no indication of significant length of operation, no indication label had any impact on any musical genre or musical culture of any significance. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP FairlySavvy 00:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete -- no indication of notability. Searches do not turn up anything. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 14 August 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 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Konnik[edit]

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

This subject does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:BASIC. Finding no significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference to an exhibition record is this statement: "has some of his work on display permanently at ART N SOUL Studios, in Allentown, Pennsylvania." Art-N-Sould Studios is a tattoo parlour in a Fogelsville, a suburb of Allentown, Pennsylvania. As notability for artists goes, one could not possibly be less notable than that. Fails WP:ARTIST on all criteria. Mduvekot (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:ARTIST, and outside of side mentions there's not any coverage of the artist in any reliable sources. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:56, 10 August 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 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Britons for Liberty[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, sources in article all primary sources, google search reveals no secondary sources. Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 06:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person raising this deletion request has already been cautioned once on his/her user talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dschslava) for over zealous requests for such deletions. The sources are not all primary; only one out of five is. The Backbencher is an independent media outlet, as is the AD.net Dutch media clip on YouTube. The organisation Students for Liberty is independent and based in America. NUScape is a cross-party campaign. A Google search does actually reveal such secondary sources.

Delete There are not secondary sources which provide any kind of serious coverage of this group. I like what the group has to say BTW.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying the issue is not the secondary sources but the amount of coverage of YBL that they feature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock147 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BTW the the Backbencher source mentioned above is the reference used in the article? I did not find anything about Young Britons for Liberty in it. Apart from the fact that it is written by Luke Nash-Jones, National Chairman of Young Liberty (=YBL), of course. As is the other ref, http://esfliberty.org/blog/2016/06/22/brexit-the-fight-to-regain-british-liberty/ So hardly independendent sources. I think the article, as it is, also fails WP:A7. An entirely different matter, I know. --WikiHannibal (talk) 17:52, 11 August 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 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RDM Media[edit]

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

no actual evidence for notability besides promotional articles in Indian newspapers abouyt various songs or artists whom they have promoted. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatantly promotional.Deb (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Aust331 (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's no substance at all, nothing at all actually suggesting its own independence. SwisterTwister talk 16:59, 9 August 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 Foradian. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uzity[edit]

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

WP:NOTPROMO, no assertion of notability. Of the five sources, three are not suitable for RS, (Foradian's own site, the Deloitte list, and the board changes in hindubusinessline), techcircle fails SIGCOV, and edtechreview has no editorial oversight (despite what it says); it's a "community of users." Most particularly, there's no indication anyone is using the product. MSJapan (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself PRODed but it removed with the apparent claims it was "notable" and the parent company was apparently "notable" but this is not so, because both I found nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foradian Technologies. I've recently edited the article on the company and its barely notable itself. I cannot find significant RS coverage on the product. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Foradian as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foradian Technologies. Notability not established. Insufficient coverage for a standalone article - most of the refs don't even mention Uzity, and the only one with more than a brief mention is the http://techcircle.vccircle.com which reads like a press release.Dialectric (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Foradian, which presently has mentions with no explanations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 13 August 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. The last "keep" makes no argument, and one of the other two is qualified as "weak". Sandstein 20:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StreetRunner[edit]

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

COI on the article moots the possibility of PROD. As with most producers, this fails WP:NMUSIC - the subject is at best a single-track producer. The albums listed in the article that won (or were nominated for) "Best Album" Grammys were won by the recording artist, not the producer (despite what the Lil Wayne fansite interview claims). If such awards were won by producers, there would have been literally 12-15 awards per album, and they would be listed as recipients. We do not use discogs.com as a reliable source. There is not one reliable source given that mentions the article subject by name. MSJapan (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This article has issues due to a COI editor reverting to their preferred bad version, but AfD is not cleanup so I will try to ignore that. The bigger problem is the lack of sourcing (though there are now a few weak sources) and the attempt to build up notability by association with notable acts. As to the first, the discography did not even have any source until today and now it has an unacceptable one (Discogs is user-editable). The other sources don't confer notability either; the subject has not won Grammy awards or produced platinum-selling albums, but only worked as a track editor on albums that did earn such honors. As to the second, it seems like a lot of vapor to me, which is why the COI editor added so much of it. A well-sourced article on a notable music producer will look more like the one for Rick Rubin and not like this one. I am perfectly willing to change my opinion subject to the demonstration of better sources for a better claim of notability. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- Changed to Weak keep but needs work. Old text: First, Wikipedia is wp:NOTCV so this is not a place to list every recording the artist worked on. Someone has mis-understood that this isn't a place for personal web page. Next, I have found this, which is a interview, and I can see that he is given credit for his work on music download/listening sites, like Vibe, Hot New Hip Hop, HipHoppyRo. He is clearly a name in the hip hop world. The negatives are that the hiphop world doesn't do a lot of "journalism"-type writing that we can use as sources, and that whoever it is who has been the main editor on this article isn't doing the best that could be done for the subject. Unless someone with more knowledge of the topic can provide sourcing, this needs to be deleted, but without prejudice. Policy-wise, it does not meet GNG, and does not meet WP:MUSICIAN. LaMona (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet GNG, and does not meet WP:MUSICIAN. His name appears in no grammy reporting sites - although he may be one of a dozen producers that contributed to songs that have won. This is clearly a puff piece by his manager (declared connected contributor). Toddst1 (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The page needs major cleanup, but he is clearly a notable hip hop producer. Whether or not he has been nominated for or won a Grammy (some sites say he has, like MTV News and Stacks magazine), he has produced tracks for Eminem, Lil Wayne, Ludacris, 2 Chainz, etc. He's a little tricky to Google but I see him featured on hip hop sites like Vibe.com, XXL magazine and Hip Hop DX, for starters.--Bernie44 (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Bernie44. There's an interesting exchange in the MTV link about who "gets" a grammy:

Streetrunner: The thing about trophies is that you have to be a part of 50% of the project in order to get a physical trophy. So, I would have had to produce half of Tha Carter III, and then I would have gotten the trophy. You get the trophy if you get a single, or you're involved in 50% of a record that wins, but if you're just part of an album, you just get certificates.
Well, that's not a bad consolation.
Streetrunner: You still get the Grammy title, though [laughs].

This tells me that as producer one does indeed "win a Grammy" in that you are recognized when the album or single wins. So he is a "grammy-winning" producer. That's enough for me to change my !vote, and I'm glad you came in and confirmed his status. There still aren't traditional sources, but as I said I don't think the hip hop world produces them. Some of us (older folks) could use an essay on evaluating hip hop and indie music, if anyone could provide that. LaMona (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, neither the name StreetRunner nor his real name, Nicholas Warwar, appear as winners in a search on the Grammy site. So I'm going with "weak keep" but would love to have clarity on who can declare themselves a "Grammy Award-winner". LaMona (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a minimum requirement, I would suggest being named on the Grammy site. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's little in the article except a discography of projects which which this person has been associated in some capacity. If the Grammy site said he won a Grammy, that would indicate notability based on a WP:RS. But neither "Warwar" nor "Streetrunner" gets a hit in the Grammy database.[17]. Fails WP:MUSICIAN. John Nagle (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage in reliable sources is almost non-existent. I do see coverage in certain hip-hop websites - I doubt these pass our RS requirements (editorial process). I tried looking for the grammy and at least a search here doesn't show up anything. If the subject's name is not there, I am not going to believe the fact that they were credited for a Grammy. Accordingly, I don't think it has any other claims to pass WP:MUSICBIO either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we're using the grammy certificate as proof of notability, I'd at least like confirmation from a proper source rather than him saying that on MTV. We can't trust that source surely? I've seen it countless times before - articles COI/SPA/OWNed by the 'artists' - the backroom staff - producers, mixers etc, wiki is crawling with it, they all jump in all guns blazing with the 'grammy nominated' or 'grammy award winning' statement and when you dig deeper, they were one of 1,743 personnel on the winning album. Until I see it verified from the organisation themselves or a highly trustworthy source, I'd inclined to err on the side of chancers riding the coat-tails. Although the extended discography pains me for so many reasons, and I started the COI notice, I do think there's a fundamental flaw in the notability process for support staff like this. A failed girl group who once got a single to #17 in the Dutch national charts is entitled to an article or a cricketer who played one match for Warwickshire can similarly get an article, but a producer of this calibre (if what we read is true) seems considerably more notable yet has to jump through endless hoops to get verified. If this wasn't about judging against notability criteria but 'going with the gut', I'd vote keep. Rayman60 (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Based on the sources out there, I would probably say Streetrunner should not be referred to as a Grammy winner, despite the fact that I don't see why someone in the public eye would make that up. But either way, he is the sole producer on many songs by high-profile hip hop artists, which definitely makes him notable. Whether or not he as an individual has been nominated for a Grammy is not the be-all and end-all to prove his notability.--Bernie44 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nagle and Lemongiel1942 fails WP:V . Grammy database does not show him and fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – but it is in need of MAJOR cleanup. MB298 (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can explain why keep per WP:DISCUSSAFD? This is WP:NOTAVOTE and your comment is likely to be discarded without any supporting reasons. Toddst1 (talk) 19:38, 18 August 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. The reliable references that have been uncovered during this AfD have helped prove the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remembrance (EP)[edit]

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

Previously nominated for deletion and then deleted (both by experienced admins) this article was subsequently recreated. When voting here, participants are requested to verify whether or not the sources comply with WP:RS and in depth and number. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close the nomination. All the sources are obviously reliable and they significantly cover the EP and artist, there's no reason for this article to be delete. editorEهեইдအ😎 02:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EditorE, and what are your personal criteria for suggesting that those sources are reliable? And/or that they offer sufficient, in-depth coverage? Please evaluate them here, one-by-one. You are the creator and re-creator of the article (which normally you should have made an undeletion request in the correct manner prescribed by policy). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clash, Spectrum Culture, Tiny Mix Tapes, Resident Advisor, Pitchfork and Loud and Quiet and indepedent and notable publications that have given the album full, positive reviews. Hell, Pitchfork has ben considering a leading figure in covering independent music for Christ sakes!!!!! Also, interviews of Suicideyear in Impose magazine and Loud and Quiet (the latter of which I have yet to cite in the article) further significantly display the notability of not only the album but also the artist. I shouldn't have to explain this all to you, since I really find it hard to believe that an "experienced admin" would delete an article, without reading the cited sources or even the article itself, that is far more than of stub length, and contains information from notable, reliable publications as you should've seen in the citation section. Deleting an article like this at all was a ridiculous move in the first place, and a cause of terrible judgement from an admin who, judging by his actions taken towards this article, should not have and does not deserve an admin position, and that's an opinion, mind you. Sorry to be so bitter here, but articles about notable subjects for nonsensical reasons like this are becoming a problem based on my experiences. editorEهեইдအ😎 02:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an Administrator Review. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 05:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Previous CSD A9 notification in Diff of User talk:EditorE. Deletion log here. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough of the sources are reliable, and the coverage in those is sufficiently in-depth. --Michig (talk) 06:02, 9 August 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 A. C. Bradley. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry for Poetry's Sake[edit]

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

An article about a lecture in 1901. While its author, A. C. Bradley, is notable enough for an article, this particular lecture isn't. This article has been an orphan since at least 2009, if not since its creation in 2008, and if left to remain will almost certainly continue to be one. — Scott • talk 23:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ seems to receive decent enough attention in the Google books search results. Has the nominator looked? It does seem to be as advertised: a sufficiently notable lecture. The article on Bradley gives this lecture short shrift and describes his most notable achievements as having been in Shakespearean studies. Still, Google books results seem sufficient. And of course it took all of one second to de-orphan, with a link from the author's main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also, as the nominator points out: the article creator and its subsequent editors never bother to add a link to it, for some reason. And I see that it was never properly categorized, either, as a work about poetry. So I don't agree that its neglected state is necessarily a comment on the notability of subject matter -- it was also just kind of hard to find the thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or WP:STUBIFY as WP:Original research. The article does not cite or mention any sources other than the lecture under discussion or attempt to give any context or reaction to it, so appears to be the article creator's personal essay based on this primary source alone. WP:No original research is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, and the section WP:PRIMARY states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources..." While it may be possible to write an article about this lecture based on reliable, published secondary sources (such as the Google Books search results), this isn't such an article at present and does not serve as a useful basis on which to construct such an article; anyone wishing to write such an article would be better off starting from scratch. 10:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's a very good point. The article as currently written is an unreferenced essay and I agree that TNT would apply. Change to neutral, unless someone else during this Afd wants to tackle this and rescue the article. I don't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the author A. C. Bradley. Could be a search term.Borock (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article already has links to his collected works online, so readers can read the original lecture.Borock (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also anything said about the essay will also be about its author's views.Borock (talk) 04:26, 9 August 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. Everybody agrees there are enough sources, the disagreement is whether the sources are reliable enough (not promotional enough) to comply with WP:RS. The voters split almost evenly on this issue, and I close the discussion as no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canvas (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Certainly time for a new AfD as examining this coverage simply found expected coverage which consists of either funding, events, interviews, PR, puffery, etc.; everything that is not convincing, and there's no inherited notability simply because they are known news sources; my own searches have found nothing particularly better aside from a few links here. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just not noteworthy for a stand alone article; a data collection service, not original and the article has promo aspects and source problems as nom. states accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per previous AfD. I don't see what has changed. Multiple examples of significant, in depth, independent coverage in the Washington Post in particular, for example this. Sionk (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because not only is it not enough, even the article above is only a few mentions and (as a whole, only a selective number of paragraphs) and there's simply still not enough. SwisterTwister talk 16:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that comment. The long article I cited as an example is entirely about Canvas and their 'Ante Up' initiative. Surely there must be better uses of our time, especially when the article has already gone through AfD and resulted in a unanimous 'keep'? Sionk (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo is one article and does not amount to "significant coverage" on the company; it's mentioned, yes, but in connection with other things. The Wiki article does not meet CORPDEPTH overall; insufficient material for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Sionk, notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, I am unable to access the WaPo articles, so I cannot comment on those. However, what remains is self-citing and minor articles. Even if the WaPo articles are good, multiple articles from the same source are considered a single source for notability, so that results in one good source, and that is not enough for notability. LaMona (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm able to access it and it's essentially a product placement: "About a year ago, Scott Shea saw an e-mail from Mike Grover, an ecologist in South Africa, asking for help. Grover works to prevent rhinoceros poaching in South Africa’s Sabi Sand Game Reserve. He had e-mailed Reston-based technology start-up Canvas — where Shea is a consultant— hoping they could help update his data collection system. Canvas develops mobile apps allowing businesses to share data across phones without using paper forms — each of Grover’s reserve rangers had been tracking rhinoceroses and poachers with a clipboard and a pen." etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . It's still a tad 'Yellow Pages', but it meets WP:GNG. Created by an SPA , however, it evokes concerns of being a comissioned work. But that's anothe issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an advertorial article on an otherwise unremarkable tech company. Sourcing does not meet CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Overly, Steven (2012-12-21). "The Download: Canvas goes international with Sydney office". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2016-08-20. Retrieved 2016-08-20.
  The article notes:
  
  James Quigley co-founded Canvas in 2008 and already bears a title he didn’t expect so soon: chief executive of an international company.
  Canvas, which provides mobile apps for businesses, will open its first overseas office in Sydney. The company has been adding foreign customers at a rapid clip, and an office on the other side of the globe will allow the firm to provide around-the-clock customer support.
  “We started having people all over the world start to use the solution, and their chance of becoming a paid subscriber [was higher] if we got to talk to them on the phone,” Quigley said.
  Canvas employs 25 people at its headquarters in Reston. The Sydney office will be smaller, Quigley said, but it won’t be the company’s only overseas outpost for long. Canvas intends to open an office in Europe next year.
2. Ravindranath, Mohana (2013-03-22). "Deriving profit from nonprofit work". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2016-08-20. Retrieved 2016-08-20.
  The article notes:
  
  He had e-mailed Reston-based technology start-up Canvas — where Shea is a consultant— hoping they could help update his data collection system. Canvas develops mobile apps allowing businesses to share data across phones without using paper forms — each of Grover’s reserve rangers had been tracking rhinoceroses and poachers with a clipboard and a pen.
  ...
  Thanks to an internal initiative at Canvas called Ante Up, in which employees select particular nonprofits to receive Canvas services for free, Shea adopted the Reserve as his pet project. The Reserve received 17 Android phones and a few thousand dollars worth of data collection capability, according to the company.
  ...
  Canvas employees generally commit several months to their chosen nonprofit, determining their technology needs and implementing the technology later. Canvas sometimes pays for employees to travel to the site of the nonprofit — Shea spent a few weeks in February teaching the rangers to use Canvas on their Android phones.
3. Gahran, Amy (2012-11-05). "Tracking Inventory Have You Stressed? Try These 5 Mobile Apps". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2016-08-20. Retrieved 2016-08-20.
  The article notes:
  
  3. Canvas
  This versatile set of tools provides data collection forms that run on a smartphone or tablet to support collecting a wide range of data types, including for inventory. Examples include restaurant inventory, chemical inventory and damage and loss reporting. It's available on iOS, Android and BlackBerry mobile platforms.
  To run Canvas apps you first need to install the free Canvas Smart Client. Collected data can be downloaded into a spreadsheet or database or exported as a PDF.
4. Seo, Michael (2013-04-16). "MyCanvas Allows Homeowners To Access Their Personal Service Data History In The Cloud". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-08-20. Retrieved 2016-08-20.
  The article notes:
  
  Canvas is a portal for mobile business applications, used primarily by small businesses and contractors to replace their paper forms with smartphones apps. Today Canvas is announcing MyCanvas, a cloud service for their subscribers that allows anyone to access their personal service data history in the cloud.
  Canvas wants to make the paper form obsolete. They claim that if you factor in all of their subscribers that have transitioned over to digital forms, they’ve saved 2 tons of paper per month.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Canvas to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - The source above here are all essentially PR and PR-like, with they either containing interviews or PR in some form, the WashingtonPost articles are particularly the worst as they are essentially speaking puffery about the company itself, nothing apart from what clients and investors would want to hear. "employees select particular nonprofits to receive Canvas services for free....anvas sometimes pays for employees to travel to the site of the nonprofit — Shea spent a few weeks in February teaching the rangers to use Canvas on their Android phones....Canvas, which provides mobile apps for businesses, will open its first overseas office in Sydney. The company has been adding foreign customers at a rapid clip, and an office on the other side of the globe will allow the firm to provide around-the-clock customer support....Canvas employs 25 people at its headquarters in Reston. The Sydney office will be smaller, Quigley said, but it won’t be the company’s only overseas outpost for long. Canvas intends to open an office in Europe next year". SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 21 August 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 Acts of Sharbel . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarbel and Barbe[edit]

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

These two figures primary source for being known is the Acts of Sharbel. The names are neither common to the subject nor good for alternative spelling/redirects. Would like to delete this alternative article as the "Acts of Sharbel" already covers their known lives. JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - notable as saints. It sounds like this is actually a merge proposal (to Acts of Sharbel) but it is better to keep both articles. In any case, this is not the forum to discuss it. St Anselm (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources as a stand-alone article. Not enough anything to merge either. Fails WP:BIO. 2607:FB90:D8F:B1:1D32:C7C0:4208:FAEA (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Sarbel and Barbe into Acts of Sharbel, which consolidates the material, leaves a redirect behind, and complies with WP:CWW. Was this tried before AfD? Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Acts of Sharbel which will cover the subject in adequate detail.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge one way or the other, but close this AfD because it snows on January 29. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 11 August 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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana Social Welfare Residential Schools[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no sources but with a strong smell of advertising The Banner talk 23:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTPROMO as blatant advertising and per ORG as the subject has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as required for all organizations, including schools. Rebb ing 01:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all...Here i would like to bring your kind notice that the institution Providing Educatrion free of cost Under the Government of Telangana^[5] So i request you that you not to delete this page. Shanker Sampangi (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thisis not blatant advertising, it's typical Indian English. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is written like an advertisement material. We can keep with improvement of acceptable sources. Jessie1979 (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Keep - is a government org overseeing secondary and junior college educational institutions. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:16, 23 August 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. Given that the one "keep" is qualified as weak, and that E.M.Gregory, who has looked at a lot of possible sources, appears unconvinced. Besides, the text reads entirely promotional and would need a full rewrite in any case. Sandstein 20:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hughes (author)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that talk about him. He is the author of 1 book which has limited coverage, but not in sources that would be considered reliable. When searching, you will find other books from Justin Hughes but these are from another subject. CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding him pretty easy to source; a name like Hughes requires keywords. Searched proquest news archive using "Justin Hughes" + "Red Arrows" and found multiple articles about his flying career, some interview, describe him: [[DAREDEVIL DUO: Hodgson, Neil. Liverpool Echo [Liverpool (UK)] 06 Sep 2001: 3. [18] but there are also media interviews with him as a business consultant: Joanne Frearson talks to three experts on risk in different fields about how their experiences translate to managing difficult business scenarios FACTORY THE City A.M [London] 25 Mar 2015: 25. [19]; UK Firm Uses RAF Fighter Pilots to Teach 'Top Gun' Management Skills, Withington, Thomas. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News [Washington] 18 Apr 2004: 1. [20]. Some of the articles contain details about his life form which the facts in the article can be sourced (added 2 such, ones that I found on my first, simple google. Have not added all that I found. Neither have I searched Proquest or other archives with the other plausible keywords. So, while I do loathe these WP:RPROMO bios, and this one has all the hallmarks of a self-promoting business consultant, and the article needs to be properly sourced and edited, it does look as though there are enough reliable, secondary sources out there for a keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: This smacks of a paid editor puff piece and I'd love an excuse to !vote delete, but EMGregory makes a good case. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm unable to consider the content E.M.Gregory links to because it all leads to a logon to some facility I don't have an account with. I will say that the sources in the article are either non-independent or written by the subject or interviews of the subject. None of that contributes to notability beyond the minor author contributions to the interview articles. I guess I'll sit this one out. Gab4gab (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gab4gab: I apologize for that. Proquest newspapers is a search engine that I find to be powerful and user-friendly, although no newspaper search engine is perfect. Google news searches tend to fail to uncover material from the last millennium, even when date-limited. I regard this as unfair to individuals for whom significant parts of their career took place a millennia ago, in the 1990s. or earlier. I don't have a good solution, unless Proquest is one of the search engines that offers courtesy subscriptions to Wikipedia editors. You might want to inquire.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I now see that I didn't even use Proquest on this one. I am wired into a number of powerful search engines, makes it hard to know how I got to those articles. That said, it's time to get back to work for the people who pay to keep me wired into... am I the only editor who sometimes comes here to procrastinate?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I saw where you said you didn't use Proquest while at the same time the three URLs you provided all are for search.proquest.com. I'd be happy to look at the items if you would post a link to the sources rather than a link to the search facility. Gab4gab (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gab4gab: I may revisit my search, for now, however, here are the 3 I linked to above. source #1 the first of those sources is a story about the Red Arrows putting on a show over Liverpool: "Another participant at the air show will be Justin Hughes, who will get a bird's-eye view of his home town. The 34-year-old flight lieutenant, from Southport, is a member of the RAF Red Arrows aerial acrobatics team, which is one of the biggest attractions at the show." he then goes on to say the polite, complimentary things about Liverpool, flying, and some wing-walkers who will perform on his wing that you would expect of an officer and a gentleman. It is one of several I recall finding about his career as a Red Arrow pilot. They do get interviewed. Source # 2 starts wit a riff on how great pilots are, but is substantive coverage of his post-pilot career, here are the parts about him: " T HE split-second decisions fighter pilots have to take in the cockpit can engender a life-or-death situation. It is a demanding environment with high standards, and the RAF spends many years teaching its officers skills to be able to react appropriately to high pressure situations. But these are skills which are not only useful for fighter pilots, but can be adopted by the corporate world to help make better risk and safety decisions. This is a subject which is close to the heart of Justin Hughes, managing director and founder of Mission Excellence and a former RAF fighter and Red Arrows pilot. Now wearing a corporate suit rather than a pilot uniform, he uses what he learned from a military environment to help companies manage risk and safety. "Safety in the world we come from is not a separate department or something that is outsourced," he says. "It is owned by the operators and is the day job. People who are doing operations own risk, and not in a token way. When you really genuinely own the risk you do not really think about it as a separate item." Unfortunately, Hughes explains, most companies only get interested in risk management as soon as something bad happens, such as people dying in an aircraft accident, a financial crash or an oil disaster. He believes problems come for companies when they take a systematic view of minimising risk. He says: "You need to not just give people a system and a process, but actually equip them with the tools and the decisionmaking skills to make informed, sensible, balanced judgments in the heat of the moment, faced with some difficult and ambiguous situations that you have not seen before." Hughes has been doing a lot of work in the oil and gas industry, and says that recent disasters, such as the Macondo Deep Water Horizon oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, have been a tipping point for the sector to review their risk and safety practices. "The oil and gas industry has recognised to some extent that they will never systemise the risk out of the challenges they face," he says. "I am not saying it is not important, but in addition to that they have also started to concentrate quite heavily on human and organisation factors. "In most organisations, you only get taught technical stuff, but you might get some behavioural stuff added on in bits and pieces later on in your career. One way to mitigate risk is to train people in behavioural and cultural issues at an early stage in your career. "You get what you train for to some extent. If you only train people in technical risk why would they be any good at decision making? Why would they be any good at common sense?" In the military, before they teach you functional skills of a fighter pilot, Hughes explains, you have to pass a six-month course - effectively a course in brand values, team and organisational behaviour, and leadership. Only after passing that behavioural course will the RAF teach candidates the functional skills. "People often call this stuff the soft skills," says Hughes. "It is not that soft - all pilots do it and it is an intrinsic part of the organisation and a massive driver of safe performance." Where we come from, safety is not a separate department. (end) Source # 3 is similar: WHAT do flying fighter jets, precision-bombing and executive life have in common? More than you might think. Last week, Earl's Court Exhibition Centre in London opened its doors to the London Air Show, with exhibitors from all over the world showcasing aviation wizardry.... Justin Hughes, managing director of Mission Excellence and a former RAF Tornado and Red Arrows pilot, explains the relevance: "Fighter pilots have to deliver results under pressure to a plan. They are very good at these skills because they have to be."... Mission Excellence's Hughes says that debriefing is relatively rare in the business world. He is also keen to emphasise that the experience is about developing skills: "Our focus is on the delivery of some transferable skills which are relevant to just about all businesses." The idea is to show delegates that military decision-making has parallels with their roles in the business world. The exercise takes its cue from similar ones performed by the military, notably the Red Flag exercises that are held annually in Nevada in the United States. During these exercises, US allies from all over the world send their pilots to practice air strikes and air-to-air warfare in a hypothetical confrontation between "red" and "blue" forces. The objective is to hone the skills of aircrews and encourage the exchange of ideas. The Top Gun experience is good fun, but it doesn't come cheap, at UKpound 2,500 (E3,775, $4,600) per person for two days." I guess I was hoping that other editors would also be able to search old papers, or that someone would let the hot air out of this article, leaving it briefer and reliably sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

revisiting I just ran a Proquest search on "The Business of Excellence" + Hughes . nada. no hits at all. So, if this is kept, it needs to be moved from (author) to something else, like maybe "businessman". Next I ran a search on "Justin Hughes" + "Mission Excellence" 3 hits, one a Knight Ridder story echoed in a Sunday paper. (Note that these searches NEVER find everything that is out there) the 2 articles I cut and pasted above, plus (Red Arrows pilots set to make Dubai businesses into high flyers Middle East Company News [Dubai] 01 Feb 2007) it's describes and quotes him ad considerable more length than the 2 I quoted form above, but it is focused exclusively on him and his company and but it is very similar to them in tone and in quoting him explaining how fighter pilot know how can really drive a business. As search on "Mission Excellence" bought up so many "Missions" that I clicked away. A search on "Justin Hughes" established that there are more of them than you might think, I clicked away. next I tried "Justin Hughes" + pilot and discovered that in 2006 a man with this name died when two fighter jets crashed over Pennsylvania. What were the odds. The articles I had already found were on the first page of this last search, along with a number of articles about him as a Red Arrow pilot, articles about him as a Red Arrow alum objecting to the termination of the Red Arrows (budgetary), articles about an American financier named Justin Hughes, (who analyzes pilot programs,) and also more articles in which he is profiled selling his business. (It's not just Tesco at [...]: Notebook, Odone, Cristina. The Daily Telegraph [London (UK)] 17 Sep 2012 ) in which our hero pitches his business seminars to politicians who need the skills he learned as a fighter jet pilot..... . At this point I gave up. Make of it what you will. @Gab4gab:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- any (however marginal) notability the subject has is associated with the topic Red Arrows. Otherwise, he is a non notable consultant and self-proclaimed author. Articles that were included by E.M.Gregory are either puff pieces or interviews; typical PR. Indeed, COI editing is probable. I don't see anything substantial for stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @E.M.Gregory:, thanks for added details on sources. The interview material is interesting but again adds little support to notability. I'm still uncomfortable voting without reading the sources myself. Gab4gab (talk) 11:57, 17 August 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. Jujutacular (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Ghislandi[edit]

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

Sporter still active on junior level. No indication of wide spread name or fame. The Banner talk 18:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the notability guidelines: WP:NSKATE. Hergilei (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a sporter is only considered eligible for notability when competing at senior level. Why the exception here? The Banner talk 19:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an exception for skating. According to Wikipedia:Notability (sports), there's no requirement to compete on the senior level in gymnastics, tennis, ice hockey (and possibly other sports, I didn't check every one). Hergilei (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the guidelines, Wikipedia:Notability (sports). She met the figure skating criteria in 2016. Hergilei (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Per WP:NSKATE; "Competed in the free skate at the following ISU Championships: World Junior Figure Skating Championships..." She did compete "in the short dance, they did not reach the final segment" -- so, if that means she did not compete in the "free skate", then deletion is appropriate. But if the "short dance" is a "free skate" then she is. I'm not an expert on figure skating and someone should ask the project. I'm leaning delete, per TOOSOON, as it sounds like she wasn't a finalist, but perhaps we could move to draft space or userfy. Montanabw^(talk) 21:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That was 2014. In 2016, she qualified for the free skate (and went on to finish in the top ten), so she has now met the notability criteria. (About terminology, free skate=free dance=final segment. The short dance/short program is the first segment). Hergilei (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hergilei. In that case, it had best be added to the article (if it hasn't already). Montanabw ^(talk) 19:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets #2 of WP:NSKATE. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:33, 9 August 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 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soulsister Ambassador[edit]

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

seems like a very straight forward failing of WP:Music. 4th album by a one-hit wonder, by this point there was no media or fan interest. There's very little trace of this on the internet. nothing significant/independent/reliable. Seems to have not charted in any market either - unless someone can get hold of 12 year old charts and prove me wrong. Has been an unreferenced stub with almost no info for 6 years. Nothing worthy of an encyclopaedia. Rayman60 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Or perhaps redirect to Lutricia McNeal. Meatsgains (talk) 03:28, 9 August 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tseten Dorjee[edit]

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

Still nothing at all actually suggestive of his own notability, PROD removed with the basis of 1 trivial local news article and thus I still confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 16:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficient notability for a stand alone article. A local passing interest at this point. Kierzek (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Naropa University is a major Buddhist studies program in the USA and thangka painting is a pretty rare art. This individual is a Tibetan refugee who has established himself in the Pacific Northwest. Found a reasonable amount of independent, third-party coverage, which is enough to pass GNG. Some independent coverage of him is here. Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC):[reply]
review of him and his work in the Spokesman-Review

coverage on his life and work in the Montana Standard (cited in article)

Buddhist channel reprint of additional coverage (cited in article)
- In addition, he now appears to also work for Students for a Free Tibet ([21]), per this. I might be looking at two people with the same name, but there is a bio of him here, I think the text is a wiki mirror -- but the photo matches the HuffPost, so I think it's the same individual. Searching with that criteria in mind, I also found these articles: [22], [23], [24].Striking as I think this may be a different individual with the same name. Either way, the painting bit alone is enough to meet GNG Montanabw ^(talk) 22:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you surmised, the america.pink site is a license-violating mirror. They scrape images from other sources based on a simple keyword search, leading to some really nutty results. Kuru (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a real possibility that the guy who works for Students for a Free Tibet and the thangka artist are two different people. I'm familiar with the artist, as he got a lot of press when he was up here in Montana; it's why the article jumped out at me. I'll go see what I can find at Naropa or in Mandala magazine Montanabw ^(talk) 17:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon consideration, meets WP:BASIC per the sources provided above by Montanabw and this source in the article: Independent Record. This can also be retained in the general interest of countering the potential for WP:SYSTEMIC bias on Wikipedia. Perhaps more Tibetan and Asian sources are available that others cannot access. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 13 August 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 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maribel Liliana Delgado[edit]

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

Still nothing at all actually suggesting her own notability and I still confirm my PROD which was removed with the basis of 2 apparent sources. SwisterTwister talk 16:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficient notability for a stand alone article and also has promotion elements. Kierzek (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non-notable reality TV personality; no other indications of notability outside of The Bachelor. My searches do not bring anything substantial. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 12 August 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. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gioconda Vessichelli[edit]

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

Promo/fan article about a non-notable singer. Despite the enthusiastic article and reasonable number of references she fails WP:GNG. Very few ghits; the "awards" are mostly honourable mentions in minor competitions. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Gioconda is a known singer, her fanpage has hundreds of thousands of fans, a lot of followers to all her posts, and in just one hour she has got almost 350.000 views on facebook live chat:

https://www.facebook.com/giocondasinger/videos/749720841835080/

The competition she won are actually important, and newspaper articles have been written about these competitions

Considering the number of people following her, her singing in the soundtrack of Bollywood movie Prague, singing the song "Thodi Daaru" with famous Indian singer Mika Singh, the competitions she won, she deserves of being mentioned in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.186.230.180 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 9 August 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 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Anthony Jay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 9 August 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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Erdely[edit]

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

Per WP:1E: "When an individual plays a major role in a minor event. . . it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event." This article is on journalist of no notability except for involvement in a journalism scandal. This scandal, concerning a single Rolling Stone article, is simply not monumental enough to warrant two articles. This one should be deleted or merged with A Rape on Campus. Coretheapple (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is almost WP:SNOWBALL. While it's true the Rolling Stone UVA article greatly increased her notability, you could easily argue for her notability as a journalist even before that. The RS mess just cemented it. Rockypedia (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Virtually the entire biography is about the scandal. Pre-scandal work is the subject of three sentences in the article and is clearly insufficient to establish her notability. Coretheapple (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. There are three entire paragraphs devoted just to "The Catholic Church's Secret Sex-Crime Files", with multiple secondary sources. She also received a GLAAD Media Award for a previous story. For yet another previous story, she was a finalist for a National Magazine Award. Deadline Hollywood reported on a movie being developed on yet ANOTHER story, "Gangster Princess of Beverly Hills", that she wrote. Variety reported on a film project based on her story "The Girl Who Conned the Ivy League".

Your definition of "three sentences" is clearly different from mine. Rockypedia (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you add that, it still doesn't add up to a notable writer. Also the overall negative tone of this article, even with the Rape article excluded, bothers me. She is only marginally notable and the practice in BLPs is to delete or merge bios in such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ or merge possibly to A Rape on Campus as per nominator and WP:BLP1E. When I did this search it was all about Erdely's UVA story and the aftermath. I didn't see much indication that Erdely is notable as a journalist for anything other than the A Rape on Campus story.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Update: changing my view to Weak keep based on new votes (below) and yes notability can be gained by goofing up.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep undoubtedly and obviously passes GNG - sourced to RS subject has been at the center of two landmark Rolling Stone articles and currently has two major motion picture options BlueSalix (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sabrina Erdely played a major role in a major journalistic scandal, with wide-ranging journalistic, cultural, and legal consequences. The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism Report focuses foremost on Erderly and her practices. For that reason alone, I think she is notable enough for a separate article, but she is also notable in her own right for her previous reporting. Ihateithurr (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is earned in all kinds of ways, sometimes by making an infamous series of mistakes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 15 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Enby[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Doctor prescribes bad treatments, patients die, license is revoked. An additional problem with this article is that this situation happened over a short period of time over a decade ago (WP:NOTNEWS), and the subject has no RS coverage outside Sweden/Swedish language sources. The four sources in the article appear to be the total extent of RS available. I fail to see the relevance to an English-speaking audience, nor do I see a lasting effect that would take this out of WP:NOTNEWS. MSJapan (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His treatment methods fall under the fringe guidelines, which require lots of coverage to show notability, and we lack coverage of the level that would show that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: can you provide a link to fringe guidelines. This is new to me. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found [25] but it talks more about articles on fringe theories themselves. There is some mention of fringe theories in criteria 1 of the notability guideline for academics, but not nearly as much as I was thinking there was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just found WP:NFRINGE, a subsection of that page, which suggests that we're looking for extensive coverage. Presumably this is above and beyond significant coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not to get all conspiratorial, but I believe the article was originally written by Enby himself, or an associate, for PR purposes rather than out of a sense of relevance. Unless relevance can be established there's no reason to keep it. Ylleman (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur, there's no actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 16:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like someone who appeared on news once and then faded away -almost BIO1E? More importantly, I do not see the significant coverage required of the subject. In fact, the article seems to be coatracked with material for which no reliable sources can be found. I'm also a bit concerned about the BLP violations in the article. If the subject is a criminal (if at all), then they do not see to be a notable criminal. I'm going with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:10, 12 August 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. czar 16:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Lawrence[edit]

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

Unable to identify a single reliable source. —swpb^T 12:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role does not a notable actress make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am seeing nothing more substantial than a couple of "whatever happened to?" postings. Sufficiently covered at the linked List_of_The_Bill_characters_(A–D)#Claire_Brind (though equally citation-lite there) but no evidence of individual notability for the actor. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:11, 10 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Nature's Kitchen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mother Nature's Kitchen

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

Unable to verify the one reference provided, or find any other references to support notability. —swpb^T 12:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In about three minutes of Googling I found these: [26], [27], [28], plus several GBooks hits which don't show much in preview but contain coverage nevertheless. Not bad online coverage for an album released in 1989. At worst it should be merged to the article on Kevin McDermott (singer–songwriter). --Michig (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the sum of significant (?) coverage you can find in reliable (?) sources, that's an awfully weak case. You need to give WP:NALBUM another read: that merge is about the best you can hope for. —swpb^T 13:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Kevin McDermott (singer-songwriter). The album exists, there are reviews of it, and in 1989, we were in the pre-Google era, so I think the links found above are more than adequate. I did a search and also found this 1990 mention: [29], which notes that it was ranked "Album of [19]89" by Music Week. Given historicity of sources, this is enough to meet GNG. I do think that the WP:MUSIC editors need to come in and do some housecleaning, though. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw – this is one of those tough calls where if we had easy access to the UK music magazines of the time, we might be able to find reviews of the album and interviews with Mr McDermott. As it is, though, I think I would have to say merge to Kevin McDermott's article. The British Library has copies of Music Week, NME, Melody Maker, Q, Record Mirror and Sounds from 1989, as well as the newspapers The Times, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph and The Independent, all of which carried weekly music reviews, but I'm currently in South America and won't be able to go and have a look for some months. Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 9 August 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 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Hickey[edit]

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

Utterly fails WP:NCOLLATH; zero significant coverage in reliable sources found. —swpb^T 12:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he had been the head tack coach at Oregon State I am not sure that is enough for notability. However the positions we have with only routine coverage in sports press from the state he was in is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 9 August 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. There are many "wait"s, and we have waited, but after more than thrice the normal length of AfD discussions, we have waited enough. The two "do not delete" opinions fail to identify reliable sources of the kind we need to support biographies. Sandstein 20:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Davison (composer)[edit]

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

This is an unsourced biography of a living person that reads more like a promotional piece than an encyclopaedia article. That's not a reason on it's own to delete, but I'm finding absolutely no significant coverage in third party sources (reliable or otherwise) that is about the person and not just adverts for his music or him writing about other people. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS, having looked at the article history to leave a notification of this discussion I noticed that user:Pdmus, one of the major contributors to this article, has contributed only regarding this article (edits to it and links to it), making me suspect a conflict of interest or autobiography. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly promotional article on an unremarkable composer. Coverage is insufficient to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT -- the editor below, pdmus, has advised me that he has a lengthy and in-depth newspaper article on the subject. The article is behind a paywall but pdmus has spoken to the newspaper and they have agreed to create a non-pay link for this article so it can be linked to on Wikipedia. I think this article needs a lot of help but I also believe it was created in good faith and is not controversial so I am of the opinion it is acceptable to wait a reasonable amount of time (2 weeks?) for this newspaper article to become available and see if it has enough material to increase the likelyhood of this article's being able to be improved. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This a strange comment. There's no need to for the editor to jump through hoops to cite that article, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Joe Roe (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete (with reluctance)~~ For now I will change my DELETE to WAIT (see above) -- This is a case of a person who obviously has a substantial body of work in his field but for whom (almost) no one has written anything about the guy. To complicate matters his name is very common and is currently shared by many others including at least a couple men in the entertainment industry (an actor, a set designer, a poet, an author/editor, an academic, etc) making it hard to determine what search hits are about this Peter Davison. I had to dig deep and so far this is what I have been able to find:

A brief mention in a blog (18-SEP-2014) that he is living in Santa Monica. Confirmed this is the right guy as Davison posted a comment below the blog from his Facebook account: "I grew up next door to the author [of the blog] and remember all the characters in the article. I remember the neighborhood as peaceful and friendly, as well as secure. It sounds like some of our parents had stable long term jobs, others moved around. My family moved away when I was 12 (the Valley), but I look back on 4th street, Farmer's Market, Gilmore Stadium, Kiddie Land and huge plastic army man battles in the back yards with fondness!"

http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2014/09/ward-cleavers-job-world-los-angeles-1957/

A brief mention in the LA Times (03-JUL-2011): "And then there were the California communes that gave rise to artists like Peter Davison and Iasos."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/03/entertainment/la-ca-new-age-20110703/2

A detailed mini-bio paragraph at the official website for the International Documentary Association dated APRIL 2004, identifying him as a new member of the association and listing his (then) current and recent work. Difficult to tell if this is self-written and submitted or IDA vetted material.

http://www.documentary.org/magazine/welcome-new-members-april-2004

A mention in a National Endowment for the Arts publication, Arts Review, v.2 (1984) which supplies only the fact that Davison was a composer and a faculty member of East Los Angeles College.

https://books.google.com/books?id=n9A3XxutpAgC&q=%22Peter+Davison+%28composer%29%22&dq=%22Peter+Davison+%28composer%29%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih6c7vn8LOAhUNxmMKHeJwBk0Q6AEIIzAB

A similar mention in another NEA publication, Annual Report 1984 (published 1985) supplying the same information.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_IvWAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Peter+Davison+%28composer%29%22&dq=%22Peter+Davison+%28composer%29%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih6c7vn8LOAhUNxmMKHeJwBk0Q6AEIKDAC

...and that is about all that I can find of independent sources about the guy. Seems a shame since he has done many well known scores but Davison needs in-depth stuff written about him for us to have sources to write from. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 05:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete --

I have been a listener of Peter Davison's music for many years; his first LP was released in 1979. Years ago I found a small entry for him at Wikipedia and have been updating it over time, using Davison's website for new CD releases, awards, etc. and IMDb for TV/Film scoring projects. It contains a short biography and a list of Davison's works.

On the Wikipedia “Category:Start-Class biography (musicians) articles”, under Peter Davison is this text from Wikipedia: “This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the preject and contribute to the discussion.”

This statement, in its complete Wikipedia graphic form, was on the “Peter Davison (composer)” Wikipedia page prior to the current deletion complaint, as I remember.

Under “Wikipedia:Verifiability #2.1 What counts as a reliable source:”

“The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:”

1) “The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)” This biography clearly lists the type of work. These are Film and Television music scores, CDs of music compositions and DVDs of Yoga/Meditation teachers, for which Davison composed the scores.

In addition, I have added Peter Davison's IMDb page to the “External Links.” It lists all the TV/Film scores and productions on the Wikipedia page, with additional works as well. IMDb is a trusted source for verifiable Television and Film “credits.” Please note: IMDb does not list music CDs.

2) “The creator of the work (for example, the writer)” - Peter Davison

3) “The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)” - the studios, film and television companies listed and the record labels listed are the publishers.

When I click “Find Sources for Peter Davison (composer)” on the “Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Davison (composer)” a web page that lists all sorts of places to listen to and purchase his music appears. That is the nature of contemporary music on the internet. Just as an author search will list places to purchase his books, and an actor search will show lists of productions in which he has appeared, etc. I suppose this is advertising, but it also the nature of current music and other pursuits on the internet.

Davison is a well known composer, both for TV/Film and his CDs and DVDs are listened to globally. His listeners deserve a Wikipedia page to read a bit more about him.

Paul D. Musilier Pdmus (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC; almost no coverage in reliable secondary sources, just scant mentions of his name. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:COMPOSER. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Davison is a leading New Age, Yoga/Meditation music composer. I have most of his CDs and during the last 20 years he has been an invaluable companion in my spiritual life with his music. Konstantinos Ioannidis, Athens, Greece. 2a02:587:3b18:2b00:c116:f7ab:9871:e8 (talk) posted this comment, but overwrote the rest of the page doing so [30], I've placed it here as I believe was their intention. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see if creator can come up with reliable sources. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources do not establish notability, being either non-independent or local in nature. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - the sources establish that Davison has released 34 Cds of his original music on 4 labels. The sources establish awards and nominations for his CDs. The sources establish that Davison has composed music scores for over 500 TV/film productions. The newspaper sources, while local, establish details about Davison's life. If these facts do not establish notability, I have no idea what does.

Paul D.MusilierPdmus (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic would establish notability. It's really nothing to do with the number of CDs that he has released. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently cites seven sources:

Davison's bandcamp page - not independent, not reliable as it is self-published;
His IMDb page - not reliable as IMDb relies partly on user-submitted content;
An album chart listing - I'm unsure whether being 10th in an album chart contributes much to establishing notability;
A PDF on Davison's Dropbox detailing some award nominations - looks self-published;
A PDF on Davison's Dropbox which appears to be from sleeve notes - not independent of the subject (interesting that it notes that his first two LPs were self-released);
Two local newspaper articles.

This is not significant, independent coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:34, 22 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yumi Sudō[edit]

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

Voice-over for Hermione, Hilary Duff, and some others, but nothing notable in the anime world. Submarine 707R isn't really a notable anime title, and not much for Garo the Animation. No sources. Worth keeping? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

32 roles in VADB. [31] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People who do dubbing work are very rarely notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an extremely broad statement to make and debatable in its accuracy. Deletion arguments should be made on the basis of this article, not a preconception of all dub actors.SephyTheThird (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Making a case on the notability of her roles dubbing Hollywood actors is hard to prove either way, unlike anime or game reviews there simply isn't a western viewpoint on them to make coverage easy. With the Japanese coverage likely to be buried in specialist press that is difficult to access we can't prove that their dubs are notable or not, good luck finding Japanese reviews telling us how well she dubs the roles. That doesn't mean she isn't notable for these but there isn't enough to assume she is. It's quite common for Japanese actors to dub a western actor "for life" to provide a consistent voice but I'm not sure there is a case for giving importance to these particular actors, several of which are known almost entirely for a single role (one is almost entirely associated with one series of films and another for one, maybe two tv roles. So in that regard she is hardly Yasuo Yamada or Kiyoshi Kobayashi. As for her anime roles, almost all bit parts for mostly minor series. Some of her other work (looks like she might have done some Drama work) is going to be difficult to source or define notability from as well. I can only assume that the article was created by a fan feeling she needed an article and not because of merit.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage, although if significant coverage in Japanese appeared, I would potentially change my vote. Voice actors do occasionally garner enough media attention to be considered notable, with features in trade magazines and film releases, but sadly they usually get the short-stick in terms of coverage, or interviews only. Yvarta (talk) 14:13, 13 August 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 01:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Tognola[edit]

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

completely lacking of citations about the inner claims and affirmations, the page appears to be a subject-promoting page nor neutral or filtered. Nothing is supported by a reference except his profession and other parts seems to have a too much (and un-supported) big emphasis Gin Anmon (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I added the SwissFilms entry on the subject as a reference but am not finding more substantial coverage of him and his career. The current text is so grotesquely excessive in unsubstantiated superlatives as to need WP:TNT, but if the awards could be verified, and they were further confirmed to be notable in themselves, then there could be a case for a stub article saying just that he is a director of documentaries and commercials and has won X awards. However as things stand, I don't see evidence that he meets the WP:CREATIVE criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 9 August 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 01:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tolga Dürbin[edit]

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

A German-Turkish Islamist. Suspected collaborator of the Sauerland terror cell, who at least introduced Fritz Gelowicz to Wahhabism. Arrested in Pakistan, later in Germany. I currently don't see any independent notability though.
I'm fine with merging some content to 2007 bomb plot in Germany though, or to his friend and confirmed plotter Fritz Gelowicz (if that article gets restored), or to Islamic Jihad Union (if generally expanded), respecting WP:DUE. An article on Islamism in Germany, which might contain short biographies, is overdue as well, but currently we don't have it. PanchoS (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ten years and still only suspections about this personality. That doesn't make him encyclopedic. Besides the case seems solved and this guy has no relation according to news. His info may be transfered to the main article.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and selectively move some content to 2007 bomb plot in Germany. Not individually notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 15 August 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. Sandstein 17:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PTAF[edit]

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

NN group, fails WP:NMUSIC. MSJapan (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage by US entertainment press outlets such as Billboard, The Fader, The Source, BET, XXL, and The Hollywood Reporter. Chubbles (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - this is coatracking. All you've done is find citations to cover material already in the article, most of which is in the citations already there. In short, there's nothing "new" - they did a viral song (unnecessarily corroborated by two sources), they got a record deal either before or after Nicki Minaj sampled them (sources conflict), and they never actually released a record. You're angling for meeting one criterion for a limited amount of time, and I'm pointing out they don't meet the other 11 at all. MSJapan (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's being coatracked here; what is the actual notable subject which is being ostensibly cloaked by PTAF or "Boss Ass Bitch"? Being a viral video star is a notable occurrence (permanently) if it is covered sufficiently in third-party sources, and this group has been covered by a bevy of them, including three of the top black entertainment press outlets in the US (The Source, BET, and XXL). This is the case regardless of whether Minaj sampled them before or after the record deal, and even regardless of whether they ever got signed in the first place. Chubbles (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All within roughly a six-month period, after which they are never heard from again. The other half of NTEMP makes the point that notability is not temporary (note the change in emphasis), and a flurry of media hype followed by nothing is usually a pretty good indicator that we're not showing notability outside the news cycle (significant coverage "over time"). That's only compounded by the utter lack of any output by the group after that point. It's coatracking because the same story is being told in essentially the same timeframe by multiple outlets - there's no depth to the coverage. MSJapan (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble distinguishing between what you are calling coatracking and actual notability - a popular song covered in the same time frame by multiple outlets defines a notable musical event; it'd be the same for a charting single or a well-reviewed album release, which gets a flurry of activity at the moment it's issued, and is thereby notable even if nobody writes about it again for decades. Beyond this, there is later coverage; XXL covered the release of their next single about a year after their first coverage started, as did The Source, and the Hollywood Reporter article dates from 2016 (your removal of this story's date was in error - I doubt the website's own date is incorrect (it's probably not even entered by humans), and the film got wide release in March of 2016, exactly when the story was published). Chubbles (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the song, or perhaps discuss if there is another merge target. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article about the song...and it wouldn't make sense to redirect an artist to a song written and performed by that artist. Chubbles (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it could make sense; I'll avoid the policy links, but article topic notability is standalone, and particularly with music, the song, album, and artist have to be individually notable. The policies are pretty explicit about the fact that the notability of one does not presume the notability of another. That's why we don't have articles on every song on a notable album, nor every album of a notable artist. So let's posit this question - is it unreasonable to assume that the notability of a group who has never released an album, which almost every story about them talks about their viral song, might say more about the notability of the song than it does about the notability of the group? Another way to look at it is that many artists start out in indie groups that don't go anywhere; that's good for a mention in the artist's article, but not to the point where that former band gets an article of its own. The group fails NMUSIC, but that doesn't mean the song fails NSONG (although it might; it's a different set of criteria, so sources have to be evaluated differently). MSJapan (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that coverage of an artist's work is coverage of that artist. It makes sense for there to be artists whose albums or songs are not standalone articles; it does not make sense for there to be album or song articles for musicians who are considered non-notable - the albums and songs would be non-notable, too. An album review (for instance) is simultaneously coverage of a work of music and of the work of a musician. It is commentary on the cultural and artistic merits of that musician's style. Chubbles (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not what policy says, nor does it hold in reality. Is "House of the Rising Sun" notable because of The Animals? I'd say no, because the song is more than the artist who sings a version of it. Also, if a song were not notable in and of itself, what reason would there be to cover it? MSJapan (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I've said contravenes any policy, and it is consistent with NOTINHERITED. It also follows long, longstanding tradition at WP:MUSIC and WP:AfD, where (for instance) album reviews have always, consistently, been taken as evidence of notability for musical artists. When a third party writes an article about the Animals' cover of "House of the Rising Sun", that is significant coverage of a song (whose author, I guess, is not known), and also significant coverage of The Animals. There's no way to talk just about the recording itself, as if it were somehow disembodied from the band - this is always commentary on the singing and playing of the musicians, in addition to the lyrics and sheet music that is being recorded. Chubbles (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct; I'd also point out that I'm hard-pressed to think of a one-hit wonder we have an article on, because charting meets NMUSIC. I'm not indicating that there's a policy violation; I'm just pointing out that policy doesn't preclude meeting NSONG without meeting NBAND because of the standalone nature of the notability policies. MSJapan (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I think we agree, although the only conceivable example of that I can conjure would be a song whose author is anonymous - as is the case with "House of the Rising Sun". But in the case at hand in this AfD, the coverage is nowhere close to this scenario; the songwriters of "Boss Ass Bitch" and "Fuck That" are known, and they are extensively profiled in some of the sources linked (see the Fader and BET pieces), though admittedly there are some biographical discrepancies between those sources. Chubbles (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, editing article so that it is combo article about the song and the group. Leave further discussion of article name to its talk page. --do ncr am 04:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I restructured the article a bit by removing unnecessary section breaks, and there's not much there. Coverage is insufficient to meet GNG & create an encyclopedia entry. WP:NOTNEWS & WP:TOOSOON may apply. Otherwise, promo content on a minor band. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 9 August 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 01:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hao Xiang Shopping TV[edit]

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

no evidence for notability of this shopping channel DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Says it's the "first Chinese language shopping channel in Malaysia" and the "first shopping channel that launches on Malaysian DTT network, MYTV Broadcasting", but no sources to back those claims. Still, it's a non-notable article. — Wylie pedia 04:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reliable source for the claims (See here), but these were self-descriptions by the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For DTT MYTV Broadcasting, many can confirm that there is a presence of it as it was posted on MYTV Broadcasting official Facebook Page and many was able to scan it. However, since they didn't post anywhere other than Facebook, plus that the platform is still on test transmission, and Facebook sources is stated to be less reliable and somewhat cannot be used, so I can't use that source until someone can confirm that source reliablity. (PotfromKP (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 9 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Noor ul Hassan Bukhari[edit]

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

I have no way of telling if he is notable, especially in the total absence of references. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I cannot find sources. Tried searching without the "syed" on the chance that it is used here as a title, (nothing) Given the period, and claims, something should have turned up in English, even if he was notable but minor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could not find any sources showing that he at least existed. No prejudice against recreation if sources (for example, in Urdu) have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 16 August 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. Sandstein 20:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billingham Bags[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This articles has been deleted twice before, most recently by myself as a speedy G11. But it was re-written in draft space, and has much better references than any previous version. I'm not however sure about the possible notability of a small manufacturer of this degree of specialization, and I'm not sure whether the articles should still be regarded as an advertisement. I decided that the fairest thing to do was to accept it, and leave the decision to a discussion here. My own opinion is uncertain. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep - Article reads as neutrally written and factual, and the references are appropriately used. Without having seen what was deleted before, it appears to be an improvement. The sourcing appears sufficient to show notability, albeit in a small/specialist area. But just because something is of very limited range/scope doesn't mean it can't be notable. Not really my area of interest, but I don't have a problem with this article at all. Mabalu (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see that any of the current references constitute the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" required by WP:ORG, and the above Google searches don't appear to give anything better. Of the existing refs, the first and most used (now a deadlink; archived version) is on the site of a company which the article itself says Billingham has collaborated and which (used to) sell their products, so isn't an independent source. The Telegraph Q&A with Richard Hammond doesn't tell us anything about the company, merely that he always carries one of their bags. The other refs are nearly all product reviews which give no significant coverage of the company as opposed to the particular product under review (and several are personal blogs). The only ref that appears to come close is "Billingham marks 40 years of history" in Digital Photography Review, but that's only contains three sentences about the company, clearly based on material in its 2013 catalogue, so isn't really an independent source and certainly doesn't seem sufficient by itself. Qwfp (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing at all actually convincing of better substance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is a reasonable small business Wikipedia article. The company is well-known, it's been profiled by a range of websites and organisations, it's been in existence for long enough to know that it's not getting attention as a short-term fad, its products are considered worth reviewing. Blythwood (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is lauded in the photography press as the Rolls-Royce of camera bags. Plenty of reviews and other material out there. Andrew D. (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- ~~even with positive reviews, this would be insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH~~ Some of the coverage offered below is compelling and the subject is close enough to passing GNG. Article is neutrally written. Overall, a reasonable article on a small business in a niche market, but with enough "human interest" appeal. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Over here, the references seem to be mostly in blogs and some sources of questionable reliability and independence. If the company was truly notable, there would be more sources about it. The passing mentions in sources unfortunately do not show notability. I may change my opinion if reliable sources can be shown to have covered this. (I myself wasn't able to find any though). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "2002 British Journal of Photography article". British Journal of Photography (7368–7375). 2002. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The Google Books snippet view notes:
  Within five years, Billingham had become the manufacturer of choice for many UK press and location photographers. Despite their 'Rolls Royce' reputation, Martin Billingham's bags are not as expensive as some people expect - and certainly
2. Sorrel, Charlie (2008-04-30). "Three Of The Best Camera Bags You Can Buy". Wired. Archived from the original on 2016-08-08. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The article notes:
  
  A British classic, the Billingham 550 is actually an evolution of a fishing bag. Martin Billingham founded the company back in 1973 and discovered that his canvas bags were being used by photographers in New York. A photographer himself, Martin gave up on fish sacks and switched full time to camera bags.
  The canvas, leather and brass bags still look traditional, but there are a few innovations under the hood. Rainproof, with a neoprene shoulder pad and nylon covered padding inside, it also comes with two detachable pockets and more can be added. The bag will probably last longer than your camera kit. I have had one for years, but to be honest, it’s a little too heavy and even in smaller sizes, quite bulky and fiddly to open. It’s also expensive, but that could just be the weak dollar.
3. Anker, Kathrine (2013). "Billingham Bags" (PDF). Professional Photographer. Professional Photographers of America. pp. 97–101. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-08-08. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  This article is listed in the Wikipedia article as being published by Professional Photographer. It says, "In the first of our Cool Britannia series, Kathrine Anker heads to the Midlands to find out what goes into the making of the legendary Billingham camera bags."
  The article notes:
  
  You can tell it’s a family business by the way I’m received at the new Billingham factory. Harry Billingham, the company director and youngest son of the founder, Martin, apologises for the mess in the back office as he takes me past his father’s old drawing board and a bulging stack of hand-drawn designs from the early seventies, and through to the floor of the new factory building they have moved into six months ago.
  It almost looks as if someone scraped the contents of the old Billingham factory into a van and dumped it in a corner of the much bigger new factory in Cradley Heath, in the Midlands. As in most family abodes, crates of the grown-up kids’ belongings are stored away – in this case not in the attic, but on top of a sky-reaching shelf-unit next to stacks of canvas and thick, brown cow hides. The hides are a point of pride for Billingham. “All of our hides come from Spain, from the tannery that provide hides for Louis Vuitton”, says Harry.
  ...
  I’ve nearly finished my guided tour and get ready to do my piece-to-camera introduction for the video that will come out of this, when I realise that I need to double check some facts and years. I pop back into the drawing room to ask Harry, and find Martin Billingham sitting at his desk, not paying attention to me until Harry prods him to tell us that he started the business in 1973 making fishing bags. This is an area where people fish, and at the time it seemed like a market with high demand. Martin Billingham and his wife moved the production out of their house and into their first factory in ‘77 and turned the production into camera bags in ‘78, when he found out that that’s what photographers in New York were actually buying them for. Martin Billingham speaks with a soft, quiet voice. I feel humble next to this man who started the creation of such a respected product and yet does not brag or put himself in the limelight. My presence almost feels a little intrusive to his quietness, so I excuse myself and head for the door, when suddenly he looks directly at me and we share a little moment. “Nice glasses”, he says and smiles.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Billingham Bags to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is company and WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be satisfied here. The coverage in the first link is limited to 1 sentence. The coverage in the second Wired link is very brief (3 sentences) and is actually in a list of similar products. None of this satisfies CORPDEPTH which requires a certain depth of coverage. In addition, coverage about the WP:PRODUCT cannot be used to show notability of the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have quoted only two sentences from the British Journal of Photography article because the rest of the article is hidden under the Google snippets view. Based on the snippet, it is very likely that the article has significant coverage about the subject.
The Wired article provides significant coverage about the company and its product.
I have also added an article from the Professional Photographers of America's publication Professional Photographer that provides coverage about the company on pages 97–101.
Cunard (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give people time to evaluate the sources presented by Cunard -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more sources:
1. "2007 British Journal of Photography article". British Journal of Photography. 154 (7615–7627): 32. 2007. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The book notes:
  
  And in New York, a range of British-made fishing bags caught the eye. The maker, Martin Billingham, soon latched onto their popularity with photographers, and within a year had switched most of his production to camera bags. The Billingham brand is now synonymous with a certain kind of globetrotting photographer who appreciates old-fashioned qualities, such as quality materials and attention to detail. But not so old fashioned that they haven't begun to shoot digital, which is why Billingham has launched its first product, the Hadley Digital, specifically designed with DSLRs > in mind. The bag measures 19x1 lx 18cm, large enough, it says, to hold a camera with a lens attached, as well as additional batteries and memory cards. It has a padded separator to cover the top of its internal dividers to ensure that the camera remains secure, and the internal dividers themselves can be moved using their hook and loop fastenings. It is priced £75 and is available now from UK
2. "Lifestyle News: Get What You Want out of Life". Scotland on Sunday. 2014-03-30. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The article notes:
  
  BAGS OF STYLEPEDLARS' Billingham bags have a cult following. Founded in 1973 by Martin Billingham to make fishing bags, the practical, waterproof bags were soon adopted by New York photographers and within a year production had switched to camera bags. These days they come in many elegant guises, still functional and built to last, the new yellow and grey Hadley features nickel buckles, stud-fastening front pockets and an adjustable shoulder strap. Bag for life.Billingham Hadley small, GBP225, Hadley Pro, GBP295, Pedlars (www.pedlars.co.uk)
Cunard (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "is now synonymous with a certain kind of globetrotting photographer who appreciates old-fashioned qualities, such as quality materials and attention to detail. But not so old fashioned that they haven't begun to shoot digital, which is why Billingham has launched its first product, the Hadley Digital, specifically designed with DSLRs > in mind. The bag measures 19x1 lx 18cm, large enough, it says, to hold a camera with a lens attached, as well as additional batteries and memory cards. It has a padded separator to cover the top of its internal dividers to ensure that the camera remains secure, and the internal dividers themselves can be moved using their hook and loop fastenings. It is priced £75 and is available now from UK" is something a sales pitch and listing would say, not an actual reputable and known news sources, that is, unless it was a company-authored "article" or PR. As mentioned with the others, the "news" themselves are not to the levels of escaping advertorialism and then having confirmation of actual non-advert substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The British Journal of Photography article uses such wording not because it is an advertisement but because it is a review of the company and one of its products. This does not invalidate the source from establishing notability. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the source is about the product, not the company. The coverage has to be about the company itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Professional Photographers of America article covers the company over multiple pages. The British Journal of Photography article covers the company's history and its first product in detail. I consider coverage about the company's product to be coverage about the company since the product is part of the company. There is enough here to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a PR page for an entity without notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is neutrally written. How is it a "PR page"? Please explain so I can address any concerns about promotionalism. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), for changing your position from "delete" to "keep (weak)" after sources were presented. Cunard (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Cunard is misreading WP:CORPDEPTH, which actually states, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Even if none of the sources are as in-depth as one might ideally like, there are several of them, and thus we satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources

The 2 sources in British Journal of Photography are considered 1 for the purpose of notability. The coverage is brief (I see like less than a column).
The Professional Photographers of America is a detailed one. (See below though)
The Scotland on Sunday is very short and is actually an inclusion in a list of similar products. This is routine coverage in CORPDEPTH.
The Wired article is short as well and is again inclusion in a list of similar products. Routine coverage.
Routine sources are not considered while evaluating corpdepth. If we leave that out, we actually have 2 sources - both of which are niche sources focused on the field. It is quite easy to appear on these kind of sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chase FM[edit]

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

Defunct Net radio program that had no impact whatsoever on the broadcasting world. The lack of sources doesn't help its cause. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I googled, found no coverage. Yvarta (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blythwood (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 18:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This wasn't actually a "radio program", but a station. It isn't entirely clear from the copy whether it was a community radio station broadcasting on a FM frequency, or an online radio station. @RadioFan: I don't know if you would know anything more about this. KaisaL (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not clear what this is, station or program, and I'm not finding reliable sources to answer this question. RadioFan (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a certified radiogeek, I understand what the article is saying well enough to clarify some of the confusion expressed above: this was an internet radio service, not a terrestrial station, although many of its staff members were previously involved in a different project which briefly aired on FM via a Restricted Service License (a temporary class of license typically granted as a "special event" station that will normally exist only for a couple of weeks, and thus has no guarantee of permanent wikinotability.) This project appears to have applied for a terrestrial license, although it shut down entirely in the same year in which it would have found out whether its application was approved or not — in all likelihood shutting down because it was not approved. So, yeah, this is a topic that should never actually have been created in the first place, because even when it was active it didn't satisfy WP:NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of a radio station — internet radio services do not get an automatic "because they exist" freebie if they can't be sourced over WP:GNG. And RSL stations don't get that either, so there would be no case for rewriting this as an article about the earlier RSL project either. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 13 August 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPRN Radio[edit]

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

The only sources for this obscure program are three local newspapers. It does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for Net programming. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer nominator. Capt. Milokan (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Internet radio programs are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA just because they exist — and the amount of purely "local to the host's own hometown" community newspaper coverage shown here is not enough to get it over WP:GNG instead. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nominator and per Bearcat. 91.105.203.19 (talk) 17:40, 15 August 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. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Frame[edit]

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

Reason:it is innacurate and partially fictitious and Polly Frame herself has requested it to be removed. Please do so, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jambadger99 (talk • contribs)

Keep Completing nomination on behalf of above editor, who has no edits on that account other than applying the AfD tag and adding the above text to the article itself. As for my own view, subject is apparently notable as per the BBC reference in the current version on the article, but all info other than the Bunnytown role is unsourced. She's accumulated a fair number of other TV and stage appearances since that show but doesn't appear to have generated many more articles about her specifically. Article needs to be improved, but not deleted. --Finngall ^talk 16:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is covered in reliable sources, thus somewhat notable however there are unsourced claims throughout the page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We only follow BLPREQUEST if the person isn't notable .... In this case the person is notable [32] and therefore should be kept and plus there's not actually a valid reason for deletion (Anyone can send a random article here and say "they requested it"). –Davey2010^Talk 01:44, 9 August 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. Already deleted by another administrator. KaisaL (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Opeshansky[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are mentions on blogs but nothing showing in-depth coverage. Do not see any major titles or awards that would qualify as athlete either. CNMall41 (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bodybuilding. Canuckle (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 9 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Gannon (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work but subject defo notable. Hundreds of articles on English semi-pro players on Wiki. Gannon has been named in LoI Premier Division Team of the Tear on at least one occasion. Also played for Dundalk in European football this season. They have qualified for group stages of 2016–17 Europa League. Surely this is notable. Is there a prejudice against Irish semi-pro footballers on Wiki ? Djln Djln (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. I have to say that I find the claim that there are "Hundreds of articles on English semi-pro players" somewhat dubious as consensus has been very clear that they are equally as non-notable as their Irish counterparts (here are a couple of example AfDs on such players). Number 5 7 16:09, 15 August 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.

[1] ttp://bymystique.com/2013/08/21/the-scott-larock-tragedy-revisited-on-celebrity-crime-files

[2] ttp://thesource.com/2015/08/27/today-in-hip-hop-history-bdps-scott-la-rock-killed-in-the-bronx-28-years-ago/

[3] ttp://www.ghettonewsflash.com/2013/08/gnsf-things-you-didnt-know-about-scott-larock-its-not-about-being-a-super-hoe/

[4] ttp://thedrop.fm/tragic-hip-hop-deaths-scott-la-rock/

[5] ttp://www.tswreis.telangana.gov.in/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]