Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney E. Pardey

Rodney E. Pardey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. No good sources. Removing peacock language now. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:15, 28 June 2015 (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/2015 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a new one for me. I cannot see how the article meets WP:MUSIC, but is there a caveat for someone who won or placed in a poker tournament? Similar to a musical article winning a music competition? --TTTommy111 (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they won a World Series of Poker tournament, yes. He has not. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks. In that case, I would say delete.--TTTommy111 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. No reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invertigo (film)

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

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

The film was announced, but never entered production. Koala15 (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/userfy. It looks like this is one of those hundreds of films that get announced but never move beyond that. (Reminds me of the film Cradlewood, which even had a cast announcement but never moved beyond that.) If anyone wants to userfy this and try to see if anything comes of it I have no issue with this, but offhand this looks like it's firmly entrenched in development hell. It hasn't been officially cancelled from what I can see and there's a mention of the script here as one of the leaked Sony scripts, but by all accounts this looks like it's something that's probably never going to be made. If it does get deleted (ie, nobody wants to userfy it) I have no problem with this being restored if/when production starts back up and filming begins. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete as even with the best of intentions, planned projects are sometimes never made. If it ever gets into production instead of just talks, the article can be undeleted, and it certainly might be spoken of and sourced within articles on its slated director, producers, and writers as a project they were/are considering, but not in a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heartmath Institute

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

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

Non-notable health organization. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP Gargleafg (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete been on my to-do list for a while. fails WP:ORG Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I cleaned it up a bit, but there's nothing here worth keeping. 79616gr (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yup, doesn't clear the bar. Alexbrn (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are plenty of sources, but nothing I see meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. --TTTommy111 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Winx Club characters#Stella. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stella (Winx Club)

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

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

Non-notable character in a television series. Seattle (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Winx Club characters#Stella as has been done with many of the characters in this series (though of course in detail that makes an article about some 1800's president look underdone). Nate • (chatter) 08:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as above. Easy call. Cavarrone 05:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Why redirect it? same idea with articel Bloom (Winx Club) please redirect this articel to.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kloodle

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

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

Unable to find enough reliable refs to show company notability. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was able to find only one independent source. Might eventually be notable, but not quite yet, unless there is something I am missing. -Pax Verbum 21:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and draft/userfy if anyone wants but my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no considerably good coverage with the best being this and this. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Character of Physical Law

The Character of Physical Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Lecture series from 50 years ago that was transcribed as a book. That is the extent of it's notability in reliable sources. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind to keep and I also think consensus is clear. Is there a way to wrap this up now, so we don't waste the time of other editors? Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:15, 2 July 2015 (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/2015 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found and added a book review to the External links section. I think the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NB. The lecture series is probably the most famous of Cornell University's Messenger Lectures. Bill Gates bought the videos and made them available to the public in 2009. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If all of that is accurate then I guess we just need to find some RS's and note those things in the article. I couldn't find any when I looked. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found some reviews in the typical academic circuits when I looked, although I will say that a lot of academic journal reviews will not show up in Google searches or if they do, will typically look like non-usable sources at first glance. (This is because most of them will just list the review by the book's title, which gives off the impression that the link is just the book itself.) That's why I usually use my school's database with stuff like this, a luxury I know that not everyone has. I added a few reviews to the article and I found some more reviews here and here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one of the best and most enjoyable lectures on the topic. This is even one where non-physicists might have heard of it. Clearly notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This is part of a series on the works and lectures of Dr. Feynman, 1965 Nobel Prize winner in Physics. Hopefully, some knowledgeable editor will come along and give it the detailed expansion it deserves. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep please as nominator has withdrawn nomination. Anyway, meets WP:GNG as is with good references added recently. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Cayman Islands earthquake

2004 Cayman Islands earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was a large strike-slip undersea event near the Grand Cayman archipelago. The maximum intensity was VI (Strong), which would have startled residents and made a local newsworthy topic, but this insignificant event did not cause any damage and was not covered in the scientific circles. Other events have occurred in that area, but there was no lasting impact from this one, and there doesn't appear to be any material available to expand the article.

A few of us in Wikiproject Earthquakes construct articles on noteworthy events using journal articles, books, and earthquake catalogs. This event was not looked at closely (by seismologists) and so no journal articles are dedicated to it. It does have a one-line entry in the catalogs, but this limited amount of information leaves us with nothing to write about. What we're trying to do in the project is write articles about meaningful events and consolidate and/or delete articles on insignificant items. That is what this AFD amounts to. There is a need to start or expand articles on many earthquakes, but this one is not one of them.

John Lewis, head of investment and pension fund administration at the Bank of Butterfield on Grand Cayman, called the earthquake a non- event. "A number of us were in the office," he said. "It lasted about 10 seconds, the building shook and there was no damage. It was mostly just a topic of conversation around the water cooler this morning."

— Clair, Chris. (December 15, 2004) Magnitude 6.7 Quake Shakes Caymans Daily News (New York)

The head honcho of our WikiProject is a geologist and has put together these notability guidelines for earthquakes. By looking at these criteria, someone who is not involved in WP:Earthquakes and doesn't write about earthquakes at all may not be able to see how this event does not align. An event would have to be exceptional in some way in order for an article to be created (or kept) that does not correspond with these guidelines. Dawnseeker2000 19:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The epicenter was deep down in the water 20 or so miles from Grand Cayman, and only "made several holes in the ground in parts of Grand Cayman island though there were no reports of damage to the buildings."[1] It could be part of a List of earthquakes in the Cayman Islands or List of earthquakes in the Caribbean Sea, but it doesn't merit its own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Cayman Islands earthquake participants User:Aditya, User:Mandsford, User:Mo ainm, and User:MelanieN. Cunard (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Responding to the pinging. Five years after the last discussion, I regret to say that the original deletion argument-- that this had no enduring notability-- seems to have been true after all. As I said in 2010, it would be preferable if this were part of an article called "Earthquakes in the Caribbean", which are uncommon. If someone can show that there are still mentions of it (as in 2010), it might make a difference; at the moment, I think that the passage of time has demonstrated that it had no lasting impact-- it's forgettable and now forgotten. Mandsford 20:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to new article → List of earthquakes in the Cayman Islands and link from Lists of earthquakes. This is the strongest earthquake on record in CAY (6.8 is pretty high) but since it occurred offshore and caused no damage, a list would be better.[2], [3]. I'll just do it if nobody minds. Ping me and let me know if you don't think this is a reasonable alternative. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Wikiproject Earthquakes is starting to organize our lists by notable events. This is a work in progress that's just getting started and will mean removing some entries from our current lists. All of our list articles should be focused towards the common selection criteria for (for notable entry) lists. In this case, we're going for notable events, and this event wouldn't qualify because the notability guidelines for earthquakes apply. Dawnseeker2000 16:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I definitely defer to Wikiproject EQ's organization. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The possible claim to notability would be "unusual earthquake in an area of low sismicity". Because of this I feel that claim is not vindicated - sure, it was an outlier, but low-intensity earthquakes are not exceptional in that region either.

As a side note, I do believe that pure mainstream coverage could be enough to make an earthquake notable, though WP:ROUTINE applies in many cases. So I would take the project's "being mentioned in the mainstream media is not in itself evidence of notability" with a grain of salt (= common sense). Tigraan (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mützig

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

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

Product which doesn't meet WP:GNG as there is a lack of independent reliable sources. Search reveals nothing significant. The product exists, but is not notable. Article was merged into parent article (Bralirwa Brewery#Mützig) per WP:Beer brands and WP:Product, but this has been reverted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – SilkTork, Mützig is the biggest beer brand in Central Africa. Stating that history of its origin irrelevant and suggesting it be merged with Bralirwa Brewery shows lack of knowledge on the subject. Kindly refrain from vandalizing articles through SilkTork or any other of its sock puppets. If this goes on you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. Zotezangu (talk) 01:29, June 29, 2015 (EAT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Product fails to meet WP:GNG. I could not find more than passing references to the brew when I searched for references via gNews, gNewspapers and gBooks. I found it interesting that one passing reference in a book, Marrakech Express from 2014, by Peter Millar, the reference is to "once upon a time a well-known, if unremarkable Alsace French brand ... moved to Africa where ... it has become extinct." It is not the extinction or the limited range of the beer's sales that is problem in this context, but the fact that no reliable and significant sources for the brew's notability can be located. It is, at least in one person's published opinion, unremarkable. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 20:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep – Hi Geoff. Here are some links to Mützig on the internet: Mützig Beer commercial, Mutzig Relaunch in Kigali and Mutzig sales in Uganda. The drink was originally brewed in France (as indicated in the article) and later launched in DR Congo, Rwanda and Burundi i.e. countries located in Africa. Another important note is that these countries speak French. It would be proper to look into the French websites. Kindly do a better research. Posts here are on evidence rather than opinions. Zotezangu (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to the brewery to appropriate places. I believe that this beer is notable because of its pervasive influence in substantial parts of Africa, mainly, as Zotezangu implies, in la Francophonie. The beer may have been launched in Africa in 1987, but its roots may go back to the French Brewery from which it takes its name - though the process used to make it is based on the traditional sorghum fermentation system. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • Here are a couple of decent references:
  • Edward Tommy (8 October 2013). "In Sierra Leone, Trade Minister Launches Mutzig Beer". Awareness Times.
  • "Sierra Leone News: SL Brewery show case production process to media". Awoko. 20 June 2014.
  • "Sierra Leone News: Mutzig Beer Launched…Centenarian Celebrates with World's Best in Beer". Awoko. 7 October 2013.

This article describes Mutzig as a significant brand.

This mentions Mutzig beer in Paris.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep – I don't think a merge to the brewery is appropriate, since the brand has been owned by several breweries - looks like the brand has been brewed since 1810. Rich has made some improvements since the nomination and the Mützig Brewery article on the French Wikipedia has some material we should be able to use to flesh out the article. As Zotezangu noted, since it was originally a French brand and is now marketed in West Africa, many of the references will likely be found in french sources. Perhaps this Google search or this one might be useful. Mojoworker (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After editing the article a bit, I'm thinking that it might also be appropriate to merge this into a Brasserie Mutzig (or Mutzig brewery) article, if we were to create one. Mojoworker (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mojoworker, That sounds good. Since you have knowledge on Mutzig brewery, why not develop the page to reflect the status of a brewery rather than a brand then move the page to the new name? That would be of great assistance. . Zotezangu (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree it cannot be merged there, the brand is produced widely and would either have to fit into a Heinekin brands article, be split among the various national breweries, or be retained as it is. Merging to Mutzig Brewery is not without its problems. The article about a small French Brewery would be potentially overwhelmed by the African use of the brand, and we would end up splitting it back to an article on the brand/beer. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  

True enough – I'll stick with my initial inclination of keep then. Mojoworker (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Wiki you now, Wiki you later!, I've posted the deleted material to your talk page in a collapsed format since there wasn't much to the article in the first place. You can try to work it in elsewhere, but I'd highly recommend that you go through WP:COMPUTER and Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet to ensure that all of the information is correct first. Computer teachers are not infallible and it is entirely possible that he was incorrect or that you misunderstood what he was saying. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IQRL is less or equal

IQRL is less or equal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Factually incorrect, unreferenced. The error message exists but has nothing to do with the purported causes and effects given in this article. For comparison, see Microsoft's error description. Prodded for that reason, de-prodded by the author because they supposedly "learned all of this information in [their] computer maintenance class".

If this error message is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, which I currently doubt, it would be easier to write a new one from scratch; no part of the current content is salvageable. Huon (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nomination, particularly as it presents incorrect information, and also as WP:NOTHOWTO - Arjayay (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete. This is getting annoying-please stop. I did check the website, and was surprised to see that the explanation of this error was completely different than what I learned in my computer maintenance class. However, that doesn't mean that what I have written is factually incorrect or is a hoax, it just means that there are multiple ways of explaining the same thing. My question would be, who should we go by: the author of the Microsoft website, or the teacher of my computer maintenance class who is a professional IT expert? Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows the published sources; see WP:Verifiability. Such as, say, this book which explains that IRQL (IQRL is a misspelling) is not "the main control center of the computer or device" but rather the Interrupt Request Level, a number used to determine the order in which the processor reacts to interrupts. It's not a piece of hardware, there is no "amount of data stored on the IRQL", and hard drives are at best of peripheral relevance to the error - certainly not because "the amount of data stored on the IRQL must be greater than the amount of data storage on the internal hard drive". Regarding claims such as "it only happens to 1 person in America every 3 years" I rather doubt you can explain how one would even assemble such a statistic which would mean that this effect occured to about five persons in America, ever (ignoring the fact that the amount of computers running Windows hasn't been constant over those 15 years or so since Windows 2000 was introduced). Huon (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So basically what you are saying is that we can't go by what I learned in my maintenance class, even if it was right? I am now concerned that my teacher was teaching us incorrect information, but that's not the point here. I still object to the deletion because I don't have whatever book you are talking about, and I didn't know that the other website even existed. Given these factors, I had to write based on what I learned, and I don't think that anyone would know that the teacher was incorrect. Perhaps someone (other than me, because obviously I've been taught a hoax) could merge this content into the Blue screen of death article? As I said, this is one of the most common causes of a blue screen and really should be included. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as duplicate of existing topic. "IQRL (sic) is less or equal" is simply the error name and does not have notability on its own. The articles (already proposed to merge) Interrupt request (PC architecture) and IRQL (Windows) should be merged and improved; editor can add the information there. I'm not sure what Wiki you now, Wiki you later! means about above about "I had to write based on what I learned" - nobody has to write anything on Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isolation of the dead

Isolation of the dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG; non-notable game. This game is still in the process of funding on Kickstarter, which makes this article a crystal ball at best. Esquivalience ^t 17:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I wish them well, but right now this just doesn't pass notability guidelines. There just isn't any coverage out there for this game and since this is still in its fundraising stage, there likely isn't anything other than a few play screens and maybe at best a non-playable test stage. If this gets made and gains coverage it can be created, but offhand this is just too soon for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 14:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Though I did some work on it, better sources are needed for it to meet the inclusion criteria (WP:NVG).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G7 by CactusWriter. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 22:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick U. Murphy

Patrick U. Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article creator is new to Wikipedia. I had placed a speedy deletion tag on it and he had removed it and politely asked me what the problem was. Rather than get into our policy about article creators removing speedy tags, I thought it best to respond to his concerns with a full discussion here.

Patrick U. Murphy was not a man without professional achievements. He witnessed a lot of history. He competed on behalf of Ireland as part of a fishing team. And was present as a youngster during an emergency landing of an aviator and took part in a commemorative ceremony many years later. Yet I don't believe he quite meets the rather specific criteria set out in WP:BASIC, unfortunately. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Palacios

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP: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. A case of WP:TOOSOON, article can be recreated if / when he plays and passes a notability guideline. Fenix down (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete/snow close. This was previously deleted and there is nothing really new here to go against the prior AfD, so I'm closing this early and speedying it as a recreation, plus a possible recreation by a blocked user. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suvodeep Chatterjee

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

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

Egregiously spammy (auto?)bio article, which fails (from what I can see) to net a single article in any bona fide WP:Reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the article creator is also attempting to create a WP:Walled garden of article such as Universal records forum -- now also at Afd -- in an attempt to bolster his notability for mouth-painting and what have you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:BLP1E appears to apply. reddogsix (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - all possible source is provided to support the article, if being a Limca Book of Records Unique World Records India Book of Records holder is not notable then delete those articles from wikipedia too. S chattopadhyay — Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - considering all the sources and he is not only a world record holder, an artist too. it should be keept. many articles has less information than this but is still exist in wiki, like this one Sababbi Mangal . S chattopadhyay — Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentThis article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this person is notable with remarkable achievements and it should be on the wikipedia for general public information about his inventions and publication that are more valuable for public and is useful too. S chattopadhyay — Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I created this article because he is well-known in Kolkata,WP:BLP1E wont be applied for this, because he is not famous for one thing, he is an well known artist too from kolkata and he have records in many different categories.S chattopadhyay (talk)undatedS chattopadhyay (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Second "keep" opinion from one user struck above. AllyD (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no WP:Reliable source - WP:BLP1E applies.Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This was previously nominated twice for AfD as Suvodeep chatterjee with Deletion consensus both times. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suvodeep chatterjee and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suvodeep chatterjee (2nd nomination). I would recommend salting.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to do just that, since it was previously speedied and since this is likely the same user trying to evade a block. The claims here are essentially the same, so there's nothing really new here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, snow close. I'll salt this to prevent recreation. I will also note that this is also fairly promotional in tone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universal records forum

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

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

Contested prod deletion. This organisation does not have independent third party coverage that proves notability. Creator has attached link to Georgian Records Federation as proof (it is a partner of URF), but that is also not a notable record body itself and partnership with it does not explain why the organisation is notable. SFB 15:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this may be part of a WP:Walled garden. At any rate, please see related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suvodeep Chatterjee, created by the same editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with WP:Walled garden. reddogsix (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Also agree with WP:Walled garden. Pincrete (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yes to the walled garden, Suvodeep Chatterjee has been deleted multiple times by AfD - these should be salted.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary C. Ross

Gary C. Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NOT NEWS. Merely being the first make it suitable for Ripley's , not an encycopedia. With respect o other possible notability, he does not meet the standards for military officers, nor for authors. The GNG guideline is irrelevant here, since the policy NOT NEWS is a limitation of that. DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources here extend over a couple of years, so I am not seeing NOT NEWS as an issue. Artw (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing after 2013. Looking at the material very carefully, I think the it is basically a violation of WP:AUTOBIO, containing irrelevant minor details about his navy career & non encyclopedic personal details about his later activities . It also is advocacy, and is a gross failure of WP:NPOV I note, Furthermore, that this is a BLP, and not all the material has reliable sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Primary author of the article appears to have a COI as they have the same user name as the partner / spouse of the subject, as listed in the article. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge with Don't ask, don't tell. I can't find any good sources for his military career, so it looks like a WP:BIO1E. I don't think it's a WP:BLP1E as Ross seemed to have made a concious effort to get press publicity for his wedding. I don't really care about whatever alleged COI the creator has, it's not like they've gone and committed mass murder or anything, and that can be fixed by our normal editing and deletion policies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am the primary author and I am married to the subject. I apologize because I have minimal experience writing and editing articles on Wikipedia and I find it difficult to navigate all of the policies and procedures. The subject and I planned a private wedding in Vermont and we were surprised when it caught the attention of the AP and gained international attention. The purpose of this article was not to focus solely on the historic significance of our marriage,^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} but Gary C. Ross was a plaintiff who won a federal lawsuit for equal benefits. He is also an LGBT activist, author, and speaker. Even now, he is challenging the fairness of military promotion boards with regards to LGB personnel. Please do not underestimate the impact of his ongoing efforts. Last weekend, we received an email from one of his previous commanding officers (a Navy Captain) who said, "Just a quick note to say hello from deployment and to let you know how proud I continue to be of your roles as trailblazers on the path leading to this week’s SCOTUS decision. I know it hasn’t been smooth or easy, but your courage and determination serve as great examples to those who come after you." Dan (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't all those sources describing the same One event? None of those sources delved deeply into biographical material, simply reporting a "first". The remaining military material is all standard, honorable, military service similar to hundreds of thousands of other soldiers and sailors. Honorable, but nothing close to the criteria listed in WP:MILPEOPLE. Being an activist and choosing to get married on a certain day and notifying the Associated Press to claim "first" is not notability, it's basically a press release. As to activist, author, and speaker none of those items are cited in the article with reliable, substantial sources to demonstrate notability in those respects. He does not meet WP:Soldier and WP:Author either. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Dual Freq, I provided sources about One event in response to your edit summary in the article where you said, "you'll note that neither politico nor cbs actually say they were they first." However, the article includes additional notability.
    Gary C. Ross is a LGBT activist and was a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit,^[9] interviewed by Tamron Hall on MSNBC,^[10] honored by Aisha Tyler at the NewNowNext Awards,^[11][12] and notably received a judgement in his favor which declared U.S. Code denying military benefits to married same-sex couples as unconstitutional.^[13]
    Gary C. Ross is also a published author^[14][15] in a two-time Los Angeles Times Bestseller^[16] which was selected by the Chief of Naval Operations for his prestigious Official Reading List.^[17]
    I tried to provide neutral facts in the article. I am providing addition information and links here because I respect this process and I am reluctant to further edit the article to avoid COI. And for the record, we planned a private wedding and we did not notify the AP to claim "first" — they contacted us. Dan (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, but I just would point out that he does not appear to be the sole author of any of those books and is not on the by-line / cover as an editor for "In the Shadow of Greatness" as shown on Amazon.com. I don't think that writing a chapter or a portion of a chapter in a book indicates notability as described in WP:AUTHOR. I'm not saying anything is wrong with that or with him, just that not everyone is notable as an author, soldier, etc. Facebook or linkedin is adequate for most people to self publish their biography, not wikipedia. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • LCDR Ross was selected by his classmates to be a contributing author of In the Shadow of Greatness. (The book appears to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but not the contributing authors who created the book?)
      I noticed your recent editing of the article. Navy Times states, "Three retired Navy captains reviewed Ross’ records for red flags, and each independently concluded that the biggest red flag stemmed from his 2008 troubles on Stennis."^[18] They did not mention specific troubles and they certainly did not characterize the troubles as "an incident during a nuclear drill." LCDR Ross transparently told Navy Times author, Sam Fellman, about an incident during a training scenario and you make it sound like a reactor meltdown. The three retired Navy captains went on to note "a rebound in his performance." In addition, the Navy Times article does not conclude whether or not LCDR Ross mutually left the Nuclear Navy.
      The tone of your editing and your edit summaries do not seem neutral. Dan (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wrote it as neutrally as possible without omitting the basic facts as you initially did, choosing only to add his version of the story. It was a nuclear reactor drill, in which, according to the article, "both the reactors were scrammed" and later after the incident "the reactor officer pulled his qualifications and found him culpable." I'd say a fistfight during a nuclear reactor scramming is a pretty serious incident. I think I did OK summarizing several paragraphs of text. I did not say meltdown, I said a "drill". This is the problem that happens when there is a COI issue, we can't drop out parts of the story we don't like because it doesn't fit our chosen narrative. I'll grant you that none of this would need to be mentioned if the claims of discrimination were not being discussed and none of the article is notable. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the reactor officer pulled his qualifications and found him culpable," but she had him back on watch within two weeks.
        LCDR Ross cooperated with Sam Fellman and the Navy Times article is generally accurate. I referenced the Navy Times article when I mentioned the possibility of bias, but you pieced it together to make it sound as bad as possible. That is not neutral. Dan (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Perhaps will some COI checking, but subject seems notable. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 23:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the material already in the Don't ask, don't tell article adequately covers this subject and the WP:Oneevent. The rest of the material fails to meet WP:Soldier and WP:Author. None of the rest of the biographical material seems to have been published or noted by the media covering the one event. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not even the first same-sex military marriage, but one of the first. Just not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination. Obviously there is some useful information which can be included elsewhere - if it hasn't already (like at Don't ask, don't tell per the suggestions above). Otherwise the subject doesn't appear to be notable per WP:GNG (lacks "significant" coverage in independent reliable sources). Likewise fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:AUTHOR as far as I can see. I'm also concerned about the COI and advocacy aspects the article seems to present (is Wikipedia being used here as a forum to question the validity of an administrative decision, i.e. his non-promotion and discharge for instance?) Overall, a fairly junior officer with a relatively average / normal / undistinguished career that seems little different from all the others who have trodden the same path (setting aside the LGBT issues which as I said should be addressed elsewhere - but even then only briefly so as not to breach WP:UNDUE). Anotherclown (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Darkwind (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzeria Napoli (Baghdad)

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

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

Seems to be notable for what amounts to a single event but, really, this is trivial stuff. Sitush (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - interesting trivia, but little possibility of it becoming ency. article.Pincrete (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - additional sources [4], [5], [6], [7]. These are English only of course - I'm assuming more sources would be available in Arabic. I'm not sure if it's still open, but a pizza place that gets profiles in Time and Newsweek is surely notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been profiled in The Sunday Times but am not notable. I can't see the contents of your second source but your third source is little more than a passing mention and includes the statement that Pizzeria Napoli is just one of many restaurants that have opened since the ousting of Saddam Hussein - that is what is being discussed really, not the PN itself. Your fourth source is the single event ans, really, isn't much of a mention anyway. Have you ever wondered why those passing mentions occur? Could it be that the owner is just a bit more savvy with soundbites, and perhaps even the only local shop owner who can converse with the foreign journalists? Why does the article have problem attracting incoming links? - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody is arguing you are notable. We're pointing out that a one-man hole-in-the-wall pizza joint profiled in Time and Newsweek and books is notable.[8] No, I've never stopped to wonder how he conspired to get all this press, or how a man described as speaking "a little English" was able to be a "bit more savvy with soundbites" than the other millions of people around trying to survive in a war zone. Sounds like something I should devote a lot of time to mulling over. Maybe he was the one who started the rumor that Iraq had WMD to get the U.S. to invade so he could finally start a restaurant and finally get his name in Time. Wow. Can we get it speedily deleted as as M1: all references fraudulently obtained through Machiavellian scheme? —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No need for the snark - I've no idea what I've done to piss you off but you should drop it, otherwise you're likely to get it back in spades. This article has existed for years and as of today still has no links from other articles. We've got nearly five million of them and not one that refers to this, not even a list article. The chances of that happening are pretty slim but among the other orphans from that period is another seemingly useless food and drink article. You'd do a better job of convincing me if you provided the relevant info from the book that I say I cannot see. I'm assuming that you have read it to verify that it isn't just a passing mention. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides most of those sources being far beyond the scope of "passing mention", there is no WP:NOTNOTABLEIFSAVVYWITHSOUNDBITES rule which I suppose would say "If a topic passes WP:GNG but is also "media savvy", then that disqualifies them from having an article." --Oakshade (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The amount of very substantial coverage spanning years and from multiple nation sources as demonstrated by Мандичка indicates easily passing the threshold of notability. How the nom feels about their own notability in relation to coverage given to them is irrelevant to this discussion (but I would note the last time I came across an editor claiming they are not notable due to comparable coverage they received to a topic they afd'd, it turns out they did have an article that they never challenged). --Oakshade (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not every pizzeria gets mentioned in Time and Newsweek. This is a notable restaurant. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 00:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do wish you lot really understood WP:PROMO and that one of the key beauties of Wikipedia is the links between articles. But obviously I am going to be on the wrong side of this rabid inclusionist discussion. I fucking despair. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice WP:CIVIL violation. We're all aware of WP:PROMO and that doesn't apply here. The links are in the categories. While it would be a nice "beauty" to have more, that's not an article requirement. If you truly feel that notability guidelines were not adhered to and this was kept due to "rabid inclusionist discussion", then you can bring it up for deletion review where you're guaranteed to have much wider community input. --Oakshade (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:1E. All the sources mention it peripherally to the suicide bomb blast. This is not a 5-Star Mitchelin joint. It is clear that some of the 'keep' voters are not familar with Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E is a shortcut to "People notable for only one event." How is a pizza restaurant a person and how does very in-depth coverage from multiple international sources spanning at least five years "one event"? I would become familiar with the guidelines you cite before attacking other editors for not being familiar with them.--Oakshade (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop splitting hairs Oakshade, you know perfecty well what is meant here. The restaurant is known only for being damaged in a bob blast and absolutely nothing else whatsoever. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting hairs? You're attacking editors for not being familiar with guidelines and then you cite one that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. You cited WP:1E which only applies to people being notable for one event. A restaurant is not people. And the coverage which is spanning years about this place covering years before and after the nearby bomb blast is not one event. That's not splitting hairs but pointing out your misunderstanding of the basics of the guideline you cited.--Oakshade (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the in-depth Time coverage is from 2003. The "bob blast" occurred in 2004. How was it notable for only one event if that event hadn't taken place? --Oakshade (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Chandrasekaran, Rajiv (2006). Imperial Life in the Emerald City. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. pp. 100–101. ISBN 0307265927. Retrieved 2015-07-08.

     The book notes:

     The hand-tossed, wood oven-baked pizzas at Pizzeria Napoli were on a par with anything you'd find in Italy. Napoli was run by Walid Khalid, who had worked at a pizzeria next to the Trevi Fountain in Rome for two years. He returned to Baghdad a month after liberation to introduce real pizza to his homeland. Even if Iraqis didn't warm to pizzas, he figured he'd have more than enough customers among the thousands of Americans who had descended on Baghdad.

     He rented a space in a strip of shops on Yafa Street, just north of the Green Zone, and set out to create an authentic Italian eatery. He hired bricklayers to build a wood-fired pizza oven. He found a dairy near the Abu Ghraib prison that was willing to make mozzarella according to his specifications. He struck a deal with a farmer who grew the same sort of juicy tomatoes you'd find in Tuscany, and he cultivated basil and oregano in his garden. His brother was recruited to take orders.

     [Several more paragraphs.]

  2. Scavetta, Rick (2004-01-20). "Local residents deeply affected by suicide bombing near coalition HQ". Stars and Stripes. Archived from the original on 2015-07-08. Retrieved 2015-07-08.
  3. Kaplow, Larry (2008-07-17). "Pizza Joint: A Baghdad Barometer with Extra Toppings". Newsweek. Retrieved 2015-07-08.
  4. al Sayegh, Hadeel (2011-07-30). "Pizza and progress in war-weary Baghdad". The National. Archived from the original on 2015-07-08. Retrieved 2015-07-08.
  5. Robinson, Simon (2003-11-24). ""Your mouth lights up"". Time. Retrieved 2015-07-08.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pizzeria Napoli to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources span from 2003 to 2011. A book by journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides two pages of coverage about the subject, going into detail about the pizzeria's history. The pizzeria received coverage from Time (2003), Stars and Stripes (2008), Newsweek (2011), and The National (Abu Dhabi) (2011). The sustained media coverage and the book coverage clearly demonstrate that Pizzeria Napoli is notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough for larger coverage including being a highlight within the U.S. State Department and Washington Post. Great pizza within the Green Zone. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per overwhelming consensus that the subject is notable. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Matt

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

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

Fails WP:OE, WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS. No notability except for participation in 2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escape. Prior to that, his criminal exploits, heinous as they were, did not receive more than local coverage. No more notable than his escaping partner David Sweat, who hasn't and should not have an article. Should be deleted or merged with 2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escape. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There has been coverage recently and in the past, and looking at coverage of notable prison breaks likely in the future too. There is considerable interests by reliable sources in that person, which makes the article notable enough. Wikipedia is not printed on paper. prokaryotes (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Prokaryotes. There's been substantial coverage on Matt and his previous prison breaks. DisuseKid (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't just run-of-the-mill coverage of a prisoner, it's substantial. Therefore, they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with all the reasons listed so far. Matt has a history of past escapes, which makes him more notable than Sweat. His past escapes combined with the Clinton escape is what makes him qualified for an article, not just only the Clinton escape. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above. The difference between Matt and Sweat is that Matt has had a long history of escapes, while this is Sweat's first. William8288 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A long time has passed since this event started, and there still continues to be significant coverage. ContinualCoverage (talk) . The coverage is also international. I signed in from NWT Canada to read about the individual and was glad to find this article. It's disappointing to read that someone would have preferred that I couldn't find this article.
• Keep I just read an article in the Buffalo News that goes in detail about the fatal injuries Matt received from the shooting, and that he had an odor of alcohol and had abrasions and blisters. He has become a household name and is certainly notable. Buffaboy ^talk 19:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Joseph2302.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a pretty ridiculous afd, both of these guys are household names now. Robman94 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kirsch (musician)

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

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

• Delete Non notable Musician with no sources. HAs been in one semi-notable band, does not meet standards. I.Wont.Give.In (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2015 (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/2015 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not sure what to do, this page says do not edit but there is a new AFD. I vote keep, the subject is notable but the article does need to be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:Jadeslair left this comment at the first AfD page, I have moved it to the proper location. Safiel (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails all aspects of WP:MUSICBIO with the exception of criteria #6 and his/her prominence in each notable band is tenuous at best. Subject appeared in three bands that have Wikipedia articles, but two of those were for very short periods. Safiel (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or possibly redirect to Pinhead Gunpowder as it seems that was the longest time with a band that has a Wiki article, however it was only four years and this person is only briefly mentioned; my searches found no good coverage, which is not surprising, aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 18:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails all or any BIO and/or music criteria. I'm not quite sure what the supplied sources are supposed to do - one doesn't load, another is a blog, and another is totally unrelated - but they don't remotely add up to notabilty. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete all due to not statistics and original research concerns. Davewild (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest

Armenia's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article contains excessive amounts of statistical data which goes against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:STAND. The article does not even contain any citations for verification which goes against WP:OR; and such information is summarised in brief content at Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Voting history.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Azerbaijan's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Belarus voting at the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Germany's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hungary's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Latvia's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moldova's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Romania's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Russia's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Serbia's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ukraine's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the editor who created all of these lists, has also created mass-numbers of articles with excessive listing of data on living people too; which may require admin investigation. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Regrets to the editor who put together all this WP:Original research, but it is simply an: "Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. ,WP:Original research with little usefulness, as per BeenAround.Pincrete (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's not appropriate to nominate unrelated articles in a bulk deletion process (see WP:BUNDLE). I suggest creating a separate discussion for the lists of models. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colapeninsula: I've relisted all the model related articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the cover of I-D magazine. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Church Fall Festival

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

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

The article was prodded by Vrac as unreferenced original research; the prod was removed by Wiki you now, Wiki you later! who nominated it for speedy deletion as a hoax. It's not a hoax; Fall Festivals are held by the United Methodists and some Catholic and Baptist churches. That brings us back to unsourced OR. I found some local news about specific Fall Festivals but no general coverage of the subject. Huon (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Reiterate the prod rationale of unreferenced original research. It's not a "holiday" nor "a substitute for Halloween"; not notable or specific enough as type of festival to merit its own article, probably not a useful redirect either. Vrac (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not noble enough. Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 23:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sorry, but stating that the "holiday" probably is a substitute for another holiday is a great way to discredit the entire article, especially when there are no citations. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Not quite a hoax, but hardly a common term. All we have is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedic article. It might be rediredcted to (say) Harvest festival, but it is not an obvious search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goal.com

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

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

lacks notability RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not usually apt to citing the Alexa ranking as an open-shut case, but as a top 400 site? WP:BEFORE clearly not done here, and the rationale is underdone and unsupportable. Well-known soccer site and even barring that, pretty obvious top-dollar web domain. Nate • (chatter) 08:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE done, as the website isn't notable, hence me typing "lacks notability". Notability, or lack thereof, is a key test in recognising whether an article is worthwhile or not, a test Goal.com fails miserably. "Well known", right, but only for inventing news and being a source of mockery. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By saying ""Well known", right, but only for inventing news and being a source of mockery", I can only now assume this is a nom made because you don't like the website; you need to provide proof or some kind of balance that this site is some kind of Weekly World News for football news, which I'm not seeing at all out there outside of the usual social media "Goal.com sucks because they said something bad about my team" kveching. Nate • (chatter) 03:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Mr Schimpf, I just did a Google search to try and find some positive articles to provide some balance here, but there are no reports or profiles of this website. Can't imagine why this well known website wouldn't, can you? LOL. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable. JMHamo (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I've not seen any evidence that Goal.com receives significant coverage by third-party sources. – PeeJay 16:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Wilson (fighter)

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

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

Non-notable MMA fighter, single top tier fight and that was a loss. Does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comes back after a two year layoff and loses his first top tier fight. It seems unlikely he'll get two more to meet WP:NMMA. The references are insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myah Marie

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

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google search produces only passing mentions and promotional content. Current references are only credits from discogs.com and allmusic.com, chart position from Billboard (none of which provide significant coverage), a genealogy website, and other Wikipedia articles (which are not reliable sources). Article has been deleted twice already. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I brought the article back, I specifically looked for and included external references that were non-trivial. You can see them in my last update to the article. I don't know why that entire section about the controversy regarding whether Myah Marie dubbed Britney Spears was removed, and the references that go with it. As far as I can see, that's exactly what makes her notable -- it's what the articles about her in multiple media outlets are about. I'll put that section back, which should address the concern regarding references. Geoff Canyon (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added further references to the rumor that Myah Marie's voice is on Britney Spears's album. There's no shortage of articles like this available, all featuring Myah Marie prominently. I think the rumors make Myah Marie notable. Geoff Canyon (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:44, 14 June 2015 (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/2015 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: While there is some coverage, they are all in the context of another person and are only short paragraphs (weaker than direct coverage), which fails WP:BASIC. Esquivalience ^t 14:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• More inclined to delete as there isn't even the least considerably good coverage about her and News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing good aside from various browser links for the Britney Spears songs. She's mentioned at some of the song articles which should suffice. There's nothing to improve or add to this article aside from the biggest thing of notability being the Britney Spears connection. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article meets the WP:PROF notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Boyle (psychologist)

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

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

Autobiographical vanity piece by a questionably notable person. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - actually, this appears to be a pretty neutral and accurate WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY by someone (presumably unaware of the rules on autobiography) who happens to be notable. He's a full professor for 20+ years, now emeritus, fellow of various learned societies and has been included in Australian Who's Who (which selects its biographees based on merit). I expect his H-index will be sufficient as well. Le petit fromage (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. the societies he is a fellow of do not grant automatic notability unlike Royal Society. He has received insufficient peer recognition to establish WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His H-index is 29, which I find to be convincing. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm less impressed by the h-index, and more by the fact that he has five publications with over 100 citations each in his Google Scholar profile [9], but regardless I agree that he passes WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is a fellow of the AUS and USA Psychological Societies and very distinguished Alec Station (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have been aware of this scholar's writings for years, and there are adequate sources for a NPOV article about him, and no doubt about notability. There have been a lot of bad problems with the article, which so far has mostly been edited by the subject of the article, but several Wikipedians are reminding him about the rules here, and meanwhile the article's existence is warranted by sources independent of the author. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chuka Ndulue

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

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

fails notability reqs for football players Sulfurboy (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unreliable sources. No evidence of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unable to find sources showing that he passes WP:GNG. I have not found sufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to pass the notability bar. Some of the coverage that does exist relates to a DUI arrest (e.g., this, this and this) which isn't enough. Also, he doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH as he has not won a major award, set a major record, been inducted into a Hall of Fame, or gained national media attention (except regarding the DUI). Willing to reconsider if other sources can be found. Cbl62 (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON because he 1) has not appeared in any professional game; 2) has not demonstrated notability as a college player.TallCorgi (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. I'll propose a merger next year then if there are no further improvements. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015 Kobani attack

June 2015 Kobani attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The content is already copied to Kobanî#June 2015 massacres. To be honest, there's not much to explain the significance of the violent attack by allegedly ISIL/ISIS. Reactions or no reactions, they wouldn't make the small article larger. I tried to redirect the article to Kobanî, but it has gotten reverted. Even if the event is notable per WP:N or WP:notability (events), the article hasn't expanded much very shortly. Also, June is nearing the end, but even July attacks wouldn't make the article larger unless the media can overemphasize the tragic event as "big" or "bigger" than Wars in Middle East overall, similar to how they did to Haiti earthquakes or a hostage crisis in Sydney or a school attack in Pakistan. George Ho (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer a redirect target of Siege of Kobanî - more details on military background. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a completely separate event to the Siege of Kobani. It happened long after it ended, and was a separate attack. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Event is notable. Short article length is not a valid reason for deletion. With the available sources, it can be expanded. Just no one has done it yet. The Western media has not gone into in depth detail on the attack in some areas. There is likely more detailed information in non-English speaking sources. And more information will come out in the coming days. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - we need to make sure people have an accurate and up to date chronicle of ISIS activities. I know Wikipedia:NEWSPAPER, but this is how people use it. We owe it to the people who were killed in this vicious attack.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This event is certainly notable and the fact that the article is rather short at this stage is not a reason to delete it. The French language article is much longer and is well sourced, which shows that the sources necessary to expand the article are out there.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick Keep. This is a notable attack, with an important amount of victims. Yug (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We have a long article about a pretty inconsequential attack in France the same day, yet someone wants to delete this one where dozens of civilians died? Ridiculous. And yes, of course more can be written about this. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• changing vote to keep - later media reports suggest greater death toll - responses by Patrick Cockburn in this article are insightful as to relative media coverage of major mass killing in Syria compared to minor, failed terrorist attack in France. This looks like it may get enough coverage/responses to justify its own article rather than just a merge. Wait for a week and re-assess. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - one of the worst massacres of the Syrian Civil War. One should be driven by a very strong POV to suggest this event is "not important" or "not notable".GreyShark (dibra) 21:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This event has not gotten the attention in the English and Western media that it deserves, especially compared to the other attacks. Which is why the article page is so small. This is entirely a cultural bias, and commentators like Patrick Cockburn have suggested that this is due to weariness over conflicts in Iraq and Syria and that large scale massacres there do not shock us anymore. To delete this article would thus to enforce an entirely arbitrary cultural bias on the English Wikipedia that does not represent a worldwide view. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swagg Man

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

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

WP:BLP of a musician, making no claim of notability strong enough to pass WP:NMUSIC and relying almost entirely on primary (sales pages on Google Play and iTunes) and bloggy sources. There's one reliable source in here, but one source isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG — and while the strongest claim of notability here, peaking #189 on the French singles chart, would probably be enough if the article were well-sourced, it doesn't confer a notability freebie on a person whose article is otherwise sourced this badly. A Google News search, further, didn't bring up any significant coverage in quality sources, but simply hit more coverage of the junk-blog variety. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if the quality of sourcing improves. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I created this article because he is well-known in France and has charted on the French Singles Chart. Le Monde is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HipHopVisionary (talk • contribs) 11:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One reliable source is not enough to get a person over WP:GNG by itself. It takes multiple reliable sources. And a musician has to explicitly satisfy one of the listed criteria at WP:NMUSIC to qualify for an article — a person does not get an article just because one editor asserts that they're well-known, if sufficient sourcing isn't there to properly support an article. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Bearcat says, one reliable source that covers the subject substantially is not enough to satisfy GNG. Nor does peaking at # 189 appear to be sufficient. Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning to keep, not just covered on Le Monde but also in Les Inrockuptibles [10], Le Matin [11], the printed magazine Entrevue (May issue) [12], another French magazine called Biba [13], and on Vice.com [14]. Also, an article on La Meuse [15], multiple (while non impressive) news articles on Melty [16] and a lot more to eventually check (12,000 news articles on French Google News archives [17]). Appears to pass the GNG threshold. Cavarrone 19:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the coverage identified above by Cavarrone. --Michig (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I don't dispute that there is coverage of the subject in line with WP:VERIFY, I do think it's important to note that having reliable sources alone does not guarantee inclusion under WP:GNG, rather, it implies notibility but editors should use their judgement in determining whether the sources establish notability and how significant the coverage is.^[a] Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Currently the article has no more information than a list of his tracks, where he currently lives, and that he has a tattoo on his head, and half the citations are to the artist's itunes listings. I don't speak French, but looking at the articles linked here (and as they are cited on the article page) using Google Translate, they seem to be rather minor news stories that simply talk about either his tracks or his head tattoo. I'm very dubious of the encyclopedic value of this article if the most interesting thing we have written about him is the tattoo he has on his head. We aren't a paper encyclopedia so we can have a page for every artist who has released a track and been interviewed a couple times, but should we? I do not believe that the sources available at this time give enough information about the subject to warrant an encyclopedia entry. Wugapodes (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article now well sourced with a number of reputable sources. Swagg Man has veritably become a cultural phenomenon. His second album MST has charted this week in SNEP French Albums Chart http://lescharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Swagg+Man&titel=MST&cat=a Article needs to be developed further.werldwayd (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young Democrats Movement

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

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My first searches which were thoughtful found nothing specifically for this and instead for a "Young Democrats" organization but either way, nothing in the least considerably good. SwisterTwister talk 18:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The links provided by MichaelQSchmidt (t c) do not in fact lead to any coverage about this movie production company whatsoever, and since the existence of the company is in doubt and cannot be immediately verified, I see no need to retain a redirect. —Darkwind (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jalsha Movies Production

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

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

I find no sources at all that indicate that this company even exists, much less that it is notable. I've gone through the sources for the movies that they have allegedly been involved in, and not found a shred of evidence. In addition, it was created by an editor who has since been blocked as a sock, so it could perhaps be speedied on those grounds (the group of socks seems to be respondible for creating several articles about made-up movies). bonadea contributions talk 16:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Jalsha Movies Star, Jalsha Movies Jalsha Movies Production

• Woah Bonadea... was there any real WP:BEFORE done prior to you declaring this topic as non-existent or unsourcable??? There are a number of articles in The Economic Times and Times of India... and others which appear to speak about it in some detail. I am not going to address notability nor your allegation about an alleged pack of socks or meats, but simply stating that the coverage you could said did not exist find actually does exist. And as it's editor was not on block or ban when creating this article, it was not created to circumvent a block ot ban... so WP:G5 speedy is inappropriate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course I looked for sources, with various spellings because that is often a concern with names in languages that don't use Latin script. I'm not sure if my search skills are really bad, or what my problem is, but everything I could find was about the major Bengali language TV channel Jalsha Movies, and that applies to the search results you link to above as well. The google search string you linked to only tells me "No results found for "Jalsha Movies Production". Results for Jalsha Movies Production (without quotes)", and at least the first several pages of search results are news about the TV channel. Most of the Economic Times and Times of India search results that I get don't mention the word "Jalsha" at all, and those that do talk about the TV channel. The same applies to search hits in The Hindu. (When I look at the list of search hits at Economic Times almost every one of them is about one US movie or another, which indicates that it's unlikely that the article would constitute significant coverage about a Bengali production company, and in fact, following the links shows that "Jalsha Movies Production" is never mentioned at all.) If you could point me to some articles about the movie production company rather than the TV channel, I would be very much obliged, because frankly, I cannot find them by searching and I would love to know how to improve my search skills!

I did not in fact suggest a G5 deletion, I wouldn't have started the AfD if I had. My "allegation about an alleged pack of socks or meats" was based on the fact that the article was created by an editor who was subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet, one of a group of such socks, which had made a habit of creating articles about nonexistent films. (And the article was created a couple of months after the master was blocked, so I'm not quite sure what you mean - it was definitely created by a sock in violation of a block. I still think an AfD is a good idea because other editors have been involved in the article since, and if the company does exist, and is notable, I'd rather there was an article about it.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should perhaps have mentioned the existence of the TV channel in my nomination - sometimes it's easy to overlook things that seem obvious to ourselves, but aren't obvious to other people. My apologies for that. --bonadea contributions talk 09:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Jalsha Movies Production was created in October 2013 as a simple redirect to Dev (actor) and editor Materialscientist changed the redirect later that same day as more fitting to STAR India's Jalsha Movies. It was in December 2013 that unsourced content began being added. There was information in it at that time that, even in lacking notability for a separate article, could have led to enough results to merit a return of the redirect to Dev (actor) or Jalsha Movies... an alternative that could have been done without bringing this to AFD. Tell ya what... after this is likely deleted, and since I am a non-involved, non-sock, I'll go ahead and recreate the redirect and then WP:PROTECT it to prevent from unnecessary expansion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and WP:PROTECT. Protection requested per Michael Schmidt's suggestion. But delete rather than redirect, as I found no reliable sourcing to indicate existence, and I don't want WP to be used to give creedence to nonsense, even if only in the form of a redirect. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. and salt Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Stanley (pianist)

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

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

Not-very-notable musician, who is best known for having been attacked and shot; now uses that incident as the basis for a career as an inspirational speaker. A previous article about him was deleted in December 2014, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Stanley, so this is really a second AfD. The article was then recreated and speedy-deleted three times, whereupon the title Marcus Stanley was salted. I declined G4 speedy in this case because this version is not identical and there are some new references. I think he is probably still not notable, but I am bringing it to the community for decision. MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Still not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Clear evasion of the salting, so this should be salted too. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above, and lack of coverage in news and other sources. It's also interesting how an IP and a second new editor reverted the deletion requests within hours after creation. GermanJoe (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - Fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Establishes notability WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Subject is linked to reliable source on CNN and Fox News. Vicke1988 (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (voted above) - another copy of this article has been created at Marcus Stanley (musician) with [18], just minutes after the speedy tag was removed without explanation. But it's redirected now. Anyway, the topic clearly fails all criteria in WP:NMUSIC; the coverage in news almost entirely consists of interviews and self-published statements, repeated by the press - fails WP:GNG (and WP:NOTNEWS for that aspect). GermanJoe (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can we also have that salted then as well? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt - I really want to find a reason to keep this article as it is a great story [19], but unfortunately there is not enough to show WP:GNG. Also, I normally would not vote to salt an article; however, there is a big reason why I will for this. The article was previously created under Marcus Stanley and deleted after discussion. The fact that is was recreated under a disambiguation shows me that someone is trying to get around the system. As such, I would vote to salt both this and the original. Have them take it to Articles For Creation next time. --TTTommy111 (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Stefani

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

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

Delete: as non-notable musician. Much of his career derives from his sister, Gwen Stefani.Quis separabit? 01:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Founding member of a major rock band, No Doubt, and a Grammy Award nominee. That's enough, even if his sister wasn't more famous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: His is one of the classically irritating stories of the pop machine sidelining the creatives for the beautiful and all that, but the credits since leaving No Doubt are kind of few, which would argue for a merge and redirect to No Doubt. This is on the line, so I'll go with the default to keep. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Weak Keep per Hithladaeus Artw (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to No Doubt. There isn't sufficient sourced information for a standalone article. If more sources and content can be added then keeping may be an option, but merging and redirecting seems appropriate right now. Even if all we had was that he was a founder member of No Doubt it would still be worth a redirect. Puzzling why this wasn't considered rather than bringing it to AfD. --Michig (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to No Doubt - Him forming and being a former member of the band can be merged in to ND if it isn't already, Also per WP:NOTINHERITED. –Davey2010^Talk 15:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fenda Audio India

http://www.fendaaudio.com/about/ is an Indian subsidy brand for http://fenda.gmc.globalmarket.com/company.html

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

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

I can't see this as meeting WP:ORG - all the sources are either routine product reviews (mainly launch reports of the same product), product entries in online stores, or other sites that are designed to promote companies or products. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Heavily promotional and sourced largely through press release reprints, which aren't reliable sources.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Records(2008)

Sunset Records(2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Note this is not the same company as Sunset Records Jbh^Talk 11:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The best my searches found was one News link, nothing to suggest this is outstandingly notable or has even received the slightest third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources to establish verifiability and notability. Davewild (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Haaji Ibrahim Artan Beeldaaje

Ahmed Haaji Ibrahim Artan Beeldaaje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTABILITY. Google search returns 1 article in Somali.

I am also nominating the following related page because of dubious references in Somali. Both pages have been created by the same editor who has created similar (now deleted) articles in the past. The Coat of Arms in the infobox is also not from the supposed house, it's from the the CoA of Italian Somaliland.

House Of Beeldaaje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 26oo (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2015 (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/2015 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]